Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154
Sean.hoyland
[edit]| Sean.hoyland is banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area for three months. Concerns about the editing of Plot Spoiler are noted, but should be submitted in a separate, more succinct request focused on conduct rather than content. Sandstein 06:48, 31 July 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 Sean.hoyland[edit]
I notified Sean.hoyland that he violated 1RR at Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip (the article name has been changing) and should revert but he refused and in effect said he was above the law[1]. Unfortunately, Sean.hoyland has become an increasingly combative editor as of late (see his recent disruptive editing block) and has been editing more or less exclusively in the I/P topic area over the past several months (just see his contributions). I think he would be well served by taking a break from the I/P topic area and making constructive edits elsewhere.
Discussion concerning Sean.hoyland[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 Sean.hoyland[edit]I'm not going to contest the 1RR violation. I made 2 reverts. The first was to remove material that was unrelated to the subject of the article, something the editor who added it really should have known if they had read the source, and the second, intended to allow a discussion on the talk page to proceed and come to consensus without drive by interference from a non-participating editor imposing their personal view. As I said "I don't mind being blocked for that. I stand by the edit." I do however contest the notion that what I said on my talk page" can be reasonably be described as "in effect said he was above the law". That is, in fact, gross misrepresentation. Editors should not be allowed to do that because it's wrong. Not sure about "increasingly combative" either. Increasingly robotic perhaps. My response was the opposite of combative. I'm not a combatant and editing Wikipedia is not a battle, and yet battle rages everyday in ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra[edit]The back story:
The article is (presently) named Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip; an article name most editors seem to be able to live with. Now, you can argue if there should be two different articles about these tunnels, but if it is, then we should clearly not have material in article A which only pertain to article B. And this is what User:Sean.hoyland 1.st revert was about: removing irrelevant material. Plot Spoiler unilateral move of the article, without any form of consensus, without any discussion, to an extremely controversial article name which was not supported by those who participated on the talk-page: this was clearly out of line. I think Plot Spoiler should perhaps edit in other areas than the I/P area for a while. Huldra (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike[edit]User:Huldra did you had any consensus to move it in the first place?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by ZScarpia[edit]Plot Spoiler wrote: "the term has been used throughout many mainstream media outlets e.g ... ." The only one of the linked to sources which uses the term "terror tunnel" (an alternative source for the Financial Times article is here) is the Times of Israel, but then, apparently, only as a category for grouping articles. In the four most recent articles included in that category the phrase used is 'attack tunnel'. 21:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) @Plot Spoiler, apologies, my mistake. You might like to remove the Financial Times from your list, though. It doesn't, as far as I can see, refer to attack tunnels. ← ZScarpia 15:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]The inflamed events of the I/P world have recently lead to a huge overload as editors rush to write new articles. Naturally, reports of ARBPIA infractions increase. There’s exasperation over both the inhumane work load being created for any conscientious practitioner of WP:NPOV, since the volume of bad edits is unmanageable, and, more particularly, the 1R is now being broken every other hour, even by serious experienced wikipedians, whatever their sympathies, pro/contra/neutral. I don’t report them because I respect the editors involved – their interest is in page improvement, so reporting them would be getting at editors to game wikipedia, even if they revert me. Worst of all, in several cases recently, admins, who should (a) give us guidance and (b) find a way out of the problem several editors (Sean Hoyland, Zero, Scarpia) have mentioned, have, perhaps understandably, just concentrated on 1R application, while, as is evident to everyone, the rule is being interpreted differently from admin to admin. There is no agreement, from complaint to complaint, among esteemed and highly experienced admins, as to the way that rule must unequivocably be read. All someone like myself can do is proceed thinking ‘I can only edit a page once a day’, while watching most editors happily copyediting, revising, removing, adjusting any one text, under furious attention from numerous posters, without paying much attention to the extreme niceties of interpretation. It is immensely frustrating to old I/P editors who have survived the insanity of this area for years. The only people being reported are egregious newbies or notable editors sanctioned in the past, or people often thought of as having membership in an I/P gang or clique. This is the context of the two cases where Sean Hoyland has been reported. In both instances, he broke the rule, and of course, a sanction is inevitable. But application of the sanction in lieu of remedies for the chaos, though inevitable in this case, will not solve anything but only complicate things. Take the reporter, Plot Spoiler. If you look at Plot Spoiler’s contribs, most of it exhibits chronic instant reverting: he’s a removalist of anything critical of Israel or favourable to Palestinians, and one who rarely confers with editors on the talk page. I always think of him as a drive-by reverter. He ‘talks’ only when reporting someone. Here a just a few examples from the last few days. I find most of his edits questionable, but will use these as a minimal sampler of what he does.
What did he remove? (a) Conor Friedersdorf, The Dangerous Logic Used to Justify Killing Civilians The Atlantic 23 July 2014. Comment. The article appeared in The Atlantic, which is a perfectly middle-of the-road, respectable magazine, impeccably S. Plot Spoiler defied the usual rule to respect strong rs retention. (b)Thane Rosenbaum Hamas’s Civilian Deaths Strategy Wall Street Journal 21 July 2014. Comment: The article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, which no one questions as RS. Plot Spoiler ignored the usual rule to respect strong rs retention. (c) Daniel Larison, Non-Combatants and Gaza The American Conservative 21 July 2014. Comment: The article appeared in The American Conservative, eminently rs, and Plot Spoiler ignores the rule to retain such strong rs In sum, three eminently adequate RS are expunged because Plot Spoiler apparently either dislikes criticism of Israel, even in mainstream journals, or does not tolerate any expansion of articles by notable journalists that see problems with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. That kind of editing is self-evidently POV pushing, and the pretextual expunging of S can find not basis in wiki policy or practice. Comment. PL removes links to the man whose bio is dealt with on the page, links to him speaking on youtube, or a detail of where he lives. That is hostility to his views operating, and many BLPs have links to their youtube talks. There is nothing wrong in this. But Braverman’s talks are about Palestinians. Comment. While Plot Spoiler spends much of his removing references to Electronic Intifada, this is a mechanical removal at sight which is wrong, because while EI can be questioned, the scholar interviewed by EI here, Gilbert Achcar is an authority in his field who happened to concede an nterview to EI. Achcar is often highly critical of Palestinian figures as well, and Achcar’s stature is such that it trumps the venue where his views, which PS expunges, are aired. Most of us understand that. PL doesn’t care. He just reverts, and doesn’t notify the talkpage of why Achcar cannot be cited directly from EI.
Comment. This is a bravura piece of specious edit summarizing, which deceives anyone who does not go on to examine what PL actually did. On any comparable page dealing with figures like Gideon Levy, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg or even Pamela Geller, you will find numerous citations from their op eds and articles published in the mainstream press. Plot Spoiler won't allow this for a Palestinian intellectual. The mass revert not only expunges Moor's articles published in the Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Al-Jazeera ETC., but 'takes out' precisely the kind of material Plot Spoiler himself stipulates is required Namely, secondary sources like Rachel Gotbaum, 'Local Groups Mobilize Support For Israelis, Palestinians,' WBUR-FM 9 Nov 2012, which are 'secondary sources commenting on his (Moor's) opinions.' This is the ultimate of editorial whimsy and chutzpah, removing precisely material that satisfies the otherwise arbitrary criterion for inclusion set by the deleter himself. I'll lay a bet that nothing like this defiance of the most elementary rules can be discovered in the long history of Sean.hoyland's edit history, but Plot Spoiler's spoiling to get rid of him. Why?Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment The repeated use of ‘activist source’ for any non-strictly ‘mainstream newspaper’ is improper. Mondoweiss is borderline –it has a notable number of highly empirical reports that are superior to much mainstream reportage in it, for example- but can be used, as can Electronic Intifada, depending on circumstances, for notable opinions, not for facts. In this case, Scott McConnell is a respectable journalist and founder of The American Conservative, and that is sufficient to permit his views to be cited on a case regarded that scholar. The point is identical with the suppression of a comment from Gilbert Achcar above. If the author is notable, the grey RS area of Mondoweiss, or Electronic Intifada is less relevant. Comment The facts reported could have been ascertained in five seconds of googling, providing any editor with confirmation that the same information reported by Mondoweiss and other ‘activist sources’ was reported by mainstream RS. i.e. here (The Huffington Post), here (Jews for Justice for Palestinians); or here (The Telegraph). Rather than build the page by improving sourcing, PS just uses the RS argument to expunge an exbarrassing fact, widely attested.
Comment Deceptive edit summary, note most. The sources removed include several articles from the Israeli mainstream press on Aloni, i.e., Haaretz and Ynet, and Columbia University Press which qualify as rs. Here, here, here, here, here and and here. Rather than build the article, Plot Spoiler just expunges a list of several eminently good sources that direct editors to improvement. Comment. This is an edit summary in egregious bad faith. He removes his usual object of his objections Mondoweiss, and yet immediately after that source we have the Israeli West Bank settlers’ mouthpiece, Arutz Sheva, which has no pretensions to reportorial investigation characteristic of much of Mondoweiss, and which on identical grounds could be challenged as not rs. So Plot Spoiler understands by non-Rs anything critical of Israel, but does not apply the same criterion to a source with a ultra-Israel ideological slant.
Comment: removes rs sources (though the urls had to be corrected) Institute of Palestine Studies (rs); The Guardian (rs); The Nation (rs), together with two of her own articles appearing in Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/hijab08072006.html here) and Mondoweiss (http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/without-political-framework.html here). My understanding is that a reputable scholar/author/writers articles can be used as reliable sources for his/her views, even if the source is not ‘mainstream’. Were that not so, only people writing for the partisan mainstream press would ever be heard on wikipedia.
The ‘crap’ about this ‘peacock’ Palestinian consists also in (1) an article on him appearing in BBC News (2) a write up appearing in the San Francisco Chronicle, (3) Another on his company in here from Reuters, i.e., impeccable RS, etc. From these 10 cases just over the last two days, a very high hit-rate for bad edits, it is evident that Plot Spoiler trawls articles, particularly on Palestinians, and systematically removes content, easily resourced, verifiable, or already present in mainstream rs, by a mechanical or contentious spin on rs policy, simply to impoverish articles rather than fix or improve them, and throwing the burden of improvement on other editors. The editing is generally hostile to the subject of the article. I should add that virtually every article on Rabbbis in wikipedia is largely sourced to articles that fail RS, but only an antisemite would comb through them to wreck them on a strict or distortedly severe reading of that policy. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC) PL has complained here (cui bono?), and expects his record to be ignored. Well, frankly his record is infinitely more problematical than HS’s, whose interest in the I/P area is mainly focused on isolating abusive serial violators of NPOV, and POV advocacy warriors, like Plot Spoiler (the name says as much: 'there is a plot against an unnamed country in wikipedia and I as editor will unravel its insidious presence'). Of course, he has asked for a sanction and will get it. But the peculiar hypocrisy of the plaintiff in objecting to SH while behaving precisely in the manner SH has identified as deleterious to the encyclopedic ends of wikipedia merits examination, and, in my view, a sanction as heavy, at least, as anything that admins will duly hand out to Sean Hoyland, whose exasperation is such he is asking to be guillioteened. Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by IjonTichy[edit]This is a clear case of Boomerang against PlotSpoiler. I first became aware of PS due to this edit on July 16, where PS removed yet another notable point of view/ opinion by a notable writer/ columnist appearing in an RS (the Israeli paper Haaretz) with the specious edit summary "fails WP:NPOV, WP:RS". I then proceeded to study PS's list of contributions and concluded his/ her edits are almost entirely focused on removing content, often well-sourced, that may paint Israel or Israel-supporters in a bad light. My own study of PS's edits leads me to strongly agree with Nishidan's analysis (above) of PS's disruptive editing. Sean.hoyland's track record proves beyond a shadow of doubt he is here to build an encyclopedia. PS's contributions show PS is not here to build an encyclopedia. In my view, PS, and not Sean, should be topic-banned. IjonTichy (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Sean.hoyland[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Monochrome monitor
[edit]| Monochrome monitor is warned that they may be blocked or banned if they continue to edit in a confrontative manner in the Arab-Israeli topic area. Sandstein 07:06, 31 July 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 Monochrome monitor[edit]
I don't make reports like this unless I think we would be better off without the editor concerned. Shows a strong pattern of editing to a personal POV. @Callanecc: I think that a ban would require a more extensive report than I have made, so in this instance I believe a temporary block would be adequate. Given this editor's recent block for the same offence, the block should be of duration appropriate to a repeat violation. @Shrike: The first contiguous sequence of edits deleted existing text together with it's academic source. I wouldn't call it a revert if it was a mere rewording or replacement by a better source, but in fact it was deletion of cited text in order to substitute text with a different pov. Ergo, a revert. @the panda: Actually I think the meaning of "revert" has been taken too literally recently and there is a danger of losing sight of the purpose of the rule, namely to suppress or at least slow down edit warring. I regard the first diff to be a revert, not just because it changes and deletes previous text but because it is done for the clear purpose of pressing one pov while deleting another. These edits removed two pieces of text, both well cited, that refer to the Palestinians having deep roots in Palestine, and inserted in the place of the first a reference only to recent times. This is one of the major point of contention in the subject and such a change is clearly edit-warring. In addition, the edit that deleted the sentence cited to scholar Alan Dowty had the edit summary "sentence flow, slight reword" which is very hard to see as a summary made in good faith. Zerotalk 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein @Monty : I have added to the complaints section an indication of which previous edit was reverted, of March this year. Zerotalk 10:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Monochrome monitor[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 Monochrome monitor[edit]Okay, I didn't violate anything. That's just shoddy reporting. The first citation is my edit to the article. The second edit is me reverting someone who undid my edits to the article. I stopped advocating my edit after that. I did absolutely nothing wrong. --monochrome_monitor 11:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So it seems like we established that I didn't break one revert, can I leave this kangaroo court? I already apologized for the offense I didn't know that we couldn't refer to users even if we didn't address their names.
For the record, Nishidani changed "I don't particularly mind the crude racist insults documented on my page" to something very different, making him guilt of exactly the same offense he is currently outraged for (calling him antisemitic). When I revised my edit he reinstated it to make a point, therefore I will put it here lest someone think he's above petty libels. --monochrome_monitor 19:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike[edit]Exactly to what version "the first revert" was reverting?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Also in general in past AE cases first edit was considered a revert if it was explicitly reverting something but this not a case as far a I can see.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Here what is written by User:Timotheus_Canens
--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq[edit]I noticed that Monochrome monitor added then removed a comment at User talk:Nishidani. The removal edit summary was " Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]This edit, referring to another editor as a "total tool", adds to my impression that Monochrome monitor is not going to make a constructive contribution to the I/P editing area. I was going to post about his calling Nishidani an anti-Semite as well, but I see that's already been addressed above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani[edit]'The article fails to history.' That, like every other sentence I've examined from monochrome writer, is ungrammatical. But the list of remarks that follows it, shows that this editor has zero knowledge of historical scholarship, since it systematically trots out clichés in 'fact sheet handouts' printed to 'guide' activists in the I/P area (for how complex this is see Demographics of Palestine. Whatever, by 1900 94% of the population was 'Arab'(Muslim/Christian), who were not blow-ins barging into a Jewish land to dispossess the real owners, i.e., since Byzantine times an exiguous minority. All this is straight out of Joan Peters's fictional book and even poorer sources. I don't particularly mind the crude insults (5)imputing me with racism documented on my page, some while he was reported here. But in this area we do not need walk-in editors brandishing a programme of pseudoids to conduct edit-wars.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by ZScarpia[edit]What constitutes a revert is defined in Wikipedia policy as follows: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." On this page and other noticeboards, in adjudicating claimed breaches of XRR editing restrictions, there has been a long-term tendency for admins to apply their own personal interpretations of what a revert is, ignoring or modifying the policy definition in various degrees. This has led to arbitrariness in interpretation of the rules and confusion among editors as to what they and other editors can or cannot do. Thus, various admins in the Result section are maintaining that a modification to text in the article only counts as a revert if the original text was added or changed recently. The long-term confusion over what a revert is has led to various unsuccessful attempts to clarify the policy relating to it, such as this one by Passionless. @The Panda: "If mono's first edit included any text that had recently been added and reverted, then the first edit can be considered to be a revert. It appears to be a rather extensive edit, but may have combined previous edits with new edits in order to make it appear to be a new edit." I find that there is so much ambiguity in that comment that I don't know exactly how to read it, but it appears to be saying that unless Mono (an unfortunate abbreviation for anyone who knows a little Spanish) changed text that had been recently added or modified, his change was not a revert. If that is the case, can you justify your interpretation of what a revert is by relating it to policy or derived consensus, or are you applying an entirely personal qualification to what the policy says a revert is? @Monty: "In my opinion, an edit that makes a change to text that hasn't been touched recently is not a revert." We have a policy definition of what a revert is, so shouldn't you be relating your interpretation of whether or not a revert was made to that rather that applying your own personal definition? Perhaps what you should have written was not, applying your own definition, that "a change to text that hasn't been touched recently is not a revert", but that you don't think that a change to text which has not been touched recently should be treated as a revert when arbitrating how the 1RR restriction on ARBPIA articles is applied? @Sandstein: "As submitted, this is not actionable because the request does not make clear which edit the first reported diff is supposed to be a revert of." However, the diff shows that a change was made to the existing text, which means that, unless Mono was altering text added by himself (and I'd say it's fairly clear it wasn't originally added by him), that he was altering one or more editors' actions in whole or in part, the policy definition of what a revert is, wasn't he? Why exactly are you insisting that evidence of the route by which the original text came into the article be given? Now, if Mono had been copy-editing the original text, that is, improving its style but not changing its meaning, you could argue that he has not 'altered' other editors' actions in a meaningful sense. What he did, though, was to grossly change sourced text which said that Palestinians are the descendents of many peoples who lived in the land, to saying that they are the descendents only of Arabs, who the Zionist version of history says arrived from Arabia displacing, rather than amalgamating with, the existing inhabitants. "We don't care about whose position is more historically correct ... ." You should perhaps care that Mono subverted sourced text to misrepresent the given sources, though? ← ZScarpia 12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Irondome[edit]I am MM's mentor. I took on the task a few days before I left for a ten day totally off-line break, so I have only caught up with events a few hours ago. I have been in email contact with MM extensively in the last few hours and I can gladly confirm that MM's completely unwarranted and inaccurate slur on Nishidani was based on skimpy reading of a past post without reading its overall context and inexperience. I have taken MM to task on that and MM unreservedly apologises. I am taking measures to ensure MM reads all WP policy guidelines and gets some WP:CLUE. Said editor will consult with me and on relevant talk pages when considering edits and will seek consensus in future. I think MM has a good future as a productive member of the community if given the correct guidance. Said editor's age is precocious with regard to a subject of such sensitivity, and I would suggest we attempt to retain young editors who have the guts to register and be so open about themselves. We must not scare off young female editors. MM has potential if she plays by the rules and is given communal guidance. Irondome (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Monochrome monitor[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Amoruso
[edit]| Amoruso (talk · contribs) is blocked for one week. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:47, 1 August 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 Amoruso[edit]
Amoruso was indefinitely topic-banned on 11 April 2010.[15] At the time, he was warned that "Any violation of this ban, especially in order to disrupt, may result in an indefinite block."[16] On 15 April 2010, he was blocked for 24 hours for breaching this ban.[17] After the expiry of this block. he made a few edits, but appeared to have retired from editing on 17 April 2010. He returned to editing this morning, immediately making several contentious edits to an article covered by the topic ban, and claiming falsely that he was no longer topic-banned.[18]
Discussion concerning Amoruso[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 Amoruso[edit]I only came to Wikipedia this time to counter user:Zero0000's defamation here, and completely baseless accusations -Personal Ruthless Attack. I couldn't be bothered with it at the time but decided to respond now. He removed WP:RS which he by his own admission in the past confirmed that it's an WP:RS. There's really no doubt that something has to be done about user:Zero0000, his personal attacks and his personal disregard of Wikipedia policies. user:RolandR himself is a very problematic user too (both users have a history of blocks). He makes several mistakes/lies in his claim. For example, I never said I was not topic banned, just that it wasn't the right topic. His request was properly denied since it's full of mistakes. As for the topic ban of four years ago if still relevant, like was mentioned above, I did not think that this was anything to do with the Israeli - Arab conflict. It's simply an internal Jewish - German historical issue with no mention of Palestinians or Arabs at all. There was no indication in the talk page like mentioned above. If someone feels for some reason that this was a violation of some kind, I apologize. That was of course never my intention. It is not my intention to edit anymore on this or other related topics at this time anyway. Again, I apologize if I mistakenly violated the ban. Thank you. Amoruso (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike[edit]I think there was some misunderstanding as talk page of the article didn't contain template that it covered by DS. I have added a relevant template [19]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia[edit]Sandstein wrote: 'The request incorrectly asserts that Amoruso is "mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above".' The Final Decision section of the ARBPIA request for arbitration consists of the whole of section 4, in which Amoruso is mentioned in subsections 4.6 and 4.7.3. Therefore Sandstein's assertion about the assertion made in the request is actually the one which is in error. ← ZScarpia 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Penwhale: "In theory, the Final Decision does not encompass the Logs (of notification and sanctions)." Maybe, but in practice (according to the section structure) it does. ← ZScarpia 23:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston, it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the particular topic concerned and the ARBPIA area in general that the article is part of the latter. Anyone not familiar with the topic but familiar with the ARBPIA area would just have to look at the list of contributors to the article and its talkpage to know that it was. ← ZScarpia 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]Amoruso is one of the most disastrous editors I have met in my 11 years in Wikipedia. I could easy list half a dozen offences worse than the offences he was topic-banned for. But it isn't necessary. It doesn't matter if he was mentioned on any particular page either. Enforce the ban already. @EdJohnston : You ask whether Amoruso was aware that the article was covered by his topic-ban. To help you decide, I'll mention: Statement by Gaijin42[edit]I am fairly new to the ARBPIA area, and have not interacted with Amoruso in any capacity, nor was I even aware of the Lehi article (or indeed real-world entity) prior to this report. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would not think the article is within the scope of ARBPIA. The article repeatedly refers to the founding of Israel, The British Mandate, and directly (and directly contrary to Amaruso's statement) to conflicts between Palastenian Arabs and the group Lehi_(group)#Deir_Yassin_massacre. Even a cursory reading of the article would lead to the conclusion that this is solidly and clearly in the israeli-palestinian topic area. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Amoruso[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Faustian and COD T 3
[edit]| I've topic banned COD T 3 for posterity just in case they are unblocked. I've also left a reminder (unlogged) on Faustian's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:23, 7 August 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 Faustian and COD T 3[edit]
Faustian adds claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619508449&oldid=619465761 COD T 3 subtracts it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619528264&oldid=619508449 COD T 3 changes a tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619531439&oldid=619528264 Faustian adds a tag and a statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619550326&oldid=619540106 COD T 3 removes a statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619550713&oldid=619550326 Faustian adds a tag and a statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619583862&oldid=619550713 COD T 3 reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619649061&oldid=619583862 COD T 3 removes long-standing text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Army_%28Poland%29&diff=619654410&oldid=619651298
Faustian alerted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFaustian&diff=600491951&oldid=600491301 COD T 3 alerted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACOD_T_3&diff=619568287&oldid=619556214
Subject article is Blue Army (Poland). My only involvement with this case is that there were two content RFCs, which I closed. One of the two edit warriors, COD T 3, then requested that I change the wording of a close. On review, I declined to change the wording of the close, suggesting that if he or she was dissatisfied, a closure review could be requested. The two edit warriors then began edit warring. I see the COD T 3 has been blocked. I request that the two edit warriors be placed under WP:1RR with respect to this article (COD T 3 after coming off block). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
COD T 3 notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACOD_T_3&diff=619749235&oldid=619744329
Statement by Faustian[edit]While I think that applying 1RR restrictions to COD T 3 on this particular topic is appropriate, I question why he and I are to be treated equally. I am adding referenced info to the article, he is removing it. In actively trying to resolve this situation, I created two RfCs (diffs: [22] and [23]), waited until they were completed and resolved in "my" favor (diff: [24]) before adding the info (diff: [25]), and he reverted it again anyways: [26]. I've worked on a lot of articles, have created many articles, and don't have a history of edit warring, yet that is all he does. Before his efforts here, he edited as an IP, with a history of blocks for just such behavior: [27]. He may also be writing as an IP :[28] where he just removed a bunch of info: [29] and may have had another identity as [30] (if so - a sockpuppet?). I will note that whenever third parties did contribute they tended to support my edits but backed off in the face of COD T 3's reversions. For example here, an admin (User:Alex Bakharev) added the same statement that he was removing: [31], which of course was reverted by COD T 3: [32]. Yes, I have reverted also, but my reverts were re-adding referenced info he had removed. Building an encyclopedia. What can be done when one editor decides to sit on an article and basically just removes info he doesn't like? Just back off like other editors, and let the article be free of any information COD T 3 finds offensive? Is it wrong to stubbornly fight to keep information (reliably sourced) I took time to find, within the article? Or to add to the article? Why am I to be punished equally as the guy who removed the info?Faustian (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Further note Much of what COD T 3 wrote below involves false statements or cherrypicking of others' quotes. I'm not going to flood this page with all the rebuttals to his accusation, unless someone asks me to in which case I will be happy to address each of his claims. His accusing User:Alex Bakharev of being my "associate" seems particularly bizarre example though, and his demand that nobody adds any more negative information to the article after it has been purged of reliably sourced info he doesn't like speaks to his sole purpose on wikipedia, which is not to build an encyclopedia but in his words: [33] "I don't edit Wikipedia. But, when I came up on this non-sense in the BA article I'm not gonna let someone just demonize the BA. Atrocities happened agains the Jews, but that needs to be properly noted, not have the article written as if the BA's sole purpose was pogroming".Faustian (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Additional note Here is User:COD T 3 on his talk page, being abusive: [34].Faustian (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by COD T 3[edit]I would like to address each charge leveled against me: Every time user Faustian levels an accusation against me he discredits himself. Now, Faustian is suggesting that I'm a "sockpuppet" and uses a account that last made an entry back in 2011 (01:42, 5 October 2011 (diff | hist) . . (+569) . . Blatnice pod Svatým Antonínkem) as purported evidence! Are we even trying to have an honest discussion here, or just throwing every false accusation at me? If I understand correctly, a sockpuppet charge would result if an individual creates two simultaneous accounts and uses them to support each other in ongoing discussions or edits. Example:
This is not the case here. This accusation is completely baseless, and is intended as a Red Herring, to draw attention away form Faustian's own inappropriate behavior. Also, I want to note that just because my COD T 3 account is now being perceived as a "single-purpose account", the creation of the account should not be interpreted as a malicious act. I am not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, and apart from making some minor edits here and there, I did not get too involved in WP. But, in this case I wanted to make my edits official and show continuity of my arguments when editing the Blue Army page, and so I created an account instead of editing as an IP. Also, I would like to point to user Faustian's own inappropriate behavior, when he continues to insert disputed statements. The 3 edit rule also applies to Faustian when he continually adds disputed material. Also, as noted before Faustian has exhibited bias and offensive behavior when engaging in discussions regarding the BA. As one example he titled a discussion about the highly disputed rape charge "Blue Army Rapists" (this title was changed by another user on 15:26, 10 July 2014 who also considered it inappropriate). Also, in another discussion on a users talk page Faustian accused me of reverting the disputed material because it came from a "Jewish" source, thus in the process trying to demonize me and omitting the fact that my argument was based on technical merits not prejudice. Finally, one of Faustian's supporters accused me of jew-baiting on the BA talk page, and only changed his tone when another contributor entered the discussion. Statement:
Finally, I would again like to point to the multiple statements made by other editors who also questioned or had general reservations about Faustain's approach to editing the disputed Controversies section, and the editorial style, tone and choice of sources he was using when inserting the highly controversial statements.
I have no problem agreeing to leave the article as it stands now, and not involve myself in any further editing of the disputed section if user Faustian agrees to do the same, and that some kind of a protection process is set in place to prevent a possible "associate" to enter or delete more of the disputed text, as was the case with this edit: (09:01, 3 August 2014 Alex Bakharev . . (32,723 bytes) (+428) . . checked and restored the Encyclopedia Judaica reference, added weblink), when another contributor re-added the exact text that was being disputed, without making any statements on the Talk Page discussion that was taking place at the time and in the process forcing me to revert the text. --COD T 3 (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC) +++++++REBUTTAL STATEMENT+++++++[edit]I'd like to make a last statement before I get banned, please see my rebuttles to the bias and unfair accusations:
Please note that the date of this statement is 14 June 2014 nearly two months prior to the statement I'm potentially being banned for 2 August 2014.
Yet no admin questions his neutrality or intentions, maybe Faustain holds a potential Anti-Polish bias? I don't think that by WIkipedia standards this was a neutral statement. Ladies and Gentelman admins, Thank you for your unbiased honesty in overseeing the Wikipedia project! It's been a very informative experience to learn just how the process is being administered, and what kind of material is being allowed to flood a page with no admin noticing even if a Undue Weight tag is present. But, for the moment it's me that will get blamed for being disruptive to the Wikipedia process. --COD T 3 Last Statement (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by[edit]Result concerning Faustian and COD T 3[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
goethean
[edit]| Not actionable. Sandstein 18:13, 10 August 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 goethean[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Goethean
[38] of editing topics related to the tea party broadly construed.
perhaps this is merely a misunderstanding of broadly construed on my part, if so, i withdraw and apologize.
Discussion concerning goethean[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 goethean[edit]Statement by Gaijin42[edit]At first glance this is a borderline case, so it depends on how "broadly construed" the topic ban is IMO. Brauner does not appear to be explicitly a member of the tea party, but he has spoken at the Illinois Tea Party, and was endorsed by them, and the left lumps him in with Koch, etc as their standard boogiemen, and certainly he holds many views that are consistent with tea party goals - but again, it all hinges on the scope of Goethean's ban. As the "right" front runner, its expected that his opponents will throw the sink at him in terms of trying to tarnish him. It seems that "tea party" may just be one more of the bunch of accusations. If this is a violation, then Goethean's ban is in effect "all conservatives/libretarians" As this is a borderline case, and the article does not currently mention tea party in article or talk space - if this is determined to be a violation I think a warning rather than harsh sanction may be appropriate. (And I say this as someone who has butted heads significantly with Goethean in the past)Gaijin42 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by The Four Deuces[edit]This is too far removed from the topic to be considered. There is nothing in the article about the Tea Party, and the edit had nothing to do with it. If Darkstar1st construes it that broadly, then virtually any edit about U.S. politics would be part of the ban, because at some point any prominent politician will be supported by or opposed by the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]I don't see any violation even by the broadest interpretation of the topic ban. How is it that Bruce Rauner is considered a TPM subject when the words "tea party" don't even appear in the article? I assume that we don't require topic banned editors to read every source about a subject from a particular publisher to determine if there might be some obscure link with the topic that they are banned from.- MrX 15:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]I hope that Admins will make a strong statement admonishing editors, particularly involved editors who may not have clean hands not to be trigger-happy in bringing tenuous and aggressive complaints to this forum. It is a drain on editor and Admin resources. Where there are clear violations and clear damage, there's no shortage of editors who will bring a well-formed complaint here. In the case of user Darstar1st, he made a similar error with respect to me here [40]. I hope he is able to learn from his errors. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Result concerning goethean[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
SW3 5DL
[edit]SW3 5DL (talk · contribs) is blocked for one week. Zad68 14:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
Request concerning SW3 5DL[edit]
SW3 5DL (Malke 2010) was topic-banned from Tea-Party-related content because of battleground behavior and incivility. Those tendencies are on display in the topic-ban-violating posts, where she responds to reasonable, good-faith commentary from Tryptofish (talk · contribs) by saying: "If you are easily offended, especially where no offense was intended, then you'd best find another project... You appear to be trolling. It's just an RfC. Take a wikibreak." MastCell Talk 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SW3 5DL[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 SW3 5DL[edit]All Admins, N.B. Please do not base your decision on Collect's comments as it appears others have done. I'm not making any such argument as his. I do not in any way share or support his comment, and find it to be patently unfair to me that he would use this forum to express his views. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Let me make this very clear. I understand why my edits to Donald Trump talk RfC violate the TPm topic ban. They violate the ban because the issue is the Tea Party movement and not a BLP sourcing issue which I believed it was at the time I made the edits. I realized that was the problem when Stephen Schulz said it was a violation. And also when Sandstein pointed out that the discussion on the talk page was about the Tea Party movement. That also made it very clear to me. I was looking at it all wrong. Let me also state, again, that I will never go near another talk page/article that even remotely mentions the Tea Party movement. And the reason is because to do so would violate the topic ban imposed by ArbCom in fall, 2013. I would appreciate it if Sandstein, Lord Roem, and EdJohnston, would reconsider their decisions. This was an honest mistake. The topic ban has been in place for a year, and there is no past history of violating the topic ban. Since I now fully understand the terms and conditions of the topic ban (which includes not even being able to mention TPm except to defend myself), there is no danger of future violations. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, they are meant to stop disruptive behaviour in the moment. There is no danger of that. A block now would be punitive.
Statement by Collect[edit]Note: The Category which is at the heart of this dispute is currently at CfD - with a proposal to tighten the criteria for inclusion. The proposed criteria would almost certainly exclude Trump from the category. Where a category is removed from a BLP, I suggest that the nature of its connection with a specific topic is likely to have been a tad marginal. Collect (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The following are observations by Collect, and are not in any way to be interpreted otherwise. IMHO, the infraction is of a minor nature as the Trump BLP was not connected in any way whatsoever with the TPm until 25 Jun 2014 when edits were made trying to connect Trump with the TPm. Again, IMHO, the sources did not and do not support the claims being made - AFAICT, if we assert anyone speaking before any audience which contains TPm members is therefore "associated" with the TPm, we are using the old McCarthyite system of "associating" people with groups with which the "association" is incidental at best. To that extent, I regard this as a BLP issue and not a TPm issue. The editor avers they will not edit on any future issues which even mention the TPm en passant, which is the case at hand, and so the "capital offense" position is, IMHO, unwarranted. Collect (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Those who seem to attribute my comments to the person who is the subject of this action are errant.
The primary source for the claim of membership in the TPm inth case at hand is a pseudo-quote in a headline in a reliable source. This has been discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Add_something_about_never_using_headlines_as_sources.3F where the discussionabut exactly whether a headline is reliable for claims has the OP here stating that the headline is absolutely as reliable as the article in the newspaper - a position on which I demurred based on numerous sources stating that headlines are written by copyeditors and nt by the journalist writing the article, and that they contain "pseudo-quotes" Where pseudo-quotes are the basis for linking a person to the TPm, I suggest that discussions thereon do not run afoul of the topic bans, just as it was decided that mere mention of the LvM in a BLP did not make those BLPs subject to the topic ban. I would note that Dick Cheney was also one listed as "associated" with the TPm - where the "pseudo-quotes" were not in any way borne out by the RS content, and where assertion that such contentious categorization places a BLP into topic ban category stretches the bungee cord to the breaking point. In fact, I have decategorized a number of BLPs where not a scintilla of mention of the Tea Party movement was found in the BLPs at all, and that the Trump "association" was added [42] on 25 June 2014, which suggests that the Donald Trump article had nothing substantial to do with the Tea Party movement in any way until a person added it as a claim a month ago. Remaining is commented out by request. @StSch - yeppers -- calling a post made in good faith by another editor "nitpicking nonsense" sure shows WP:AGF in action. Collect (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish[edit]When SW3 5DL showed up at the RfC discussion, I had no idea who this editor was, not realizing that this was the same person previously topic-banned under another username. After the personal attack on me, quoted above by MastCell, I figured that this was just someone to ignore, and let it pass. However, after realizing now that there is an existing sanction, let me point out some specific diffs to demonstrate that this editor was aware all along that they were commenting about the Tea Party movement. Here: [43], SW3 5DL explicitly states that they examined an analysis by Collect, and in the post that makes unprovoked and bizarre statements about me, there is also a repeat of the statement that this analysis was closely examined: [44] "I examined the sources posted by Collect at the start of the RfC." (near the bottom of the diff). Now, here is that post by Collect: [45]. Look at how prominent the words "Tea Party" are in that analysis. Someone examining the sources posted there cannot help but to notice that the material concerns the Tea Party. And, based on the attitude displayed by this editor during the discussion, I can easily see how this user would have been sanctioned. There is no question in my mind that these edits constitute a conscious topic-ban violation, if "the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" is the topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Admins: I'm closely watching the discussion, and let me offer these suggestions. You have to decide whether SWS 5DL "gets it" now or not. If not, a 1-week block would not be particularly effective, so the block would probably need to be 1 month (the maximum possible). The other option is a warning now, that another violation will result in a 1-month block. Those are basically your two options. (In either case, the comments at the Trump talk page need to be stricken.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC) @Ed Johnston: What I said about a 1-week versus 1-month block is based upon S Philbrick's reasoning, with which I agree on that point. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by MastCell (filing party)[edit]Secondly, when I raised this obvious violation on SW3 5DL's talkapge, she deleted my post with an edit summary reading "rmv trolling", and kept right on posting to the Tea Party thread. In other words, SW3 5DL's response to a valid concern was not to honestly consider whether she'd violated her topic ban, but rather to respond combatively based on her personal animosity toward me. In this context, why should we expect the self-awareness necessary to avoid future violations? Third, the link between SW3 5DL and Malke 2010 is nowhere mentioned on her userpage that I can see. I think it's inappropriate for an editor under an active ArbCom sanction to be editing under a new username without some clear link to her previous username. It places other editors at a huge disadvantage; had I not made the connection, she'd still be violating her topic ban as we speak. I'd ask that Malke/SW3 place a note on her current userpage mentioning her previous username, particularly since she seems prone to violating her topic ban. Finally, I realize I'm being selfish and cranky here, but I'm getting old in wiki-years and I'm tired of having my time wasted. A number of editors (including myself and Tryptofish) have had to waste a lot of time dealing with this blatant topic-ban violation, which SW3 5DL refused to even acknowledge until compelled to. Likewise, she's managed to derail an otherwise potentially productive talkpage thread. Presumably the entire point of the topic ban was to prevent SW3 5DL from wasting other editors' time and derailing talkpage threads. What reason does anyone have to believe that this sort of time-wasting won't happen again, promises to the contrary notwithstanding? MastCell Talk 04:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by R F[edit]I think that there is no need to strive officiously to enforce this by a block, given that the behaviour is an edge case, and the editor states that they understand this type of action can fall within "broadly construed". A block would achieve precisely nothing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC). Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning SW3 5DL[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request template asks for diffs, but there aren't any in this request. Without dated diffs of the specific edits thought to violate the topic ban, there's nothing to do here. Sandstein 10:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The diff provided by Stephan Schulz shows that SW3 5DL has made edits to a discussion about whether or not Donald Trump should be categorized as "People associated with the Tea Party movement". SW3 5DL does not contest that they are Malke 2010, who has been "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed". The talk page was a page relating to the Tea Party movement because it contains the discussion mentioned above. SW3 5DL has therefore violated their topic ban. SW3 5DL's response indicates that they do not acknowledge this. Their brief response to Stephan Schulz does not persuade me that they really understand the meaning of the ban and that they would behave differently in the future. A block therefore appears to be necessary to prevent SW3 5DL from violating the topic ban further. I recommend imposing a one-week block. Sandstein 14:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with Sandstein here. I think Collect's argument about the scope of the restriction is overly formalistic. The point of the sanction is to remove the editor's involvement with an area where they have been disruptive. To say that the article didn't fall under the category, despite the discussion on the talk page clearly being about the Tea Party, removes the teeth from the restriction completely. This isn't the case of an editor commenting on a completely benign issue that tangentially relates to the restricted topic (e.g., a restriction on Scientology articles for an editor who then discusses some other issue on the talk page of a completely un-related religion article that mentions Scientology briefly). Instead, we have a discussion precisely within the scope of the restriction, that the editor participated in, who then refused to accept the connection. I support a one-week block. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Agree with User:Sandstein and User:Lord Roem that a one-week block is needed. The topic ban obviously applies. This is not even a grey area.
I'll agree with Sandstein and Lord Roem that this constituted a violation and disagree with Collect that it qualified as an exception under BLP. The point of a topic ban is a decision that the editor is not trusted to edit in a certain area. While one can imagine BLP violation occurring in the area, we have in essence said, we do not want this editor making that call. The editor knows there are other ways to ensure attention to the issue other than actually making the edit. However, I do not support the one-week block. The editor either (now) gets it, in which case no block is needed (assuming we do not do punitive blocks) or does not get it, in which case a much longer block is warranted. My recommendation is no block now, with the understanding that a subsequent incident will generate a request (from me) for
Closing comments: Sphilbrick's warning recommendation turned out to be impracticable per Bishonen's comments. Both Sandstein and EdJohnston, who were in favor of the warning proposal, switched their !vote based on Bish's observation. Others in favor of the warning proposal were ping'd and they did not respond. So the arguments of those supporting Sphilbrick's warning proposal needed to be discarded. AE discussions are not supposed to drag on for a long time, the very purpose of the AE board is to limit the expenditure of limited admin resources on contentious areas. It had been two days since the last argument was made, and the warning !votes did not receive follow-up counter-arguments, so the result was a clear consensus for a 1-week block. |
Jaqeli
[edit]| Jaqeli's topic ban is reinstated. Tiptoethrutheminefield is restricted to WP:1RR for three months. Sandstein 16:15, 15 August 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 Jaqeli[edit]
The disruptive editing covers two articles. On Georgian scripts, the content says an inscription "is dated 430AD". The inscription in question is actually undated, and the cited sources actually say "dates from c430AD". I initially added fact tags for the "dated 430AD" claim, hoping for some sources, but Jaqeli repeatedly deleted the tags. He did the same for the clarification tags I then tried as an alternative. He ignored the reasons I gave for placing these tags. Faced with no sources for the "is dated 430AD" claim, I altered the text to read "has been dated to c430AD" as per the cited sources, but Jaqeli simply reverted to the incorrect version. I have repeatedly tried my best to explain to him that "dated 430AD" is quite different from "dates from c430AD" used by the sources. His only response has been reverts and incivility. On Mesrop Mashtots he has repeatedly deleted referenced content and repeatedly refused to discuss his edits in the article's talk page. All he does is repeatedly state "per Georgian scripts". It has been very carefully explained to him that this "per Georgian scripts" explanation is not valid: editors cannot use talk page content on one article as a reason for not properly justifying content removal on a completely different article. Editors have directed him to the Wikipedia pages giving this advice, but he seems incapable of taking that advice or realising he is in the wrong. Because of his actions and attitudes it is impossible to engage productively with Jaqeli. Jaqeli has been topic banned before. When the ban was lifted it was on the condition that he would not return to edit warring and assuming bad faith on the part of others.[53] The diffs show he has broken that condition. They show he has also ignored his own assertion that he would, in future, "edit constructively, will not edit war and will discuss it in a calm and respectable manner".
Discussion concerning Jaqeli[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 Jaqeli[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Jaqeli[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|