Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive183
Bachcell
[edit]| User:Bachcell is indefinitely banned from the topic of Ahmed Mohamed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Bachcell[edit]
Numerous previous talk page warnings for disruption:
User notified, see DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Bachcell[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 Bachcell[edit]Was not informed of this request, will not contribute to the clock incident if my contributions are not wanted. Bachcell (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by IP Editor[edit]Again we see Gamaliel jump to apply sanctions in a content dispute involving TheRedPenOfDoom, Aquillion and MarkBernstein against an editor on the other side of that content dispute? This is becoming a pattern. 168.1.99.212 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: I see little evidence of IP involvement or sockpuppetry at the article (Ahmed Mohamed clock incident) or talk page and none directed at the editors in question. Certainly nothing rising to the level of the Nazi-related? (I don't see the relevance) conspiracy suggested by Mr. Bernstein. 168.1.99.212 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC) @TheRedPenOfDoom: Quite right of you to call that out - one of the dangers of a dynamic IP, I didn't even think to check but I assure you the edit was not mine. 168.1.99.212 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark[edit]The one violation after notification, while unsourced/poorly sourced, is a claim about a clock rather than a living person. I agree with Gamaliel's ban (temporarily) as a preventive measure against further disruption, but procedurally I question whether this is actionable under BLP discretionary sanctions. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]An IP from the same block, presumably the same editor, made a neatly identical complaint yesterday at AN/I [1]. Presumably, this is another little reddit quest -- this topic is now at the top of one of the Gamergate planning boards under a long, long post by the fellow whose name commemorates the sweet music of Nazi dive bombers. I'd like to call the attention of administrators to the chilling effects that the continual threats of sanctions -- or at least time-consuming complaints at WikiLaw -- have on editors who are, as here, trying to prevent Wikipedia from being embarrassed by conspiracy theories. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]To the IP editor, if in fact, there is a group of people who are consistently editing in compliance with our policy regarding content about living people, and other editors who are consistently editing in contravention of the policy regarding content about living people, one would expect that one group would be praised for their work and one set would be sanctioned. When this happens, that would be a sign that the system is functioning as it should and everyone who cares for the encyclopedia should be happy! IP, you don't sound very happy, and that is troubling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by LavaBaron[edit]I would like to echo the comment made by MarkBernstein above, vis a vis allowing low-tolerance for the block-shopping of editors attempting to enforce some minimal standards in terms of the injection of conspiracy theories and innuendo to the encyclopedia, a battle we are (IMO) losing. I have recently, myself, endured this when confronting a SPA/IP Editor duo (sock investigation active here) attempting to sanitize and legitimize the articles for Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy, well-known conspiracy theorists. The editor in question in this arbitration action, Bachcell, just today left a congratulatory aplomb on the SPA's Talk page in that case [3], seemingly underscoring his intent to continue participation in this "bad boys club." I'd ask the arbitrators to consider whether, given the established profile and edit history of Bachnell, he is currently in a position to immediately make an adjustment to his editing patterns and sourcing standards if nothing more than a warning is given? There is a journey of intellectual maturation on which Bachnell needs to embark and limiting his editing privileges to articles outside this topic area for a year or so will allow him to develop the skills in identifying RS and composing NPOV prose that will give him the best chance at reintegration into the mainstream of WP. LavaBaron (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward[edit]What area of conflict is this topic under Discretionary Sanctions from Arbcom? This is forum shopping and doesn't belong here. No ArbCom case is cited for Arbitration Enforcement. Where would a "topic ban" be logged? --DHeyward (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by "IP Editor" (Re: Statement by LavaBaron)[edit]As the "IP Editor" is totally unrelated to the alleged "SPA" (i.e. not the same, nor related any way whatsoever) other than through correlation due to erroneous claims presented by LavaBaron after coincidental edits on the two pages mentioned – seemingly post hoc ergo propter hoc among other potential or actual fallacies – the commentary concerning innocent parties, exacerbated by the fact similar allegations have been posted multiple times on several boards and/or pages, could be perceived as an attack on the character of the "IP Editor" (et al) or in the least (each, some, if not all of those when viewed in total) seems uncivil. Therefore, I respectfully request references to the "IP Editor" be stricken from this discussion! As for Bachcell posting a comment on the talk page of supposed "SPA", the reason is unclear, only Bachcell would know for certain. What I propose, as a potential explanation is that in having taken an interest in the "clock incident", Bachcell may have observed a fringe theories discussion on same subject matter, where LavaBaron posted on the thread commenting "I'd love to get into this but I have my hands full with the CSP (above), at the moment" (perhaps foreshadowing future involvement?), next clarifying "CSP" by using the full name and (what could appear to be a developing or adopted modus operandi of possible ad hominem?) when adding "[s]uffice to say, WP is on LoonWatch Level 5 right now." Later on, posting an RfC notice directly below the "clock incident" discussion. Note: This was done prior to the post by Bachcell on user talk page referenced by LavaBaron. Considering the aforementioned theory, which seems plausible (only Bachcell would know for sure), then I do not think any undue weight should be given to an editor becoming involved in what seems to be unrelated matters, or where relevance provided by an interlocutor seems to focus on extraneous issues LavaBaron brought into this discussion, i.e. why should Bachcell be called out for what appears to be simply a comment of support for an uninvolved editor when that may have been influenced by previous actions of LavaBaron, now commenting against Bachcell. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]User:DHeyward asks what is the area of conflict for Discretionary Sanctions for this topic. The answer is American politics 2 (as per my comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney in response to a Third Opinion request that appeared to be a conduct issue rather than a content issue). This concerns a controversial political organization since 1932 that is still active and is within the scope of the ArbCom case. (It is true that the filing party doesn't identify the case, but that is where any sanctions would be logged.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Bachcell[edit]
|
Burridheut
[edit]| Burridheut indefinitely topic banned from the topic of Spiro Koleka. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 18 October 2015 (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 Burridheut[edit]
User:Burridheut displays an extreme battleground mentality, while his activity is limited to a very narrow set of articles in Albanian related topics and especially to Spiro Koleka. The specific article appears to be his personal obsession with wp:own reaching a high level of disruption, in a typical wp:SPA fashion. Attempts for discussion with the specific editor have been fruitless while his talkpage is full of warning messages from multiple co-editors. His battleground mentality is also obviously in the quality of the arguments he provides accompanied with trolling expressions:[[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]. As part of his endless personal attacks and harassment activity he received a 31h block [[10]], a block he never understood [[11]]. Nevertheless, he continued with the usual aggressive tone in his comments: [[12]] (ironically claiming that a wikipedia editor should visit the library of Tirana fist), [[13]] and finally this [[14]] where he accuses that 3rd part editors were hijacking his preferred version in S. Koleka. All this in combination of extreme wp:own & sterile reverts in the same article. Inevitably his talkpage is full of warning messages including ARBMAC warning [[15]]. Burrit. among several other personal attacks he launched, accused me directly of being a payed government agent of enemy state propaganda in his typical aggresive fashion [[16]]. Although he was latter kindly warned to remove such comments [[17]] he didn't care and continued posting disruptive comments in the specific talkpage.Alexikoua (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC) This kind of disruption warrants at least an article ban of the specific editor in Spiro Koleka, as also suggested by [EdJohnston].Alexikoua (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Burridheut[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 Burridheut[edit]This situation is going on for months, it is a mountain of propaganda that I and other editors have to fight here against. I have complained several times and cried out loud for solving this situation. I have appealed to ANI, the Dispute Resolution Board, and specific users within the talk page. Some of these users have helped a lot. I was the first who asked for an article ban of these two editors, it was followed by a counter-ban request from them within 10 minutes. Users Alexikoua and Zoupan seem to have immunity of any actions and seem to be given an unlimited number of reverts to other editors posts. Why is there no restriction for these editors? I have contributed over 90% of the article in question. I started to write the article in 2012. There are no disputes on the information I have provided, all referenced by historical documents, personal certificates and even gravestone pictures I had to provide as the two editors complaining here even changed the identity of the person in the article from their lack of knowledge. Is wikipedia all about finding links over the internet that confirm our nationalistic biasses and then start an ethnic war by destroying an informative article about a dead figure? I don't think so. Zoupan and Alexikoua don't seem to agree with me though. They have undermined EVERY attempt to settle disputes impartially and have fought or offended every other user that did not agree with them. Every few days they go back to the article and bit by bit they erode the article from its important information and they put inside their trojan horse of Balkans propaganda. This is not acceptable, Greek propaganda in articles about Albania/Albanians has to stop! The talk page looks like a war zone because of these two editors that are so destructive (and the rest of us who don't let them continue their way of course). But will consensus ever be achieved by them? I don't think so, looking at the how problematic they are all over wikipedia articles related to Albania. In my opinion they enjoy the conflict because I cannot explain otherwise what these Greek editors are they doing since early July fighting about the ethnicity of a dead man from another country that they know nothing about (yes, they even mixed his identity with someone else in the beginning, see talkpage) Burridheut (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark[edit]The user shows lack of understanding of key policies, particularly WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NOTVAND. Moreover, in discussions on the user's talk page they seem unamenable to self-reflection or receiving guidance from others. I do not anticipate this can be resolved without a topic ban of some duration. Rhoark (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Mondiad[edit]I have participated in the article's talk page a couple of times but is not possible to reach a consensus. Other users as User:Rolandi+, User:Resnjari, have as well beside the others already mentioned above.
Also, what Burridheut says above about User:Zoupan and the Category:Northern Epirotes is true. Zoupan marks left and right articles with this category, i.e. the Himara Revolt of 1596. Northern Epirus is a term of early 20th-century after the southern Epirus went to Greece and north to Albania. Instead of banning anyone, can the article be frozen, talk page archived and new discussion topics (with shorter comments) started again? Mondiad (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Resnjari[edit]I agree with the statements made by User:Mondiad regarding the matter. There has been tit for tat edits between some of the editors involved. The wording of the article has been resolved for the most part after and lengthy and exhaustive process. The contentious part was even taken to third party deliberation and dispute resolution where non Balkan editors decided to create a separate Ethnicity section for the contentious part as a resolution to the matter. It has not been User:Burridheut who has now attempted in recent times to undo that. See edit by User:Zoupan [[26]] or to tamper with peer reviewed sources regarding the village of Vuno by adding "described" when the literature clearly outlines that its inhabited by a Albanian Orthodox population as that scholar Kallivretakis has done fieldwork there.Mondiad's solution of the article being frozen for a period of time to best for some editors to have a cooling of period followed by the other recommendations that Mondiad proposed.Resnjari (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) User:EdJohnston suggested that Burridheut be banned although his contributions have been noted as being productive. Some kind of sanction and last warning about following better dialogue should occur instead and for Burridheut to refrain from personal attacks (as to be in line with Wikipedia policy). Regarding the sources Burridheut has brought to the article, the Albanian encyclopedia article in the end was not used due to it being from the communist era. The Obituary article however by Anastas Kondo meets the criteria for being in the article, as that person is a Albanian academic and native of the same village as Koleka. Newspaper articles are used in Wikipedia. And the Kondo article was used in reference to outline the familial connection to another Sprio Koleka, not to his identity per se. Just thought i would outline that so as to keep it in mind about that source.Resnjari (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Forgot to say that regarding the Northern Epirus article one should be cautious regarding its contents as the article's neutrality is under dispute due to peer reviewed sources contradicting some of its contents and little content about the Albanian factor as well in a region that is located wholly in sovereign Albania.Resnjari (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Athenean[edit]First of all, Burridheut should have been banned from the article long ago per WP:COI. In addition, Burridheut is a classic redlinked Balkan SPA that is WP:NOTHERE to build to a neutral encyclopedia, but rather to "defend" his family's "honor" [30] (apparently being Greek is an "insult"). The content dispute at Spiro Koleka is irrelevant here, what is relevant is Burridheut's behavior. I have taken a thorough look at Talk:Spiro Koleka and every single one of Burridheut's posts contains one or more of a) aggressive language, b) insults, c) threats, d) assumptions of bad faith, or e) conspiracy theories. Everything is a Greek conspiracy to "insult" Spiro Koleka, or take Albanian territory These are not isolated lapses: It is his modus operandi. At one point he goes so low as to refuse to capitalize "Greek" and "Greeks" while making sure to capitalize "Albanians" and "Albania" [31] (all the while railing about "chauvinist Greek agendas"), and when confronted, replies with aggressive sarcasm [32]. Similarly on his talkpage, there is a total lack of ability or willingness to understand and abide by wikipedia policies. Neither there nor here at this AE thread is there any admission of fault on his part, or that he needs to change his ways. It's always about how he's right and they're wrong, about how he's a victim and they are vandals. This thread on his talkpage is particularly illuminating [33]: Numerous experienced editors try to politely and calmly reason with him to no avail. He even refuses to or cannot understand that what the editors that oppose him are doing is not vandalism. So in addition to WP:COI, we have a major case of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So far the disruption has been confined to Spiro Koleka, a fairly insignificant article, but I can't even imagine the level of disruption that would result if this spread to other articles. There is a need to send a message here, that this sort of behavior is unacceptable in a collaborative project, though I'm not sure any kind of sanction would deter this user, it would probably make him see himself as even more of a victim. Athenean (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC) I am also wondering if some kind of sanction is in order for Resnjari. Here he is quite openly stating his motivation to set up a tag-team [34] to fight "vandalism" (i.e. to push Albanian nationalist POV). Thus the appeals for Burridheut to be given a "final warning" instead of a sanction: He needs muscle to fuel those future edit-wars. I also note that Resnjari's posts here are laced with thinly veiled insults against other (unnamed) editors, showing a clear "us vs. them" WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Burridheut[edit]
|
DenisGusinje
[edit]| Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning DenisGusinje[edit]
User DenisGusinje since his recent account creation in the last two weeks has been performing disruptive editing on articles related to his home town Gusinje and involved in WP:EW. The main article he has been editing is Battle of Novšiće, of Mid-Importance for WP:Albania, also Ali Pasha of Gusinje and Rexho Mulliqi. Below are some of the main diffs from the "Battle of Novšiće" article where the user reverted other users' changes or performed substantial content change, clearly violating any warning and the WP:3RR:
The user shows WP:OWN due to the fact that the event described in the article happened in the user's home town. He ignores the fact that the event described in the article was of 1879 when the area belonged to a different political/social/ethnic context. Beside altering text, the users goal is to shift the article out of the League of Prizren (of Top-Importance for WP:Albania) focus by removing all links to it. In all his comments there are statements like is my ancestor on my mothers side[35] / I know he was not, because my mother is from that family / I would not really waste my time discussing who do my people /my great grandfather was wearing the same plis and he was not Albanian, and others of this family biased allegations without keeping in mind WP:NOR, WP:NPV, or WP:COI. Beside that, his contribution list shows WP:SPA as he is focused only in 3 interrelated articles as stated above.[36] He neglected all warning from several users in his talk page.[37], [38], [39], [40], [41], and in the article's history,[42] while continues with the aggressive editing. He was initially not reported due to the fact that he was new. Discussion are carried the article's talk page by several editors, meanwhile DenisGusinje keeps on reverting and disruptive editing, even claiming "you can't stop me".[43] As suggested also by User:NobleFrog,[44] user DenisGusinje is being reported.
User DenisGusinje was notified: [45] Discussion concerning DenisGusinje[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 DenisGusinje[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning DenisGusinje[edit]
|
Caste articles and talk pages
[edit]| A 500/30 restriction is being applied to four articles and a talk page, under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Caste articles and talk pages[edit]
This is a proposal that some of us editors and uninvolved administrators who patrol this area came up with and is reflective of what seems reasonable to all of us. Discussion can be found at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2. (Contributor list: Abecedare, Bishonen, NeilN, Philg88, Sitush, The Blade of the Northern Lights, SpacemanSpiff)
@Ryk72 and Floq: If you look at Talk:Nair and the talk page history you will notice how this would have helped in the past (let's ignore the standard vandalism in the pages for now). Almost all the new accounts and/or IPs have been part of a sock/meat collective (with one exception that I see) and you can see how much time "regular" editors have to spend discussing the same issue multiple times. In addition, you can also see how uninvolved editors get dragged into the discussions while responding to semi-protected edit requests. The latest sock was not identified by any of the page regular editors. I just happened to patrol that page and noticed that to be a sock and filed an SPI, but I was wrong in identifying the master. This isn't to say that the restriction has to be concurrent -- both article and talk page. My recommendation is that it is a possibility, let the patrolling admin decide whether it is required and/or if they should be imposed for varying duration. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC) @Liz: Proactively case-by-case. I don't think we need to wait for the disruption to reach a boiling point before implementing this. Admins who patrol this area generally have an idea when there's a sock/meat or other disruptive uptick etc but can not take things to SPI. Sometimes we know that disruption in one article is going to mean that another follows. e.g. Ezhava will follow suit when there's group editing at Nair and it's just sensible to apply the sanctions then. Likewise when something pops up on Mukkulathor, Agamudayar isn't far behind. On the other hand, I don't see why it should be applied for something like Kadiyan even though there's a history of poor content, but just not enough disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Caste articles and talk pages[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 Bishonen[edit]I support this proposal. Disclosure: I took part in the preliminary discussions, and I'll repeat a little of what I said there. The area is dogged by socking, off-wiki canvassing and WP:CIR issues. New editors on caste articles need, and get, a lot of advice from experienced editors and admins, but are unfortunately often too suspicious of our intentions to accept it. I've come to realise people who edit Wikipedia with a caste agenda tend to assume anybody contradicting them has a caste agenda of their own, and in extreme cases this is the lens through which they view all other editors. I've seen both Sitush and myself accused of inflating the claims of our own caste and despising other castes… apparently Sitush is a brahmin — yes, I've seen that confidently asserted — and god knows what I am, but I seemingly have no respect for this, that and the other caste. On a good day, I may have heard of these castes, but usually not. I only admin the area, I don't edit it, and so it's water off a duck's back for me, but it must be terminally frustrating for the editors in the trenches. A 500/30 restriction should forestall some of the worst waste of their time and patience. For instance, I've been watching Sitush's talkpage for years, and I frequently see new users (I can't tell how often they're genuinely new) complaining there about being reverted on some caste article — sometimes complaining politely, indeed — but more usually with angry accusations about how he must "hate" their caste, or must be paid to defame it. It's downright depressing. An ounce of prevention would be worth a pound of cure here. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC).
Statement by Ryk 72[edit]W.r.t the limitation as applied to WP:MAINSPACE, this is a de facto Semi-protection 2, and I suggest that it be documented as such at WP:Protection policy; with the same caveats & advice as listed there for Semi-protection. Similarly, given that this is a de facto change in WP policy, suggest that it should follow the normal process for such changes - RFC at the policy page (as I understand it). While the limitation as applied to MAINSPACE is easily understandable in terms of protecting the integrity of the Encyclopedia, it is less obviously so w.r.t the limitation as applied to Talk space. Would supporting editors be able to advise the reasoning by which editors should be restricted from discussion of content? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by RegentsPark[edit]This is a sensible proposal. Caste related articles are a problem because most of us don't understand the web of relationships between various caste articles and cannot effectively act as administrators on those pages. The articles are plagued by SPAs - often with off-wiki relationships - and an inordinate amount of time is wasted by very productive editors in dealing with these SPAs, filing sock reports, and trying to separate out the good editors from the not so good ones. This proposal will keep the articles open for editing by editors who have an encyclopedic purpose for being here while closing off editing - when necessary - by SPAs and off-wiki cabals. The proposal is simple, easy to implement, and will be effective. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark[edit]Neither endorsing nor rejecting the present proposal, some retrospective of the GG restriction's motivation and effects is in order. Essentially, the restriction was an extraordinary measure to salvage a problematic editor by depriving him of newbies to bite. It failed, inasmuch as Zad68 (talk · contribs) who instituted the rule would eventually topic ban the editor in question. In ancillary comments, he confirmed the whole thing had been an experiment in extending rope. Nor did it seem to particularly improve the conduct of other similarly problematic established editors assuming opposition was based in nefarious motives. In the case of castes, it seems to be the fresh rather than established editors who fail to assume good faith, so the situation is not parallel. (Which is not to say it must be parallel to be considered.) The restriction did have a salutary effect in that it reduced the velocity of the talk page, making it more convenient for the remaining participants. I wouldn't personally choose to reverse that change, but I can see how others might not balance convenience opposite core wiki principles. Ultimately, I think the question is whether the problem is large enough as to make the page(s) impossible to maintain. If so, IAR. Rhoark (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by NeilN[edit]Explanation of caste edit filter as requested by Bishonen. It would be modeled off the GG edit filter which editors can see here. When an editor clicks Save to save their edit they see a message, "Sorry, editors with accounts that have fewer than 500 edits or are less than 30 days old may not edit the Gamergate controversy article, its Talk pages or subpages at this time. This page restriction is an Arbitration Enforcement action. We apologize if your edit was well-intended. Please gain experience editing other areas of Wikipedia before considering returning to this article. Thank you." For caste articles, the filter should probably look for a category. Pinging MusikAnimal to see if that's possible. --NeilN talk to me 13:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Masem, the disruption experienced at caste articles is different from GG. GG as a topic is not that complicated and basically all the sources are in English and can be judged by any experienced editor with an awareness of pop culture. Caste warriors constantly bring sources only a select few Wikipedians can evaluate. Plus, as opposed to GG, Palestine/Israel, India/Pakistan, Greece/Macedonia, etc., there's usually no "other side" to keep things in check. The caste warriors are interested in promoting their own caste and that's about it. And since the topics are obscure and unimportant from a Western point of view, many of them suffer from a "too hard to understand, not worth figuring out" attitude. --NeilN talk to me 05:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by MusikAnimal[edit]In response to NeilN (I guess this is how it works at ArbCom?), you can certainly target categories using edit filters. We should try use the combine the proposed filter with the Gamergate one, simply for performance and that they do exactly the same thing. The new copy should read something like "Sorry, editors with accounts that have fewer than 500 edits or are less than 30 days old may not edit this article, it's talk page, or subpages at this time..." The part we're missing is the clarification of what subject they are unable to edit, but the upside is performance for what is otherwise an expensive filter. Just a thought, and obviously that can be discussed later — MusikAnimal talk 14:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Darwinian Ape[edit]There is an increasing trend to restrict Wikipedia to new users and it is fundamentally against the spirit of the project. Excluding new users will not solve problems, it may make it quieter but it wont solve anything. Just look at the first application of that rule at GG page. It's still a mess that no one can understand. What do you think will happen to new editors who want to contribute because they are interested in this topic? Will they continue to contribute after being chastised for no apparent reason. It is against AGF and it is contradictory with the "everyone can edit" motto. New editors and IP editors are a tremendous source for this project, and yes it comes with a price. But I think the price doesn't outweigh the benefits and so does the foundation, since they are firm on not changing the "anyone can edit" rule. 500/30 rule has no place in a free encyclopedia and if it becomes a norm, it will eventually be the end of the project. So if you want to speed up the slow death of Wikipedia, you are on track, if not please reconsider. This rule might seem convenient, but it's much more destructive than a couple of socks and agenda pushers in the long run Darwinian Ape talk 15:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Sitush & Masem: I understand it can be extremely frustrating to deal with bad faith or just downright unexperienced editors, but preemptively baning every single new editor from a topic just seems to me unfair, and it's a bit of an overkill at any rate. I proposed this for the original GG sanction at the imposing admin's talk page: We let any auto-confirmed editor to edit, but implement a zero tolerance policy for disruption and impose 500/30 sanction only to those who seem to be disruptive or unfamiliar with the Wikipedia rules to comprehensively discuss the topic.(Note that this would not be count as a sanction, only giving time to a new user to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia rules just as it was meant to be in the original sanction) Therefor we would be assuming good faith and let new editors say their piece and give them a chance to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, while simultaneously protecting the article from people who, willingly or unwillingly, disrupt the work of others. I understand this will be an inconvenience for the admins monitoring the topic, but at least we can filter good contributions in and not drive new editors from the project. Darwinian Ape talk 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Sitush, No I've never edited the subject area, I am against the restrictions of this kind in principle. I am not against sanctions being imposed in problematic areas, least of all in this subject. I am against sanctions of this magnitude becoming the norm. Darwinian Ape talk 16:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC) @Masem, okay perhaps I am being naive, I tend to be naive sometimes. But this rule has the potential to ruin WP for good. I was a happy IP user a few months ago and this restrictive attitude made me use this account, because I thought one day I may not be able to contribute as I like. Darwinian Ape talk 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Sitush[edit]@Darwinian Ape: no, sorry. I understand your concern about creep but you have two choices here: either introduce something along these lines or watch the caste articles descend into even more chaos because I, for one, am fed up of the do-gooding attitude destroying them. Nowadays, I spend most of my time re-arguing and reverting, and there are very few other experienced contributors involved in the subject area. You either support this proposal or some derivative of it or you watch me walk away. And without me, you might as well scrap all policies when it comes to caste articles because newbies in the subject area almost always do not give a shit and experienced people avoid them. Wikipedia has gone past the "anyone can edit" phase - accept it or watch it become absolutely pointless as a repository of knowledge. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC) I notice your edit summary for Darwinian Ape's post says @Liz: problematic caste articles, such as Nair and Rajput, will always be problematic: it is the nature of the beast. Reviewing any imposition of editing restrictions every six months is just bumptious officialdom. Far better to review if challenged by an editor in good standing. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC) @Masem: the proposal is not intended merely or even necessarily to combat off-wiki co-ordination. This is not GG Mark 2. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC) @Masem: no, semi-protection and "careful observation" do not work for caste articles. Nor is the issue always COI. That is why this proposal has emerged. I'm sorry but I find it very frustrating that people who have no clue about the things are weighing in here with comments that are miles off course. Please take some time to dig through the history at, say, the Nair article and its related talk page. Then comment. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC) @Masem, I think your past investment in Gamergate is showing and it is overwhelming your opinion. If you don't think that the Nair article has been a time-sink for a very small number of experienced contributors for many years, you're missing something. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Liz, I don't really care why you suggested six months. The fact remains that it should be indefinite by default because of the nature of the beast. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Actually, I'm out of this. My tolerance for the clueless is pretty poor at the moment, and too many have appeared in this discussion today. I just hope common sense prevails and that people are not put off by irrelevancies that are being raised. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Masem[edit]@Darwinian Ape: While the 500/30 rule is antithesis of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", if we are clearly aware of outside influence that are engaging in long-term attempts to alter an article, as was the case in GG and appears to be the case here for castes, then we do need stronger measures to counter that to avoid a flood of new accounts and IP that can be used to support that outside influence (even if it necessarily is for the right reasons and/or in line with policy) that simple semi-protection and 3RR/1RR limits on an article cannot stop. But that influence must be something that is readily evidenced, otherwise asking for such protection is a chilling effect. I know we could readily demonstrate it for GG, and I would expect that such can be demonstrated for these caste articles where the 500/30 rule would be proposed. But if editors are simply asking for that type of 500/30 protection without any strong evidence of that influence, we should not allow that 500/30 rule to be used; it should be seen as a last resort to handle something that is outside of WP's control. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]I would like to add my own comments to disagree with those of Darwinian Ape. They appear to be focused on the words "which anyone can edit", but those words have always been hyperbole, a slight rhetorical exaggeration. There has always been an exception to the "anyone can edit" concept for users who were banned by Jimbo Wales. Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy or an experiment in democracy. It is an experiment, mostly successful but with a mixed record, in crowd-sourcing an encyclopedia. As such, it is necessary to learn from the results of the ongoing experiment. Since the early days, it has been found necessary to impose a few restrictions on the "anyone can edit" rule, such as banned users, topic-banned users, and sockpuppets. GamerGate may illustrate the limits of the experiment; there may be a few areas that are so contentious with so much off-wiki coordination that it has become impossible to develop a satisfactory crowd-sourced encyclopedic article even with 500/30. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying in other areas. If we need 500/30 to maintain NPOV in caste-related articles, then we should try 500/30. I think that I agree with Masem in that 500/30 is a draconian restriction, but occasionally we need draconian restrictions in order to maintain the encylopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Arjayay[edit]As someone who has tried to deal with caste article problems, over several years, I fully support the 500/30 proposal. Statement by Abecedare[edit]I too wanted to add my support for the proposal as an admin who has been involved in monitoring the area, and as someone who has great regard and sympathy for editors who try to keep wikipedia's article on the subject well-sourced and neutral. Instead of repeating the points others have already made about why such a proposal is needed, I'll just like to highlight/clarify a few points that seem to have caused some confusion:
As other have already pointed out, the proposed restriction is partially motivated by the type of off-wiki co-ordination and sock/meat-puppetry that has been seen in the GG area. In addition though, unlike the GG area, these set of articles also attract participation by truly inexperienced editors with marginal language skills and limited experience in searching for scholarly sources. It is both rude and ineffective to point such editors to WP:CIR. And blocking/topic-banning them individually is far from ideal, since doing so too early risks false-positives, while waiting till disruption from each individual SPA has reached conventional blockable level makes the cumulative disruption an unbearable burden for editors actually following and explaining wikipedia policies in this lightly patrolled area. That is another reason I am in favour of the 500/30 rule since, (a) it is not a logged sanction against an individual editor and makes it clear that it is only inexperience that is keeping them from editing an article, and (b) it separates editors who are willing to gain that experience from ones who believe they already know all the TRUTH they need to know. Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3[edit]I took this long to comment here as I was trying to make up my mind whether it is appropriate to apply the 500/30 restriction to both the article and talk pages. I finally came to the conclusion that it is appropriate. We are mainly trying to combat the disruption caused by the POV-pushers, not just the damage caused to the main space. However, this does have the unfortunate effect that a new editor trying to suggest an edit to the article has no place to go. That is concerning. On the other hand, my experience is that well-meaning new editors make casual and sporadic edits for years before they become active Wikipedians (if at all). The new editors that start battling on contentious issues from the get-go are the ones with pre-formed agendas. There is no harm in asking such editors to gain experience before we allow them to participate in highly problematic areas. If they are serious about Wikipedia they will stay and gain the necessary experience. If not, they will disappear. This is merely an instance of WP:PACT. Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights[edit]This obviously has my wholehearted support, seeing as I helped out a little with the draft. The only major thing I want to add is, in addition to Sitush's work, these are massively difficult topics to administrate. The number of e-mails I've gotten accusing me of being all kinds of shit are too many to count, and I'be mostly been on the fringes for the last couple years (though I'm intending to change that). Although intended as humorous, at one Wiki-meetup I was telling the truth when I said I'm nearly fluent in Hindi swear words from talkpage comments and e-mails directed at me. Putting this in place will cut so much of that out it might just make the area a bit more palatable for other admins, which will make things even that much less difficult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Question from NE Ent[edit]Not saying this isn't a good idea -- but what exactly authorizes ya'll to put a 500/300 restriction on an article. Hint: the answer definitely isn't WP:AC/DS as written, cause of the whole notification requirement thing. NE Ent 16:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Result concerning Caste articles and talk pages[edit]
Just thought I'd point out that in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies, the 500/30 editing restriction is being proposed, applying to
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Kyohyi
[edit]| Appeal withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[[46]]
Statement by Kyohyi[edit]The edit for which I received the topic ban has been deleted so I'm going off of memory. If I'm wrong in my summary I would appreciate an administrator emailing me what I actually wrote so I can amend this appropriately.
My understanding is that I was topic banned for using the terminology of the source, and I believe that this is inappropriate since there is nothing more accurate in our documentation than using what the source uses. In turn I believe my sanction should be lifted because I was enforcing BLP, and not adding defamatory material. However should X be viewed as defamatory material, I request that the source be deleted because that is exactly what it says.
Statement by Acroterion[edit]As always, I am willing to reconsider sanctions if it can be shown that there is a good-faith misunderstanding or if it can be shown that this is a one-off. I'll expand my response when I have a little more time. Acroterion (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Follow-up: It appears to me that Kyohyi was too focused on literally following sources, while forgetting that policy requires BLPs to be written conservatively, with regard for the subject. Articles should avoid repeating gossip about peoples' private lives, something that has plagued that particular article, and which editors must bear in mind. I am prepared to remove the sanction if I can be assured that Kyohyi will be less bold with BLPs. In reviewing their recent history I don't see a pattern of trouble, but given their participation in contentious BLP-related topics I was surprised that they thought their "tightening up" in the terms used would be appropriate. I am disappointed that their explanation is focused on literal repetition of sources instead of understanding that there are relatively simple, if slightly wordier ways of resolving the inconsistency that they're worried about, without using Wikipedia's voice to repeat gossip. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Brustopher[edit]@Gamaliel: This sort of thing is only a valid recommendation when the editor in question has shown a consistent poor understanding of policy. In my interactions with Kyohyi I've generally found them to be aware of policy and if anything usually overly cautious when dealing with sensitive BLP issues. A brief look through their contribution shows nothing too horrific either. The entire topic ban is based on a single edit after a sizeable track record of good editing. I can't see why the edit itself (as Kyohyi describes it) is topic ban worthy. The language added could be considered overly tasteless, but it's the same language the source uses. The removal of the claim that the accusation sparked Gamergate while lazy (there's tonnes of sources out there that state this), is hardly scandalous. Unless there's something big I'm missing here, I can't see how this could warrant a topic ban. Looking back on Kyohyi's past edit history combined with the edit in question would you have topic banned them? Brustopher (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Kyohyi[edit]Result of the appeal by Kyohyi[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Burridheut
[edit]| Appeal is declined--Cailil talk 16:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Burridheut[edit]1. The admin that banned me indefinitely has listed the case under the section of "Macedonia". Last time I checked there is absolutely no relation between the article and the topic of Macedonia. I would like this to be clarified because to me it is confusing. 2. The admin that enforced the ban uses as reference my statements for which I have been already blocked earlier this year in August. Why am I being punished twice for the same? See here: [48] 3. The indefinite topic ban is totally unjustified considering that I have contributed more than 90% of the article content and I was accused by people who did not do any less reverts than me. I feel discriminated because I am new here. I don't want to believe that I am being discriminated for other reasons but that might be possible. There have been some racist edits well highlighted by some other users (see the "request for ban" sections concerning my case) that somehow had escaped the admin filter. Well, if you allow racist or otherwise provocative edits you must allow for people to get angry about them too. 4. My banning from the article does not contribute to a balanced article, on the contrary, disruptive reverts followed it. One of these disruptive users created an anonymous account today only to write on my user page, see here: [49] 5. I have repeatedly asked for help against disruptive propaganda edits coming mainly from two nationalistic editors that have exercised countless reverts, non-consensual edits and patronizing speech in the talk page of the article. There was no support from admins regarding this leaving me on my own against disruptive editors. I hereby request the sanction to be lifted. I sincerely think it is way disproportionate as a measure and it just feeds more certain editors that are plaguing the internet with articles that promote hate and nationalistic agendas. Burridheut (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Callanecc[edit]Discussion concerning the appeal by Burridheut[edit]I think that the previous decision whereby the article of Northern Epirus was taken into consideration by administrator EdJohnston toward making a final decision of Burridheut's status may have prejudiced the final outcome. The article Northern Epirus has its neutrality challenged at the moment and its contents should not have been used toward Burridheut's situation. Care should be taken in such situations and there is merit hence in Burridheut claiming that discrimination could have occurred. Any revaluation of Burridheut's status should not encompass contents from the Northern Epirus article, so as for the decision to be considered a impartial and fair outcome.Resnjari (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston[edit]I'm posting in this section because I'm one of the admins who joined in the original decision that's being appealed. Here are some points:
Result of the appeal by Burridheut[edit]
|
74.101.51.221
[edit]| Blocked 1 week --NeilN talk to me 23:53, 28 October 2015 (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 74.101.51.221[edit]
This IP editor is edit-warring on multiple articles, of which a sample is listed above.
Notified here[51].
Discussion concerning 74.101.51.221[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 74.101.51.221[edit]Statement by Rhoark[edit]Khalidi 1992 seems to be an actual book extremely likely to contain the claim it's cited for. The Max Blumenthal edits obviously violate 1RR. Most troubling are the irrelevant edit summaries on "List of violent incidents". That takes it from garden variety POV warrior to either vandalism or a competence problem. Rhoark (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 74.101.51.221[edit]
|
E.M.Gregory
[edit]| Closing with no action, though E.M.Gregory is reminded to ensure that they avoid personal attacks no matter the circumstances. Nominations at AfD will take care of any articles which don't comply with policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 2 November 2015 (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 E.M.Gregory[edit]
(and many more in this vein - see this for the articles created by this editor)
None
Let me state at the outset that the editor might be acting in good faith, probably due to some personal experience and I dislike prosecuting people, but this can no longer be ignored. I am not asking for any harsh sanctions. The editor creates a spate of articles on rock-throwing in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Obviously only one side uses rocks, the other side uses bullets. When this was pointed out here and here, the user gave this answer (ignore the WP:BATTLE in the edit summary for the moment): "I make articles about rock throwing regardless of ethnicity", which is patently ridiculous. Their justification is not tenable because they also create a spate of WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS articles - not involving stone throwing - on one side of the conflict (see diffs above for examples - many more can be found by their article creation link). When I again point out the WP:NPOV problem this creates here, the user dismisses my point and accuses me of whitewashing murder. Now, I don't mind any insult thrown at me (I have a pretty thick skin), but the repeated behaviour through article creation and behaviour at WP:AfDs is becoming unmanageable (see the first diff). Moreover, other people are posting messages on their talk page asking if they are going create more articles. WP:AE should clarify whether it is permissible to create one-sided articles like this based on skewed sampling. This is an endemic problem in this area (see this POV travesty for instance - not created by EMG), and something needs to be done here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Firstly, I am not sure how this edit which accuses me of whitewashing murder is not a personal attack. But, as I said, I care little for insults. Secondly, tell me, how does one go about demonstrating one-sided editing here? Last I checked, WP:NPOV is a policy here. It states: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." Tell me, how do the articles created satisfy this in any way? Firstly, they are all WP:MEMORIAL articles about how Palestinians are terrorists. Secondly, I already gave three examples where these articles have been deleted/redirected. Thirdly, Palestinians are not even quoted, let alone discussed. Pretty much the only Palestinian news organization Ma'an News Agency is objected to for inclusion (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lions.27_Gate_stabbings). One of the people accused in the stabbing (Fadi Alloun) for instance, was determined by Amnesty International to be extrajudicially killed, with no mention in the article, of course. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning E.M.Gregory[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 E.M.Gregory[edit]The accusation does not merit a response, as my editing record will bear out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Revisiting this, the one thing I wish to add for the record is that it is routine on Wikipedia for editors to create articles on deadly terrorist attacks (such as: 2015 Parramatta shooting) and dramatic crimes (such as:Death of Chris Currie) that draw significant, sustained media attention. Terror attacks that are instant international headlines routinely have articles started when the news breaks. And are very rarely deleted. It is distinctly odd to be brought to this board on charges of creating such a a routine type of article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark[edit]As long as the articles themselves adhere to NPOV, there is no requirement to balance article creation between pro- and anti- sides of any issue. Wikipedia is not mandatory. Rhoark (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]These articles will continue because the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, are never taken seriously in the AfDs. The larger point is WP:NPOV, as an editorial obligation. I can remember Sandstein stating, some years back, that this means editors in the I/P area are under an obligation to contribute neutrally. I expect that means that we are obliged to ensure an article is constantly monitored for balance, and (b) more saliently here, that article creation by an editor cannot harp on one POV. Since you like creating these articles, E. M. Gregory, why is it they deal exclusively with Israeli victims of terror or stone throwing? I would expect that if you write an article like Death of Binyamin Meisner because of a horror of death from stoning, then it would surely tempt you to write a parallel one, The Death of Edward Ghanem. The Palestinian Christian boy after all was killed in exactly the same manner as the soldier Binyamin Meisner. A block of concrete was dumped on his head, falling from an Israeli outpost. That would be evidence that you contribute with encyclopedic neutrality, and not to abuse wiki for a set of articles as a political statement.(I should add that I don't think this kind of article be it for Meisner or Ghanem, should be written)Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Gaijin42[edit]This appears to be a cross-article content dispute, where the complaintants do not like the articles being created. There is little to no behavioral evidence of a problem, and the community can adequately handle article creation issues unless they are massive and frequent disruption. Indeed, per Nishidani's statement, the articles are being KEPT at AFD. NPOV across articles (tit for tat) is not required, and would any case be WP:FALSEBALANCE Suggest this be declined, with a boomerang trout. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Samtar[edit]To further Gaijin42's above comments, I believe that while E.M.Gregory can be seen as a little abrasive at times, he is acting in good faith. samtar (msg) 19:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes[edit]I agree with Rhoark. In addition, the list of pages created by E.M.Gregory does not look problematic; only 3 of them have been deleted. Everyone who creates legitimate pages on any subject must be encouraged, not punished. Complaining about creation of new pages shows a serious bias by people who brought this complaint. A couple of comments by E.M.Gregory (diffs #1 and #2) seem to be problematic, however his refusal to continue making such claims on this page may be seen as an argument in his favor. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Igorp lj[edit]@Nishidani: "NMMNG is now egging on User:Igorp lj", "to use User:Igorp lj as a proxy or meatpuppet" (16:53, 13 October 2015) It's Nishidani and his method of "cooperation" with those colleagues who does not share his "Only Correct Opinion" (OCO) (:( FYI: I do not need any one (including NMMGG), to repeat what I've already said you many times, before No More Mr Nice Guy appeared at my Talk page:
Btw, are all those whom Huldra's offered: "to coordinate on a Talk page who will make a next revert in an article" - the same someone's "meatpuppets" (@Nishidani)? Resume: I demand an immediate apology for your next personal attack and libel right here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Huldra[edit]We recently had two AfDs (both were deleted):
From what I can see, E.M.Gregory was the only editor who voted Keep, on one article, (the first one), while voting Delete on the other. I wrote on that AfD, that “anyone who votes "keep" for this article, while voting delete, or not at all, on the other article .., or vice versa, has, IMO, made a very strong application for a topic ban from the I/P area.” And other editors agreed Huldra (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Brustopher[edit]I'll note that editors actually have been penalised for article creation in the past such as during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. But as that was a case of SEO this may be a different kind of situation. I don't really think much can be done about people selectively making articles on a topic they're passionate about. Huldra raises an interesting point about AfD biases though. If E.M.Gregory is systematically !voting to delete articles that make Israelis look bad, and keep articles that make Palestinians look bad then that would be a problem. Brustopher (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Statement by IRISZOOM[edit]As Kingsindian mentions, WP:MEMORIAL articles is a problem and it keeps going on. Some background on the issue can be read on Wikipedia: All murdered Israeli children are murdered by… Arabs by Wikipediocracy. The perhaps biggest issue is what E.M.Gregory did to the article Saleh al-Arouri. I wrote about this on that article's talk page 1,5 months ago and just updated the article. The horrible war in Gaza last year was triggered by attacks like 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, which Israel accused Hamas of being responsible for and Hamas denied that. This was a central point so to only write that "Al-Arouri was responsible for the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers" is not true and honest. It should have been impossible to miss Hamas' denial and also that al-Arouri's claim was doubted by experts. It is of course in the lead of the main article (2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers) but lets forget about that for now. Just look at the six sources E.M.Gregory added. Three of the sources (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.611676, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/hamas-kidnapping-three-israeli-teenagers-saleh-al-arouri-qassam-brigades and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11048705/Hamas-kidnapped-three-teenagers-leading-figure-says.html) contain doubts and there is much in the two British sources. From the listed articles:
So how was all of that just described as "Al-Arouri was responsible for the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers"? This what we don't want on Wikipedia, namely WP:CHERRYPICKING. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Result concerning E.M.Gregory[edit]
|