Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive205
Gilabrand
[edit]| Blocked for 3 months, and any recurrence of sockpuppetry will turn this into an indefinite block and probable siteban. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 9 December 2016 (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 Gilabrand[edit]
Looooooong list: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AGilabrand
Discussion concerning Gilabrand[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 Gilabrand[edit]When the topic ban was discussed with HJ Mitchell, he specifically noted that I could edit Israel-related articles as long as my edits were not about the conflict. I have been editing now for over a year and not once has anyone challenged or reverted any of my thousands of edits. With respect to Had Ness, you attribute to me all kinds of horrible motives, but I just happened upon the article because a clown friend of mine said he was going there to perform. I had never heard of the place and googling it came across an actual reference to it in a scholarly book. Looking at the article and seeing the history section was unreferenced, I added it. There was nothing about the conflict. It was just a historical statement of fact. I also saw that the spelling was wrong, and moved the article to reflect a more correct spelling (again, not perfect, as the "h" sound in Hebrew has no parallel in English). I have tried exceedingly hard to stick to the rules over the past year and I find it sad that there are editors like SD who have been on the warpath for years and are basically holding Wikipedia articles hostage. The one and only reason for my edit was to add a reference where there was none. Geewhiz (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Oh, and for the record, I was not the one who added the material about the guesthouses. I removed a chunk of uncited PR material that was promoting a specific guesthouse. So SD should actually be thanking me for ruining their economy... Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]None of the edits have anything to do with the IP conflict. All of the edits were improvements to the article. This is just yet another "gotcha" style enforcement action. Furthermore, why are these articles subject to ARBPIA enforcement?
I refer admins to the statement above: "Disruptive...groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." We have edits from "ages" ago, that are not in the ARBPIA area and this is a groundless complaint merely brought to shut down an adversary. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC) The suggestions below begs the question if editing Arab villages and towns would also fall under ARBPIA, or is it just Jewish towns? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 14:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Just for clarification, and since RexxS mentioned it, the ARBPIA templated was only added yesterday. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by RexxS[edit]In response to Sir Joseph, it is not helpful to a topic-banned editor to encourage them to make edits which others could interpret as a breach of the topic ban. Topic bans quite often contain the phrase "broadly construed" and most editors will interpret that in terms of ARBPIA to include editing topics about settlements in the occupied territories, whose existence is inextricably linked with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Had Ness is a clear example. The consequences for you of being wrong are zero; whereas the consequences for a topic-banned editor of following your advice if you are wrong are serious. The convention on Wikipedia is for a topic-banned editor to check the talk page for a notice such as {{ARBPIA}}. The presence of the notice is a clear signal to keep away. The absence of such a notice is not, however, a green light to edit the article. The usual practice, in the event of any uncertainty, would be to seek advice from a knowledgeable-admin – perhaps the one who performed the ban – whether they considered the article covered by the topic ban. In my humble opinion, it's probably best for an editor who is topic banned "broadly construed" to assume that all settlements in the occupied territories are subject to ARBPIA. Nobody's going to get sanctioned for following that advice. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by AnotherNewAccount[edit]I suggest lifting the ban. I did see a while back Gilabrand was sailing somewhat close to the wind of the topic ban on occasions, but the nature of the editing tended to be gnomish stuff like category editing, WikiProject bannering, image adding etc. None of the edits have been problematic, and she has been editing for over a year without incident since being unblocked. She has not touched the "battleground" parts of the topic. HJ Mitchell wrote:
She seems to have surpassed that requirement with a goodly amount of decent editing. The fact that it's taken this long for anybody to notice and complain here is evidence of the benign nature of her editing to date. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Huldra[edit]To put it bluntly: anyone assuming good faith with Gilabrand, is a gullible fool. Seriously. She lied about IP socking while banned, was forgiven and let back, and "repaid" by socking again. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Gilabrand, where User:Bukrafil was found to be one of her socks. I was taught to turn the other cheek, but I have run out of cheeks, w.r.t Gilabrand. So no, I simply do not believe that, say, that first diff is an innocent mistake. Having said that, as long as she only does copy- edits, I do not mind that she edits articles under ARBPIA. I think a block is in order, but not a long one, (she has done constructive work, too). Say, 1 to 3 months? Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]I don't think it's very nice that Gila refers to her friends—any of them—as clowns. Isn't there a policy or guideline against that? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Gilabrand[edit]
|
Solntsa90
[edit]| Blocked for three months for failing to adhere to community standards in the ARBEE topic. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Solntsa90[edit]
Discussion concerning Solntsa90[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 Solntsa90[edit]The article on Fake News has literally nothing to do with Russia, except for media claims that this originates in Russia--still nothing to do with Vladimir Putin--and the fact I'm using an RT News source as a citation. The burden of proof will be on you to prove that this topic is directly related to Vladimir Putin. I didn't violate my topic-ban; You're just attempting to get rid of me on a contentious issue. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC) My edits aren't even related to Russia. The burden of proof will be on whoever issued this complaint to prove that my edits were on an article directly related to Russia or Vladimir Putin, of which neither were; This is all happening because I dared to use RT News as a source. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Neutrality[edit]I agree with and fully join in Sagecandor's request regarding Solntsa90. I see this as a flagrant violation of his topic ban(s), and one more example of an ongoing pattern of behavior that indicates a complete inability or unwillingness to edit productively in the topic area of American or Eastern European politics. Particularly illuminating is his statement, in an edit summary, dismissing "a few editors [that] have an objection" because "Consensus is not needed on valid sources, of which RT is." Solntsa90 seems to believe that his understanding is baseline/predicate. He doesn't seem to appreciate that others might have rational views to the contrary. Nor does he seem to understand that generally, the burden of showing a source's reliability is on the proponent of the source. Even if this isn't quite a NOTHERE case, it certainly is one that calls for:
Neutralitytalk 22:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Solntsa90[edit]
|
- Subsequently blocked indefinitely by Bbb23, per [7]. Sagecandor (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Doc9871
[edit]| By consensus of responding admins, Doc9871 is indefinitely banned from any edit about, and any page related to, post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. MastCell Talk 17:24, 12 December 2016 (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 Doc9871[edit]
More minor, but indicative of the fact that the editor is WP:NOTHERE
And for good measure
Exactly the same problem as the one which led to his original topic ban. Almost like reading from a script. Doc9871 is incapable of discussing this topic without immediately resorting to insults and abusive language. This behavior derails productive discussion. It's also completely pointless as it offers no suggestions for article improvements. It's just gratuitous insults made for their own sake. @Lankiveil - what "plea bargain" are you talking about? I just left a message on his talk page asking him to remove the personal attacks (like telling me to "shut up"). I actually dislike having to report people to WP:AE and try to give them plenty of opportunity to correct/revise/strike/undo. Is there something wrong with that? Hell, I get messages like that on my talk from admins once in awhile too ("you might want to reword that") Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Doc9871[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 Doc9871[edit]
(Just happened to stumble on this thread since, ahem, this page recently came onto my watchlist...) I think it's important to bear in mind that editors need not be neutral, and it's OK -- even desirable, when you think about it -- that they reveal any biases in discussions. It's only their edits that need to be neutral. If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally. EEng 08:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Regarding the above: "If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally." It's not that we expect our editors not to carry any personal bias, since, with the exception of the bots, they're all human. What we expect is for editors to contribute to the encyclopedia in such a way that doesn't promote their biases, or skew facts and information because of them. Not necessarily an easy thing to do, and we all, I think, slip up on occasion, so the question becomes "How often and how badly." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved) Calton[edit]Doc needs to read WP:NOTTHEM at some point. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Question by Cas Liber[edit]@Doc9871:, why did you change sources here? From reading it, both sources can support the statement, but (a) why swap and (b) the edit summary? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Statement by John[edit]I see enough here to concern me, and I was taken aback to discover this was the behaviour of someone coming back from a shorter ban.
There is enough here to make User:EdJohnston's suggestion of an indefinite topic ban seem like a reasonable one. This user seems to have been overwhelmed by his political zeal in this one area and to therefore be unable to edit objectively. --John (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes[edit]I talked with Doc9871 here. Based on their responses, he does not see his behavior as problematic and will continue doing exactly the same. Therefore, the sanctions are warranted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JFG[edit]I have had moderate interaction with Doc on contentious political pages, and I don't understand the pile-on against him. OK, he's a bit sarcastic and rough around the edges, but so are many many many editors (especially those willing to engage into editing such topics, you do need nerves of steel and a good dose of humour); it's no problem at all. Our friend VM reporting Doc today can be quite abrasive himself, but has never been sanctioned for that. I see Doc as a good-faith contributor who shouldn't be t-banned for such peccadillas as reported here. This sounds more like a personal vendetta than a genuine attempt to quell disruptive behaviour. I would personally let him go with an admonishment to smoothen his talk page comments, that's all there is to it. That being said, let the wisdom of the admins fall where it may… — JFG talk 19:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sagecandor[edit]I've looked over the edits [25] [26] [27] [28] [29], and they are very troubling and disturbing. Looks like things are moving in the direction of a topic ban. I would also suggest a block due to WP:NOTHERE and the complete disregard for WP:No personal attacks. Sagecandor (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Doc9871[edit]
@Peacemaker67, Laser brain, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and EdJohnston: This has gone awhile without any further comments, so let me stick my neck out and propose that the admins commenting here seem to have a rough consensus that Doc9871 ought to be permanently banned from this topic area. If there's no administrative dissent from this in the next 24 hours I'll enact the ban. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
|
Kamel Tebaast
[edit]| There is consensus that the violation of 1RR is fairly minor, could've been dealt with via a user talk page warning, and doesn't require sanctions. However, Kamel Tebaast is warned that it is common sense to avoid editing when capacities are impaired by medication or other substances. There's also good support for Irondome's mentoring proposal but nothing binding for either Kamel or Irondome should be imposed here. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:34, 14 December 2016 (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 Kamel Tebaast[edit]
This editor has already been topic banned twice in less than 6 months. This is his second 1RR violation since having the last topic ban lifted. There is a much larger report covering all of his recent "contributions" to this encyclopedia, and the pettiness and bad faith exercises in those edits, but that will take a bit to compile. For now, here's a fairly clear 1RR violation. This user has proved himself incapable of abiding by the rules to edit in this topic area, and I really hope an admin doesnt indefinitely block and lift that block 2 days later after an off-wiki private discussion that they refuse to release any details about, and then lift the topic ban and allow this person to continue wasting our time.
@The Wordsmith:, the users very first edit coming off the topic ban was to remove a wikilink because it said the word "Palestine". He then, without ever once disputing that the agency in question was actually part of the British government of Palestine, proceeded to continue playing WP:IDHT on the talk page for a week. Along with that, he was arguing on the same talk page that the village in question was named after an ancient site that wasnt even discovered until several years after the village had been established and named. All because he did not want to include the well sourced fact that the name was taken from a nearby Arab settlement. See Talk:Beit_Alfa#Kibbutz_Beit_Alpha_was_not_named_after_an_Arab_village. Following that, KT proceeded to attempt to overwhelm the biography of a computer scientist and mathematician with irrelevant material, turning it into a proxy battle between Ephraim Karsh and Tom Segev, neither of whom are the subject of that BLP (diff. The rest of this cant really be discussed here. But, in sum, this person has repeatedly demonstrated that the agenda driven motives in his edits and the distinct lack of respect for Wikipedia policies, content and behavioral. nableezy - 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Yall should really institute a rule that involved editors may not comment on an enforcement request. nableezy - 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC) @Lankiveil: yes, this itself is minor. And maybe Im being lazy in seeing yet another minor violation and reporting it instead of actually putting together a more comprehensive report. But Kamel Tebaast is a terrible editor, an uninformed hyper-partisan who has contributed nothing of any substance to a single article in this topic area and has instead spent his time engaged in full out battle on behalf of his cause. He has personalized disputes beyond anything I have seen in however close to the decade Ive been here. He has been petty and vindictive, disinterested in abiding by even WP:BLP, willing to turn completely unrelated topics into proxy battlegrounds on either the topic or against editors he holds to be his antagonists. So yes, this is minor. But in the five months since this person has been allowed to edit in this topic area, a month after he began editing in topics since abandoned because his aim of being a warrior for the cause of Israel on Wikipedia is fairly clear, he has been topic banned twice for two of those months, and since returning has proceeded to demonstrate just how bad this person is for any project purporting to have the aim of creating reliably sourced neutral encyclopedia articles. As you have oversight Id be happy to email you regarding the private information that made me more willing to report a minor violation. @Lankiveil: sent.
Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast[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 Kamel Tebaast[edit]Nableezy is correct about one thing: I did violate the 1RR. I wish I could self-revert, which I would, but it is obviously too late. They should place warnings: DON'T EDIT WHILE ON MEDS. My only excuse is that I'm on heavy medications prior to a surgery tomorrow. I mistakenly thought that I had made a revert on another article. In any case, the revert in discussion was solid and should not to be construed as disruptive editing. If my intent was disruptive in nature or aimed at violating policy it would be one thing. This wasn't.
My only question is what are the administrators waiting for in order to close this complaint? The two complaints (and there were more) filed ahead of this have been closed, and five complaints filed after this have been closed. In terms of consensus, six uninvolved editors (Shrike, Monochrome Monitor, John Carter, Debresser, Sir Joseph, and Sagecandor) have written that no sanctions are warranted (other than a possible warning); one uninvolved editor (Malik Shabazz) did not suggest a sanction, but we can assume that he wants the death penalty (although I recently took him to AE, so I'm not sure how impartial he is); and one editor abstained with a solution (Irondome). The consensus of the administrators was more of the same, with four uninvolved admins suggesting, at most, a warning: BU Rob13 wrote, "Based on solely this instance, I see no reason to take action." He further added that "In the future, a good-faith message on the editor's talk page asking them to self-revert should be made before this is brought to AE." (Maybe this could become an official warning to Nableezy.); Lankiveil wrote that this "seems to be on the extremely minor side of things, and I don't see any reason not to AGF where the explanation is concerned..." They added that they are "still be in favour of closing this with a stern "don't edit while drugged up" warning..."; Peacemaker67 backed a "warning about editing while under the influence", and; The Wordsmith wrote, "Going by consensus, this seems like a relatively minor infraction". So, again, what will it take to close this complaint? KamelTebaast 21:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Shrike[edit]Usually users that violate 1RR given chance to self revert.The Kemal was not given such chance and he does accept it as mistake I think warning about being careful in the future will suffice--Shrike (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Monochrome Monitor[edit]It's unfair that he was reported without getting a chance to self-revert. This is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, where rules are preventative and not punitive. This is simply a "gotcha!" complaint, catching KT (drugged or not) in the act breaking the 1RR rule. Well, from my experience the 1RR rule is easy to break, and nableezy has reported me similarly for doing so without letting me self-revert even though I expressed intent to. But this isn't about me, I'm just saying this because I don't think nableezy understands what 1RR is for. It is not to punish your enemies but to encourage healthy debate, and these vexatious AE reports have a chilling effect.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Nableezy: Why revert completely if there are parts you dont object to? Why not just remove the scare quotes as you describe them?--Monochrome_Monitor 22:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Malik Shabazz: Can we keep this civil?--Monochrome_Monitor 22:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Zero0000: If they revert themselves, what's the problem? There is no "impunity" if they self-revert, and even you call it a "mistake". It's a fact that the vast majority of 1RR violations are accidental. Alerting users to their mistake doesn't mean you can't report them, it just means waiting a bit before doing so. The result is the same, their edit is removed, just without getting AE involved. Making people less likely to go to AE is a GOOD thing. The fact is that many users, like myself, never go to AE, and others, like Nableezy, go whenever an "enemy" slips up. (I will gladly take that back if someone can produce an example of Nableezy reporting an editor with his POV for a 1RR violation) If anything we rely too much on 3RR and 1RR violations as "hard indicators" of misconduct, warranting punishment regardless of the circumstances. But WP:IAR is a thing and if anything we should be more reliant on what are currently "soft indicators", namely, being a jackass. The worst offenders who act against the spirit of wikipedia by gaming revert restrictions would fall under that category, but those who politely apologize and self-revert do not.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC) @Zero0000: I'm not familiar with his baggage but the vast majority of editors (and things in the universe) are not "useless".--Monochrome_Monitor 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]Boo hoo! I was drunk, so I'm not responsible for my umpteenth violation of the rules. I'm on the side of the angels, so I deserve a Statement by John Carter[edit]I don't know that I've ever seen someone say they may have been temporarily impaired as a result of medications for surgery. If it is true, and I assume it is up to the AE enforcers to determine how much credit they give it, that it was due to such a unique set of circumstances, having myself been in a similar spot in the past, I can see how it might not be unreasonable to maybe allow a single instance of misconduct related to that slide, provided that there is no recurrence. If there ever is recurrence, throw the book or computer at him. The fact that the editor apparently wasn't given a chance to self-revert might also be considered in the decision. FWIW, I edited a wikisource page on a treaty when I was in the same situation, not here, but that was under probably different circumstances. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Debresser[edit]To me it is clear that Kamel Tebaast made one edit in the evening and a completely different one in the morning, and probably just forgot that he had made an edit the previous evening. In addition, the edits are sound, and I see nothing contentious about them. Nableezy's post here seems like his umpteenth attempt to get an editor from the "other camp" blocked for no real violation. I think this report should be dismissed and that's it. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]I echo what Debresser wrote and what I would like perhaps added to the rulebooks is that if you are bringing an AE action for a 1RR you also need to show that the user had notification of the 1RR and time to revert. There is a huge chill in the air in certain areas and it's just not nice to be around anymore. We need to bring back the "fun" of editing and not harp on every edit. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 00:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]A lot of nonsense is being written here. Editors who are known for editing in good faith are frequently given a chance to revert their mistakes before getting reported, but bad faith editors like Kamel Tebaast do not deserve such a courtesy. Establishing this as a "right" would fundamentally alter application of policy and would allow bad editors to violate 1RR/3RR with impunity, knowing that they can back out safely if they are challenged. As for my charge of bad faith, one can mention his edit-warring and bad faith argumentation at Beit Alfa, immediately after The Wordsmith removed his topic ban. At the talk page there you can see him trying to argue that this location was named after an ancient site not known to exist at the time, and refusing to accept multiple sources that clearly identify a government department. Zerotalk 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC) @Monochrome Monitor: What we must not allow is an environment where a bad editor can violate 1RR with the knowledge that they will get a chance to back off if the the edit is challenged. There is no such right, and if someone is reported for a 1RR violation it is their own fault alone. Nableezy already allowed KT to revert himself once recently; how many chances should he get? The admins who work here are capable of seeing the difference between a good editor who made an innocent mistake and a bad editor whose violation was not innocent. Note that "not innocent" is different from "deliberate"; someone who breaks 1RR without intending to during a pov-push is also not innocent. However, I personally think that 1RR is the least of KT's sins since he came off his topic ban. He should be re-banned because he is a disruptive useless editor. Zerotalk 01:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Irondome[edit]I am willing to mentor, as a last resort. This entirely depends on whether KT gets the fact that they need help before community patience is collectively exhausted, and community consensus would support such a move. I have in the past briefly mentored one member of the community who is now positively contributing to this discussion. POV is irrelevant if one sticks by the rules, is intellectually honest and is capable of self-reflection. The medical issue I am keeping an open mind about, and am inclined to be understanding. Even so, it was a terribly ill-timed co-incidence of events. Now, KamelTebaast, would you accept mentoring? My terms are strict, and I would not hesitate to hand over to admin action if you broke a mutually accepted mentoring agreement. I have watched this issue from the sidelines for some months, and am aware of the overriding problems to an extent. What does the community say? If agreed by all parties, I will present my conditions here. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sagecandor[edit]I would tend to WP:Assume good faith on this one, for if we all try to do that a little bit more towards each other, our community will hopefully be the better for it. A warning logged somewhere with a permanent link back to this discussion would be appropriate. Sagecandor (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Kamel Tebaast[edit]
|
Ag97
[edit]| Editor has been topic-banned by the community at ANI, making this discussion moot. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:56, 12 December 2016 (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 Ag97[edit]
Sneaky minor edits at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) to minimize fact it is fake, even though it impacts BLPs including living people who were endangered by a shooter with a rifle:
Discussion concerning Ag97[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 Ag97[edit]This is absolutely ridiculous. I made several good faith edits that improved the Pizzagate article. I gave clear reasons for all the changes, and can defend all of them. I am very willing to defend any of my edits on the talk page. This is an attempt to block me by Neutrality. Neutrality has threatened me, saying "Ag97 has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation on this very article. I think it is time for AE on this. Neutralitytalk 16:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)." Neutrality previously got me blocked for edit warring, even though he himself was guilty of edit warring just as much as me. I find it very concerning that Neutrality is attempting to bully me by using his administrator rights to threaten to block me for disagreeing with him. All of my edits were made in good faith, were justified, and improved the article. Nothing was intended to be sneaky, my edits were accurately described, and improved the article by rewriting phrases using more neutral language that more accurately describes the cited references. If Neutrality has a content dispute with me, he should discuss it on the talk page, rather than trying to get me blocked. This is nothing more than an attempt by Neutrality to silence someone he doesn't agree with. Ag97 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC) NorthSouthBaran 's accusations are also inaccurate. I never posted anything that was false, I said "conspiracy theory" and never claimed that the theory is true. The words "conspiracy theory" are sufficient to explain that the claims aren't true. No other Wikipedia article describes conspiracy theories as false, so why should this one be an exception? My edit was justified, as I explained [32]. NorthSouthBaranOf and Neutrality have no right to get me blocked for disagreeing with them.Ag97 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]I view these edits as problematic as well; the user inserted a lengthy discussion of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory into a related article, Podesta emails, without mentioning that the theory has been widely debunked, discredited and is viewed as false by all mainstream sources. This despite the fact that the two sources they cited explicitly call the theory "fake." The user in question may well be editing in good faith, but it is clear that they do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia content policies, particularly those regarding fringe theories and false claims about living people. They are clearly editing from the POV that the claims are "not proven false," which is at best a fringe viewpoint and at worst an overt attempt to spread libelous, ludicrous nonsense which has already resulted in one extremely dangerous incident. A number of the user's previous edits on the topic have had to be suppressed, and I suggest that the continuation of this behavior warrants a topic ban. They have demonstrated that they are not here to edit this topic in compliance with policy but rather in an effort to spread false claims about people, or at the least create the impression that there is some substantive debate about their veracity, as against the unanimous declaration of reliable sources that they are malicious lies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Neutrality[edit]I agree with Sagecandor and NorthBySouthBaranof. Ag97 has been extensively reasoned with, alerted, warned, and sanctioned, all to no avail. I consider the (repeated) BLP violations to be serious. Some sort of topic ban or revert restriction or both, applicable to American politics in general or conspiracy/fringe theories in particular, would seem to be in order. Neutralitytalk 18:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Timothyjosephwood[edit]The failure to understand that criticism of a source does not constitute a source is...fairly run-of-the-mill for these topics. The immediate jump to WP:ROUGE and WP:CABAL is concerning. User:NorthBySouthBaranofs characterization of this edit as a "lengthy discussion" is at best wrong. It is, in fact, a single sentence, and that may be a little WP:ABF. There has been a tendency on the article to want to pack in as much tentative and doubt-casting language as possible: Not sure there's been an insane amount of disruption, but not sure that discussion is really possible, since in about six seconds it went from zero to
Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]I have to admit that I'm a bit perplexed why this RfE was filed.
to:
I don't see any substantial difference between these two sentences. A more descriptive edit summary should have been used.
This seems to me to be a frivolous RfE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]I'm not disowning what I said previously, but replacing it with a simple statement of fact: Since this editor started in at the article, almost all effort put into the article has been trying to convince them that reliable sources are reliable, and unreliable sources are not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Exemplo347[edit]The fact that this Arbitration Enforcement action is taking place does not seem to have given the subject of it any reason to reflect on their actions. I'd urge a swift resolution to this, if only for the sanity of editors who are having to deal with his editing - it's like having to follow a puppy around with a pooper scooper. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Acroterion[edit]I've been keeping an eye on things Pizzagate for a couple of weeks. A few days ago I revdel'd a good bit of old defamation at related pages, some of which has since been oversighted, and I placed extended confirmed protection on the articles after semi-protection didn't do enough to stop disruptive editing. I've warned and blocked a few people for flat-out BLP violations. The pattern here is reminiscent of GamerGate, in which lots of new editors and previously inactive editors converged on the topic to insist that their POV, however discredited, was being suppressed in favor of material supported by mainstream sources, and that Wikipedia could not ignore what they termed "alternative media." The means by which both topics have been promoted are similar, and there is a good bit of overlap in the places where they are being promoted. The difference is that rather than shaming campaigns, doxxing, swatting and individual threats, Pizzagate involves enthusiastic defamation in the grossest terms and actual people with guns conducting "investigations." It is this enthusiasm for defamation, either overt or by omission that is being promoted here by Ag97 using similar arguments that somehow neutrality demands that we take lunatic fantasies seriously. Given the fact that the articles document real-time events we should not for a moment allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform for promotion of a pernicious assault on individuals who are unpopular with conspiracy enthusiasts. While some of hs edits are unproblematic or productive, Ag97 is using Wikipedia as a battleground for promotion of these attacks. Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]I'm not surprised to see Ag97 here; I'm only surprised that it took so long. I gave Ag97 a DS alert when, after a two year lapse from editing, they burst onto the scene with this edit to Bill Clinton, writing "Clinton was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick in an interview published on the news network Breitbart." sourced to Breitbart News and freebeacon.com. This was followed by a series of poorly-sourced edits in which Ag97 attempted to add material to several articles [40] [41] [42] [43] claiming that protests at Trump rallies were "done by paid instigators working for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign" sourced to the inimitable Washington Times. Here, Ag97 expresses his disdain for Wikipedia editors:
Statement by Eggishorn[edit]Having literally never posted in connection with ArbCom sanctions, I hesitated to stick my nose in here. That said, I think posting this edit to a contentious AfD discussion on a closely-related topic after this AE opened might be relevant to the discussion. Thank you Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ian.thomson[edit]Lots of ground has already been covered by others and I think enough evidence has been presented. With a single exception (that does not outweigh everything else), all of Ag97's behavior at Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) has been tendentious: he has held incredibly low standards to imply that Pizzagate is real (pushing for citing a primary source on Wikileaks), while making every hypocritical and asinine argument to deny the reliability of mainstream sources that don't support the conspiracy theory. He's been tried to argue that InfoWars is not a fake news site, because Alex Jones says it isn't, going as far as to misrepresent secondary sources based on his interpretation of primary sources, and completely ignoring the sources that have been cited across the whole site... because a noted conspiracy theorist says that his website isn't fake news (unlike, has said Jones, the New York Times). U.S. News & World Report is apparently unreliable, investigative journalism cited by other professional and mainstream news outlets is "simply made up the the editor", but "Not including Wikileaks is censorship". At a minimum, Ag97 does not need to be handling anything relating to Pizzagate. From what else I'm seeing here, he doesn't need to be handling anything relating to US politics, conspiracy theories, and possibly BLPs. TL;DR: Ag97 doesn't get that InfoWars is fake news, but demands we cite an out-of-context email. Him editing pages relating to American politics, conspiracy theories, or BLPs is like having a homeopath edit medical articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzG[edit]Ag97 appears to sincerely believe the fake news stories, and is acting on the assumption that failure to accept that POV amounts to deliberate malfeasance on the part of Wikipedia editors - an attempt to suppress The Truth™. As others have said, that's a pretty serious problem and not one that's likely to be fixed by discussion, so a topic ban is needed please. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Beyond my Ken[edit]Admins may wish to take notice of this report at AN/I concerning Ag97, if they haven;t seen it already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by John Carter[edit]Just so that you all know, there is a really long discussion over at ANI regarding proposed site bans and topic bans on this editor, at WP:ANI#User:Ag97 and accusations of bias at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist). John Carter (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Ag97[edit]
|
YahwehSaves
[edit]| Unanimous support for 30 day topic ban on all things Donald Trump, implemented by Bishonen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 11 December 2016 (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 YahwehSaves[edit]
User was blocked several times in the past for disruptive editing and socking.
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#Titles for Trump, started on 1 December, about how to describe Donald Trump in the lead sentence. YahwehSaves posted his suggested wording there on 4 December (unsigned) but didn't gain consensus. He then proceeded to change the lead sentence again despite having been warned about discretionary sanctions on his talk page and enjoined in edit summaries to gain consensus before applying his suggested descriptors.
User talk:YahwehSaves#DS report Discussion concerning YahwehSaves[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 YahwehSaves[edit]I believe JPG is not acting in good faith but is exaggerating himself in this matter: he has had some of his own edits in the introduction removed and deleted. I don't see anything wrong with my edits-editing in this situation, many editors have sought to "improve" the article lede as such and were reverted. The talk page subject (only involves a few editors opinions: real concensus cannot be reached on this and is too time consuming in this matter - its common knowledge Trump is a "business Magnate, TV personality, and author" rather then just a "businessman" and "politician" (so called politician: does not hold and never has held, a government office). YahwehSaves (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sagecandor[edit]Agree that these: [45] [46] [47] are disruptive and go against the model used for virtually all other person articles on this site. Sagecandor (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes[edit]Diffs #1, #4 and #6 are different minor modifications of intro made during a period of 8 days. These modifications are justifiable and minor. Other diffs are actually edits by other contributors or not a matter of concern. The user took part in discussions on article talk page. However, #4 + #6 are a 1RR violation, exactly as Dennis said below. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning YahwehSaves[edit]
|
TheTimesAreAChanging
[edit]| TheTimesAreAChanging is admonished and strongly warned that there is a reason why articles on American Politics are under Arb restriction. You are at the edge of getting topic banned or blocked. I would remind you that Arb restricted areas have little rope and you just used yours up. Discuss before reverting when you know it is going to be contentious. Being "right" is meaningless here, everyone thinks they are right. Unquestionably, if the problematic behavior continues, you will be topic banned, so I hope you use this one last chance wisely. If you want to argue about what NPOV or other policies demand, fine, do so using the talk page and not the revert button. There isn't a consensus and the interest has cooled down, so I'm taking this action to end this, using the least amount of force. Don't get used to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 12 December 2016 (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 TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]
See their talk page for recent previous incidents/warnings:
Reply to User:Soham321: You argue that it is better to warn a person than to threaten sanctions, and that a warning can allow the situation to be "easily resolved". I agree, and that is what I do, for a first offense. See the link just above in this section, where I did just that. The reason for this report is that the problematic behavior recurred after that warning. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC) User:Soham321, I hadn't noticed previously your "clarification" of items #1-3, which you seem to feel exonerates TheTimes. It was not necessary to cite here, although it may have been necessary at the time to clear things up for BullRangifer. Your explanation of what happened tallies exactly with mine. #1, he added something to the article: good faith, no violation. #2, he re-added it but immediately self-reverted, so again, no violation. #3, he then re-added it knowing it was controversial, and for good measure he described the previous removal of it as "vandalism", even though there had been a content-based edit summary with the deletion. Restoring content which had been challenged was a violation; arguably so was calling the removal "vandalism". Only after restoring the material (Nov 23, 00:16) did he start a talk-page discussion (Nov. 23, 00:55). (That discussion in itself is a piece of work, misquoting/distorting the edit summary that had been given for the deletion, and adding that the whole article would not exist "If it were not for the fact that women are extraordinarily privileged in modern American society."[48] ) --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: A minor correction, but since you have now brought this up twice: You say "did you notice that TTAAC had indeed started a section on the talkpage, as you suggested he should have done?" As I noted above, TheTimes actually started that talk page discussion only AFTER they restored the controversial content. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging[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 TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]I will respond to Melanie's statements in reverse. The child rape lawsuit against a living person was indeed a hoax and dropped prior to the election, hence why it was largely ignored by the media and not currently included (for lack of consensus) in the main Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article. Clearly, the mention of that lawsuit in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (which is already far too long and COATRACKY) reflected no "longstanding" consensus, but was merely an oversight. With regard to the "contentious" material I twice added to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations: If it had lasted longer than one day before being removed, would it then have gained the presumption of "consensus"? At least with regard to the "Miss Teen USA" content, it is quite clear that SPECIFICO and BullRangifer are gaming the system: Every single source on the topic notes that of the fifteen girls to comment on the matter, eleven—the clear majority—"were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy" because, e.g., they were surrounded by chaperones at all times. By declaring it uncontroversial to quote the four girls that accused Trump, but "contentious" to mention the other eleven from the same source, SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, and now Melanie are in effect arguing that Wikipedia policy actually requires us to intentionally misrepresent our own sources and mislead readers. That is an absurd and untenable position: If "consensus" dictates that the former recollections are within the scope of the article, by definition the same must be true of the latter. Moreover, if that is not the case—if there is no reasonable limit to obstructionism—then why can't I simply refuse to assent to the very existence of an article on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, per WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOTNEWS/ect.—or blanket delete the "Miss Teen USA" subsection, given that no sources describe Trump's alleged actions as "sexual misconduct" and the whole paragraph thus contravenes WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK? (If I were to do so, would the WP:ONUS then switch to my opponents, or would I be immediately reverted?) In sum, if a source or claim is included in an article, then I don't see how it could possibly violate the spirit of any Wikipedia policy to accurately quote the source and disclose all of the viewpoints it deems credible; in fact, that is exactly what WP:NPOV demands.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Prior to her latest collection of accusations, SPECIFICO reported me directly to two admins and filed this ANI report urging that I be topic banned (which failed to gain any traction with the community because it was obviously retaliation for an ANI report I filed against one of her comrades, since indeffed): She should really stop forum shopping. SPECIFICO purports to monitor and police every aspect of my behavior, including the ideas I express on my userpage, but she still tends to leap to conclusions unsupported by the diffs in question. For example, the "battle cry" in which I supposedly "boasted" about "besting" my "opponents" actually read: "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents." In the same way, Doug Weller warned me not to refer to another editor as a "Nazi," but when I pointed out that the editor in question was an actual unironic Nazi with a userpage devoted to Holocaust denial, he conceded: "Ok, I see why but there were better options that would have led to attention paid to that editor's userpage." Ect. Ect. Ect. Of special interest is SPECIFICO's version of the Dinesh D'Souza conflict documented in the ANI report: "He tries to enlist @Oshwah to assist him in continuing his edit war ... supposedly because 'his' version was 'stable'." (Why is "his" in quotes?) The notion that I advocated restoration to "my" version is simply an absurd caricature of my request; in fact, I urged Oshwah to consider reverting back to a version predating any edits by yours truly! SPECIFICO should be very careful before she accuses anyone of "straw man arguments" or "misrepresentation of other editors."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC) @Soham321: Yes, I am aware that my penchant for colorful, even vituperative language has gone too far and gotten me into trouble on occasion. Sometimes I have treated Wikipedia talk pages more like an online forum; now and then, I have even apologized. I have always tried to draw a sharp distinction between talk page rhetoric (or edit summaries, or my userpage—which SPECIFICO has mined for oppo-research) and edits to actual articles—hence the "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously" message SPECIFICO cites as evidence of the opposite—but I can see how my combative persona can be more of a liability than an asset, particularly when editing articles related to American Politics (where, I have now learned, content disputes are usually resolved by gaming and drama boards rather than substantive discussion). As a character witness, I point to the following comment by Guccisamsclub—an editor with politics well to the Left of my own, and whose opinion of me has fluctuated over time and may well continue to fluctuate, but with whom I have been able to collaborate constructively despite our disagreements: "You might want to stop throwing around terms like 'far-left', 'activist' and 'communist' ... it makes you sound like a shrill regular from Free Republic, Little Green Footballs or worse. Now I've had enough contact with you to know that's not true, but you could easily give the wrong impression to someone else and thus derail the conversation. You had me fooled for some time." (In my defense, Pol Pot considered Elizabeth Becker sufficiently Left-wing to invite her on a guided tour of Democratic Kampuchea, so referring to her as a "far-Left author" on my talk page—while poor form—is not much worse than SPECIFICO's recent attempts to smear Stefan Molyneux as a Nazi, possibly in violation of her Mises Institute topic ban.) @Bishonen: Edit summaries are necessarily snappy and may not include room for nuanced discussion. See here for my detailed thoughts on the "Founder of ISIS" soundbite:
Why did I allude to Trump's inflammatory quote? Because, despite all of the "fact checkers" that tow the government line with one voice, nothing I wrote above is controversial to experts on Syria: I urge those laughing at Trump's crude rhetoric (or all the "backward Arabs" that think ISIS is a CIA-Mossad conspiracy) to consider first whether the official U.S. government position they are defending has any more factual merit. I never suggested SPECIFICO is "a paid Democratic party shill"—don't put words in my mouth. I have profound problems with the way SPECIFICO conducted herself during a recent edit war at Dinesh D'Souza, and my description of her as a "hack" cannot be divorced from conduct such as the following:
This should tell you two things: 1. I don't attack editors because I am "angry," but because when I am attacked I have found it expedient to hit back twice as hard. (Given that that's no longer true with SPECIFICO stalking my contributions, I promise to cut it out.) 2. SPECIFICO is not a neutral arbiter. More importantly, SPECIFICO already brought these same diffs to another forum in a failed effort to topic ban me from Dinesh D'Souza; this thread has devolved from analyzing a specific DS violation that caused minor disruption into a witchhunt and personal attack on me, based on every unpopular idea I so much as expressed on my userpage. (Of course, my userpage also makes clear that I would be considered Left-of-center on issues like gay marriage, abortion, ect., but that's neither here nor there.) No editor would hold up perfectly under such scrutiny by a dedicated stalker and forum shopper.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I've just been informed that unlike ANI, there is no rule saying you must notify someone of an SPI. In fact, "it is often counterproductive to give such notices." I thought it was courteous to give those accused a chance to defend themselves, but if an admin feels it is "counterproductive," who am I to argue?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I'm glad you brought that up, even if you didn't quite do my argument justice. I do suspect that the vast majority of admins supported Clinton rather than Trump, although I have no way of proving this. Crucially, if American Politics is being policed primarily by non-Americans that is unlikely to reduce the problem of bias; to the contrary, I would speculate that a more "international" (or—let's be honest here—Eurocentric) perspective on Trump would be more Left-leaning and negative, perhaps seeing Trump as the ultimate distillation of every "Ugly American" stereotype. (As an example, you're an American, and yet—despite our differences!—I consider you to be easily the fairest and most level-headed admin I've encountered in the area. Maybe it's in part because you are upfront about any biases you might have.) Idle speculation aside, the data compiled by James J. Lambden doesn't lie: Not only are editors perceived as "pro-Trump" more likely to be reported to AE than editors perceived as "pro-Clinton" (by a factor of 3:1), but there is also a very different rate of conviction. By my count, 100% of "pro-Clinton" editors avoided any form of sanction, whereas 94% (17 of 18, not counting Anythingyouwant twice) of pro-Trump editors were sanctioned (only Marteau narrowly avoided punishment). If you believe this is because admins are infallible and "pro-Trump" editors are just vastly more disruptive, then I would have to ask why there is such a disparity between the admin comments and the comments of regular users both in the request against me (5:1 regular users against sanctions; 3:0 admins leaning towards sanctions) and Hidden Tempo's appeal (regular users split 5:4 against topic ban; admins supporting it 3:1)—and why no admin overruled Boing! said Zebedee's ridiculous decision to block Hidden Tempo for accurately describing Hilary Clinton's "trustworthiness" numbers as "feeble" (Cf. Merriam-Webster: "Business is suffering because of the feeble economy"). As for "the fix is in": To me, that 94% is a sobering harbinger of things to come.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC) @TParis: I did respond to Bishonen; you can see my full response above. In brief: Two of the three diffs concerned uncivil edit summaries I made in reference to SPECIFICO. I previously documented a much longer list of personal attacks SPECIFICO levied against me, but obviously two wrongs don't make a right, so I can't defend those remarks. The fact that SPECIFICO and I strongly dislike one another might be reason for an IBAN—although I am not advocating for that solution since I believe it would only cause more drama—but the edits in question were on my own talk page and only tangentially related to American Politics. With regard to my misappropriate of the President-elect's "Founder of ISIS" soundbite, that was just supposed to be a snappy edit summary. Of course I don't literally think Obama founded ISIS, but—as I explained—U.S. policy towards Syria may have inadvertently helped created the power vacuum that allowed the terror group to expand in size and influence. The source I cited, Seymour Hersh, may be controversial but he's notable and certainly not WP:FRINGE; indeed, he's previously been considered a hero to the American Left for his role exposing, e.g., the My Lai Massacre.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC) @Peacemaker67: So you're saying I should be topic banned for one revert without consensus? No-one here was suggesting anything like a topic ban until SPECIFICO—who has been following me around with a dogged persistence—attempted to caricature me as a POV warrior with a long series of diffs that largely failed to support her highly creative interpretation (as TParis noted). In particular, an edit summary in which I sarcastically referenced Trump's "Founder of ISIS" meme with full quotation marks is considered so shocking and inflammatory that TParis recommends a formal apology in addition to my repeated statements clarifying my intent—as well as a request that the edit summary itself be stricken from the record—in the hope that this might spare me. If this is just about the one revert—where I have admitted making a mistake and would have self-reverted had it not been quickly undone—then I would like to know why a full topic ban is a proportionate response to the disruption that one revert caused.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlexEng[edit]I am entirely uninvolved in this matter, but I am the author of the Friendly Reminder banner on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page. I just want to be clear that this was in fact a friendly reminder and not an indictment of the user's behavior. AlexEng(TALK) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]I don't see why this is at AE. There's little or no disruption and plainly looks like a content dispute. FWIW, I think TTAAC is making a good case here and on the talkpage for their edits. However, "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: good-faith but wrong-headed edits aren't vandalism - so the term should be avoided. "Hoax" is also imprecisely used; there are questions about the case, but it has not been definitely ruled a hoax AFAIK. We all have opinions about political matters, but it's usually best to make arguments and keep the normative opinions out of discussions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Suggestions by My very best wishes[edit]
Statement by Soham321[edit]Agree completely with Kingsindian. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Specifically, with respect to Melanie's four points, i see nothing wrong in the first edit of TheTimesAreAChanging. With respect to the second and third points of Melanie, i have offered a clarification here: diff. TheTimesAreAChanging has agreed that my assessment about his edits was correct. With respect to the fourth point of Melanie, note that there is an ongoing RfC about the Jane Doe allegations taking place at this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations and any material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations is not being permitted to be inserted into the main article. I see nothing wrong in removing material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations from a different WP page pertaining to Trump until this RfC has been resolved. Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC) it is inevitable that some 'heat' will be generated when editing contentious WP pages. The way to deal with this, almost always, is to tolerate it rather than to seek sanctions on editors one has content disputes with. At the top of the page it says that if you post a comment here then your own behavior can also be scrutinized. So let me scrutinize SPECIFICO's behavior for edits pertaining to the same Trump page from which Melanie has given three out of her four diffs. SPECIFICO warns me on my talk page (TP) and again on the TP of the main article that i am liable to face Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions (DS). What had i done? I had only added a sentence to the butler's testimony from a reference already present in the main article, and given another reference which was corroborating what the reference already present said. Diffs of her 'threats': diff1 and diff2. When i tell her on the TP that i do not believe i am in violation of Arbcom sanctions she responds by claiming the butler is 'biased' and liable to be senile: diff3. Since the butler is still alive i believe this is a violation of WP:BLP and i point it out to her. And giving frivolous threats to another editor about facing Arbcom sanctions is disruptive behavior, plain and simple. I am mentioning all this not because i seek sanctions against SPECIFICO but because i believe the threshold for giving sanctions has to be considerably higher than some of us seem to imagine. Soham321 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC) There is an interesting discussion taking place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hidden_Tempo (be sure to check the edit history of the page to see a recent edit of Melanie that has been reverted by Hidden Tempo). The relevance of this discussion is that this is again stemming from a content dispute related to the 2016 US Elections which can easily be resolved by giving a warning to the editor to tone down their language; instead we are seeing the editor being threatened with sanctions. Soham321 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC) MelanieN I have seen the two links you gave to the previous warnings. The one where he called the editor who had introduced an edit in the lead of the Ronald Reagan page, from a self-published blog, an 'idiot' is mitigated by two things. First, removing that edit from the lead of the Reagan page contributed to improving the quality of the article. Second, when he called the person 'idiot' he did not name anyone and it seemed he did not even know who the person who introduced this edit was (probably the edit had not been introduced recently) and this makes his comment less inflammatory than it would otherwise have been. Still he appropriately received a warning about using the word 'idiot'. The person who gave this warning has clarified in this discussion that this was only a friendly warning, not an indictment of the user's behavior. He did not protest against being given the warning, and we have to give him the benefit of doubt and accept that he agreed he had made a mistake by using the word 'idiot'. With respect to the first link you gave, he explained he introduced the disputed edit back into the main article on the basis of a 4-2 consensus, since he had seen disputed edits placed back in main articles on even weaker consensus. Of course, he is wrong and Bull rightly pointed out to him on his talk page why he is wrong. But i don't see him protesting when Bull tells him he is wrong meaning, again giving him the benefit of doubt, that he agrees with Bull. Nothing here deserves sanctions. Not his previous edits, because of which he was warned, and not his more recent edits because of which sanctions have been sought against him. This much said, i think we can ask him to tone down his language, specifically in edit summaries. I agree with Kingsindian's suggestion: "TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms." The problematic words used by TheTimesAreAChanging, in my opinion, were 'idiot', 'hoax', and 'vandalism'. TTAAC, do you agree with the assessment of Kingsindian and myself? Do you agree to do what we are suggesting? Soham321 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC) I agree with MelanieN's comment and request TheTimesAreAChanging to strike out the comment Melanie has referred to immediately. I will note that I was the "another user" Melanie refers to and by not arguing with me on what I was saying he, to give him the benefit of doubt, expressed agreement with what I said. Nevertheless I urge TTAAC to strike out the problematic comment immediately as an act of good faith to everyone here.Soham321 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I am disappointed with TParis's decision to retract his comments in this discussion. I thought they were very appropriate. Soham321 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Peacemaker67's objection seems to be to a single edit of TheTimesAreAChanging in which the edit summary "rv vandalism..." was used. This edit, which was a revert, resulted in the insertion of some text in the main article. That text is still currently present in the main article which vindicates TTAAC's editorial judgement although I agree that the word 'vandalism' should not have been used in the edit summary by TTAAC. The other point is that TTAAC violated the 1RR restriction through this edit but given that TTAAC's editorial judgement pertaining to this edit has been vindicated, and TTAAC has expressed regret for violating the 1RR restriction on several occasions, does it really deserve a lengthy T-ban from all articles pertaining to US politics? I have one other concern. Given that this is an AE appeal pertaining to US politics, with several underlying content disputes, as is evident by reading the now retracted comment of TParis, I was disturbed to read Peacemaker67's comment in the 'Result' section of this discussion that "American politics in general is something that is just unfathomable to me." Soham321 (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Kingsindian (KI) has now deleted the material TheTimesAreAChanging had re-inserted into the main article in which TTAAC had used the edit summary "rv vandalism...".KI explains on the article talk page for why he is removing this material. Nevertheless, my point about TTAAC having essentially sound editorial judgement still stands because this material was only removed a short while back (on December 7) while TTAAC's re-insertion took place on November 23 and there have been six other editors who made intervening edits to that article (after TTAAC's re-insertion, and KI's removal of the material). The material was removed in the intervening period by BullRangifer on the basis of what seems to have been a misunderstanding, and re-inserted by Angelsi 1989. I am leaving a message on the talk page of one of these two editors about this AE discussion since I am not able to ping him properly to this discussion (because they don't have a user page); I have pinged the other editor. Soham321 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Peacemaker67's new argument is that TTAAC called a journalist "insane" and this makes it a BLP violation which contributes to justifying a topic ban. The edit in which the "insane" word was used pertained to this comment: "According to Ben Tarnoff, writing in The Guardian, a key element of Trumpism is that it holds "the notion that people of color and women are less than fully human", and does so explicitly, unlike other elements in the Republican Party." (TTAAC removed the views of Tarnoff from the Trumpism article; the 'insane' word was used in the edit summary when he removed Tarnoff's comments.) Of course the word "insane" should not have been used. And in fact the edit summary in which this word was used has been revdeled. But can the usage of this word in that specific context justify a topic ban or even justify any kind of sanctions. Let's consider the relevant jurisprudence: diff1 and diff2 Soham321 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (SPECIFICO)[edit]@Soham321: @Kingsindian: -- Most Arbcom violations arise from "content disputes". The issue here is whether this user violated ARBAP2 Sanctions that have been put in place to ensure orderly and respectful discussions and resolutions of those content disputes. TheTimesTheyAreAChanging had been editing disruptively on politics-related articles for some time now. He narrowly avoided a block at a recent AN3. Instead of discussion, he launches into straw man arguments, equivocation, misrepresentation of other editors, and personal attacks. Until recently, His user page read like a battle cry, starting with boast that he bests his "opponents" which he removed after I referred to it at his AN3 thread. His entire user page is a bizarre political rant of the sort I've not seen on any other user's page. This user seems to work constructively on articles relating to video games and other innocuous topics, but he lacks the emotional maturity to work on these difficult politics-related articles. I recommend a topic ban from American Politics. Let's see whether this user can refrain from yet another round of personal attacks on me here. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Starting to collect some diffs on this editor: Here is a long talk page thread in which he launches into repeated personal attacks on editor @NYCJosh: [51]' Some of the many battleground edit comments -- and these are just from the past few weeks! [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Here he removed a DS notice from his talk page with the edit comment "not interested, pal" He subsequently denied that he edits articles related to American Politics! He's been warned repeatedly by various users,and recently by Admins: @DoRD: here. Then, here, he tries to enlist @Oshwah: to assist him in continuing his edit war after Oshwah protected a page on which TheTimesAreAChanging was edit warring, supposedly because "his" version was "stable." @Doug Weller: warned him here and the attacks and disruption have only gotten worse. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Hi @Bishonen: Sorry, I forgot the link. It's here and @Oshwah: observes that TheTimesAreAChanging has violated 3RR here that he's received the DS notice, and that he will be blocked for further edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC) I sure hope that y'all are reading all the comments and links before commenting. 4 Admins warned this user. Other editors politely asked him to stop edit warring on numerous American Politics articles (the ones he claims, in one of the links that he does not edit). Ad hominems, mansplaining, personal attacks and disparagement should not be OK in any article. Under DS users should know that such behavior will surely lead to a block. Actions have consequences. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC) I just happened to notice this gratuitous smear of me as a co-conspirator of one of TTAAC's "opponents." I had posted on this user's talk page before he was banned, so TTAAC's message came up on my watchlist. I also had TTAAC's talk page on my watchlist for the same reason, and I saw him straightforwardly tell an editor that he's had a feud with me from 2012 -- a mind-boggling statement, considering that when I checked I found two articles on which we'd both edited that year. On one, Paul Ryan he was page-banned for disruption. On the other he was edit warring unsourced content into an article with typical disparaging and accusatory edit comments and talk page notes. Of the thousands of editors with whom I've shared various pages over the years, I cannot imagine being obsessed with animus and revenge like that. I would like to request, in addition to a TBAN from American Politics, that the Admins also impose a one-way interaction ban so that TTAAC will stop stalking and harassing me. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Here, TTAAC is tendentiously canvassing Admin @Hut 8.5: about another piece of TTAAC's paranoid conspiracy theories about one of his "opponents." Then, another battleground taunt on the target's talk page [58] is removed (see edit comment) by Admin @DoRD: here after a TTAAC's second Checkuser request against his "opponent" was declined at the SPI he launched. Then, here, he goes to DoRD's talk page to misrepresent the taunt as a "notification." Another example of hostile misrepresentation is found here: Here, he casually refers to "SPECIFICO's forum-shopping" -- which apparently refers to my having commented on this AE and on his AN3 thread, neither of which I initiated, and which related to two distinct infractions. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC) There seems to be ample evidence for enforcement here, so this thread may be ripe for closure. Sadly, however, there's a fresh post on another AE thread at this page here that shows TTAAC first denying the evidence here, saying that his own linked contributions have been "used to caricature me as some sort of POV warrior, which couldn't be further from the truth". This is followed by yet more of his political soapboxing, in this case about "Wikipedia's predominant liberal thesis" and lack of "pro-Trump Admins". This was accoompanied by some window dressing to his user page so that the current version contains somewhat less of the battleground and soapbox stuff railing against Wikipedia's mainstream representation of history. See here. I hope this editor grows out of his behavioral issues, but at this time, it's clear that a substantial TBAN from American Politics is called for, to prevent ongoing drag that poisons the efforts of the vast majority of editors who are trying to stick to NPOV, engage in rational discussion of editing and policy application, and are dedicated to observing the restrictions of ARBAP2 for the good of the Encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC) New violation -- A jaw-dropper, given TTAAC's having appeared to control himself for the duration of this AE thread: See the edit comment on a Trump related article here -- a violation not only of ARBAP2 but also a violation of ARBBLP. TTAAC states matter-of-factly that a respected living author and political commentator is "insane". That kind of BLP smear is beyond the pale. A short-term block or TBAN is not going to change TTAC's behavior. The remedy must address the scope of the problem. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC) This is exactly the problem with TTAAC's behavior on WP. WP:Competence is required. Mature collaborative editors do not have "opponents" -- we have discussions and occasionally we have disagreements, and we follow behavioral norms and proven process to resolve them. Where would TTAAC get his view that SPECIFICO "doesn't like" him. I never said anything of the sort, so where does he get the impulse to feel everything personally and to project that attitude onto others? I have no opinion at all about him or 99% of the other editors here, because we're all strangers trying to work together on this Project. I have never personally attacked Mr. TTAAC, but he's apparently unabile to understand that, to understand the meaning of "vandalism" here, or even to keep his opinions under his hat when they're off-topic and inflammatory. These are among the behaviors that make it impossible for TTAAC to edit without dragging the project down. After his BLP-smear edit comment on the Trumpism article, I posted the standard BLP DS template on his talk page. He immediately deleted it with this edit comment. The reason I have devoted time to this thread is not that I "don't like" this person TTAAC whom I've never met and know little about. I'm here because disruptive editing is a huge drain on the resources of this Project and on all of our time and effort. It's the one thing that's worth the little extra time and distraction needed to quash it. There's a reason for ARBCOM sanctions. A brightline violation such as the one MelanieN documented, coming after so many prior warnings, has clear consequences. It's not something to be argued away with theories and charts of "left" and "right" editors and Admins. That is the kind of relativism that undermines a policy-based collaborative system such as WP. If we ignore violations, the result will be that the thousands of other editors who are trying to work constructively and respectfully will continue to suffer the deadweight loss of this kind of disruption. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by shrike[edit]I never edited this topic area (as far as I can remember) and I don't see here anything beyond content dispute.--Shrike (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by AnotherNewAccount[edit]Hi. Uninvolved editor here. A suggestion: kick the entire topic area to ArbCom. The constant ructions been a constant thorn in the side of AE for months. It is too much of a battleground now for something not to be done. None of the current editors have clean hands, and a mass cross-partisan topic-banning of most of the current editors may well be in order. Only ArbCom has the will to do that. Some observations from clicking through the random diffs supplied in this case:
Administrators: It is quite clear that many of you favored Hillary Clinton for president over Donald Trump. And it is clear to me that several of you are partial against those editors whose editing has favored Trump over those whose editing has been against Trump. I am quite certain that if TTAAC had been an anti-Trump editor you'd be looking for excuses to WP:BOOMERANG the reporting editor. I am not going to point fingers, but I am of a similar mind to that expressed by User:TParis elsewhere on this page. I have no confidence in your collective impartiality. Retain some dignity for AE, and kick this to ArbCom! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]
|