Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive219
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser
[edit]| Appeal declined. All admins who commented made clear that they would support an unblock only if Debresser understood and agreed to abide by their topic ban, but if anything, we've seen statements to the contrary. ~ Rob13Talk 14:57, 4 August 2017 (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 Debresser[edit]I was apparently blocked for this edit, making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, and as I said very clearly in the edit summary of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far. If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! And to those who will say that these kinds of "arguments" do not help, or even may be detrimental to my main argument, I say: I will say the truth as I see it. I see no reason why your opinion about Wikipedia is more true than mine, just because you are an admin. I have edited here almost ten years and have almost 100,000 edits on my name, and am entitled to my opinion, and to express it. Now you do whatever you think is right. At most you will disappoint me once more. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC) My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Wikipedia. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. For me, Wikipedia is an on-Wikipedia thing. I am not leading a double life. Debresser (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by GoldenRing[edit]I'm very happy to have my enforcement action reviewed here and to reverse it if there is significant opinion that I have erred. I'm on a tablet at present so this will be quick notes to which I will add diffs tomorrow morning. Debresser was topic-banned for two months, by me, which he appealed unsuccessfully. He started collecting notes on his talk page for things to do once the ban was over ([1]). Someone pointed out that this was a ban violation, so Debresser asked me for clarification. I think I was unambiguous in my response that such edits are not allowed. He continued making his list, including an article that very clearly falls within the scope of his ban, so I blocked him for 72 hours to enforce the ban. GoldenRing (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra[edit]Debresser writes "when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area". I strongly disagree with this statement. Debresser was topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine for calling me "anti-Jewish", without any proof whatsoever. That Debresser still doesn't see that his behaviour is troublesome, is very worrying. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]Just a comment that I think bans should never apply to a user talk page. It's not disruptive and nobody is forcing anyone to read it.
Statement by Nishidani[edit]Debresser in his unblock request challenged my bona fides, as if I were aiming to get him off Wikipedia, when I warned him 3 times not to violate his Tban, without recourse to AE. When he sought to take this to AE I advised Debresser not to do so. He reverted that advice, as is his right. Just for the record, this is not about just 1 infraction, but several.
Statement by Capitals00[edit]I think Debresser should be unblocked since its the first violation of recent topic ban. Capitals00 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]I suggested on Debresser's talk page that he just make his notes on his computer, as he is presumably using a computer to make the notes on his talk page he could just as easily open up notepad or an equivalent program and make notes to his heart's desire. The response is My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Wikipedia. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. That right there is the problem, the belief that he is entitled to do whatever he wishes whenever and wherever he wishes. He got off light with a time-limited topic ban, seeing as at least one admin was going to make it indef, and he had been warned against making notes on the topic area prior to the block. But the need to keep pushing the limit, to prove that he is entitled to do what he wishes where he wishes, that is the same attitude that led to the past topic bans. Debresser, all you have to do is say I understand I may not comment on the topic area and I will refrain from doing so, in any way, anywhere on Wikipedia for the duration of the topic ban. And boom, block lifted. But you want to assert your right to ignore the parts of the ban you dislike. That's your choice obviously, but I cant imagine that its going to be successful. nableezy - 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (editor)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser[edit]Result of the appeal by Debresser[edit]
|
E.M.Gregory
[edit]| E.M.Gregory is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from editing anything related both to living persons and the politics of Venezuela for three months. Sandstein 07:36, 8 August 2017 (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]
After his and my third reversions, I left a third message for E.M.Gregory, explaining that one does not add or restore poorly sourced garbage to BLPs and then "improve the sourcing"; one fixes the sourcing and then adds or restores the material. I also asked that he self-revert to avoid this filing. Obviously, he refused to do so. Although he will argue that he is a new editor who wasn't aware of the rules, E.M.Gregory has been editing Wikipedia for nearly three years and has made more than 25,000 edits, of which roughly 14% have been to BLPs. No, he is not unaware of the rules, he is willfully ignorant of the rules. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:57, 5 August 2017 (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]Context here is that Malik Shabazz and I disagree and have interacted about I/P, Islamist terrorism, and many other political issues. Recently, we have locked horns in a series of AfD discussions regarding terrorist attacks. Another bit of context is that Klein had made defending and admiring Hugo Chavez's and his program for Venezuela as a new path to a bright future a major part of her career. Commentators such as Terence Corcoran who have disagreed with Klein on Venezuela since she spoke glowingly of his repression of the media in 2003 have been beating up on her all year as the Venezuelan economy collapses. Corcoran's January 2017 article "Terence Corcoran: Chavez’s Canadian fan club is awfully quiet about Venezuela’s utter meltdown", which ran over a photo of Klein, [2] is one of many articles I could have added to support the assertion that I had started with, then removed, that Klein's praise of Chavez has been "fulsome" and that it is noteworthy. I was shocked when Malik Shabazz responded to my first, brief addition to to Naomi Klein. The edit was sourced to an by James Kirchick entitled " "Remember all those left-wing pundits who drooled over Venezuela?"" using Klein as his leading example and quoting her statements in detail. I responded on my talk page: "Sourcing a section to bluelinked commentators citing direct quotes from Klein is not POV-pushing. Here: is the edit: [4]. However, I will enhance the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)" "For the curious, this is an editor objecting to adding a section to Naomi Klein discussing her long-standing promotion of Venezuela (a country where the economy has collapsed, the government is close to collapse, and the conditions of life are plummeting to appalling depths,) as a shining model of the great success of a new model 21st century socialism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)" and next made a rapid series of edits improving section on Venezuela that I had added ot her page, a section that I had placed in chronological order between sections on Klein's opinions about the Iraq War and Israel. My edit notes read: (Undid revision 793862330 by MShabazz (talk) expanding sourcing, but these are well-known columnists giving direct quotes, also one of the sources is Klein's own statement) (Undid revision 793864118 by MShabazz (talk) as I said before, enhancing sourcing now.) (→Venezuela: expand, source), (→Venezuela: tidy up), (→Venezuela: expand, tweak, source), (→Venezuela: 2nd source, Robert Fulford (journalist) book review), (→Venezuela: tweak), (→Venezuela: tweak), (→Venezuela: grammar), (→Venezuela: typo). I then returned ot my talk page and responded to Shabazz: "*Venezuela section cleaned-up, sourced. Certainly a significant part of her ouvre and a useful addtion to her page. Feel free to expand or tweak.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)" I believed that with this last edit I was signalling to Malik Shabazz that I was finished editing the Naomi Klein page. Then he started this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC) I do acknowledge that I lost my cool here. I made a careless, hasty edit, lost it when my hasty edit was immediately pounced upon by Malik Shabazz, then totally lost my cool when he was seconded by GracefulSlick, and Nishidani. And as I said, I lost it in my first two responses here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Responding to comments by GracefulSlick[edit]
Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]This seems a pretty clear-cut issue; while opinion columns may be reliable sources for attributed opinions of the columnist, if relevant, they are absolutely not to be used for encyclopedia-voice statements of fact about living people. To the extent E.M. Gregory has violated this rule (and it can hardly be said to be an accidental mistake), they need to be, at the least, admonished about their use of sourcing in a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]This probably reflects poor practice rather than anything else. One can separate out two things. Klein has made favorable statements about Chavez. This is not in doubt. How one should describe the matter, should be decided by NPOV. Clearly, the original phrasing "noted for her fulsome praise of the Venezuelan dictator" rather badly fails NPOV. The current phrasing in the article is a bit better, but basically all it's doing is to take the statements from the op-ed piece, softening them a bit, and then Googling for supporting evidence. This kind of stuff is actually bad practice for NPOV: one is supposed to look at a broad array of sources and summarize it, not simply Google for things which one wants to add into Wikipedia. But I see this all the time, and I doubt it can be cured, or if it is even desirable. Perhaps I'm too cynical. I don't think this is a BLP issue as such. I would treat it like an NPOV issue. As such I don't think any sanctions are warranted. Perhaps a warning. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]Though @NorthBySouthBaranof: is correct that opinion pieces can be useful and reliable sources for the opinion expressed by their author, it is my understanding that they may also be used as a source for an assertion of fact. For example, if a New Yorker Talk of the Town quoted a cab driver as saying, “LaGuardia is a bum!” that’s not a reliable source for stating that LaGuardia is a bum; it's just an opinion. But if the same piece asserted that midtown cabdrivers typically worked 48 hours a week and that many were members of Teamsters’ Local 666, these would be reliably sourced since (a) they are facts, not partisan opinions, and (b) they can be checked, and the reputation of The New Yorker assures us that they would have been checked. It is increasingly common for newly-recruited editors (and sock puppets) to claim that all current mainstream sources are inherently biased, and that all bylined reporters are partisan, and therefore cannot be used even for sourcing facts. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Nishidani[edit]I'm only commenting because I thought, after Colin Powell was roasted for using the word 'fulsome' not in its primary sense of 'offensive to good taste' but in its more recent sense of 'abundant', journos would be more careful. The edits reversed are of course attack dumping by opening up sections to list badmouthing comments about any ('leftist') controversialist. On an encyclopedia, and BLPs, one should spend energy on (a) outlining precisely what the person thinks, and then (b) what intelligent critics say in response. This is usually not done: one trawls for 'fulsome' praise or 'dirt' so that readers are swamped with haphazard 'opinions' that are as useless as tits on a bull. This is getting characteristic of too much editing on bios, Gregory. The next logical move would be to go sequentially to the pages on Ken Livingstone, Ken Loach, Jesse Jackson, Howard Zinn, Dennis Kucinich, Perry Anderson, Tony Benn, Eric Hobsbawm, Alexander Cockburn, Tariq Ali, Oliver Stone, Harold Pinter etc., etc., and note some commentator abhorring the fact that each 'praised' Chavez (or his programmes) or on one of his presidential bids. ('dictator' is opinionable: he was elected etc.) So what? What were they praising about Chavez's programme? Futile, irresponsible and uninformative. Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by TheGracefulSlick[edit]I wanted to present to this case more incidents of Gregory violating BLP and POV to avoid the misconception that this is a secluded incident. Here at this discussion Gregory advocated for a version of an article that uses WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to seemingly attempt to override a ruling of not guilty by a Swedish court of law, regarding a BLP subject. Further below he supported the inclusion of the opinion from a filmmaker, despite concerns about its authenticity and the fact the video interview (where the quotes originated from) never actually addressed the incident in question. At this AfD Gregory, again, wanted to retain an article and use sources to insinuate the guilt of innocent men. Worse still, when the AfD was not going in his favor, he included the material with WP:UNDUE weight at the Lars Vilks article (twice), knowing consensus at the AfD was the incident was not terror related, and any mention of the non-plot needed to be brief as well as neutrally phrased.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Jytdog[edit]Am bummed to see this. E.M.Gregory you are probably correct that there is a hole where content about Chavez should be in the Klein article, but the initial edit, sourcing it on an op-ed piece attacking her is just... not good.... And then the expansion using more content from the same source and adding an additional opinion piece that was also critical of her --Venezuela’s collapse and the ‘useful idiots’ of the Canadian left -- just dug that hole deeper.. especially when your editing had already been flagged as a BLP issue. Granted from someone you have had past disputes with, but you have no leg here. Even more so because of the immediate clash, which should have caused you to rethink. If you were aiming for NPOV content based on strong sourcing you would have taken a very different approach. One would have been to to very clearly WP:ATTRIBUTE and use the Kirchick and Macleans opinion pieces to describe criticism, and cite... oh Socialist Review and Daily Kos to provide content and refs for further reading for how people on her "side" view her support for Chavez. And cite something from her maybe, like this Nation piece. Best of all would have been to avoid either kind of partisan source and look for high quality reporting (not opinion) discussing Klein's views. Which is hard to find (not in NYT, New Yorker, or Atlantic for example). this book reveiw is not terrible and probably would not have drawn the initial revert... it also provides enough discussion of how Chavez fits into the rest of her thinking about the world, that you could have written some more nuanced content instead of just sticking an inflammatory factoid into the article. But please step back and consider that your initial approach as well as your subsequent restorations were coming at this the wrong way. It is hard to write about this stuff and the BLP DS are there for a reason. Please. If you cannot see this and acknowledge it I can only support some action being taken. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning E.M.Gregory[edit]
|
Wickey-nl
[edit]| Blocked for three months for TBAN violations. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2017 (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 Wickey-nl[edit]
User who was indefinitely topic banned from ARBPIA and insulted the administrator who imposed the sanction with antisemitic and racist slurs has violated his ban (despite it doesn't say in his talk page that it was lifted):
Discussion concerning Wickey-nl[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 Wickey-nl[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Wickey-nl[edit]
|
Nishidani
[edit]| Page protected for three days to give the talk page a chance. If disruption continues once protection express, please let me know or bring it back here. GoldenRing (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2017 (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 Nishidani[edit]
It has long been established that waiting 24 hours + a couple more does not put an editor outside the 1RR restriction, particularly if done multiple times on the same page. It's an obvious attempt to game the system. Nishidani has been blocked many times for edit warring and has recently returned from a one month topic ban. He is fully aware of this restriction and violates it repeatedly. I was going to give him a chance to self-revert, but then noticed he did the same thing a couple of days prior (not to mention I was not awarded the courtesy of a warning and still got blocked for 1RR, so it's obviously no longer considered part of the informal etiquette here). There are two other editors who participated in this edit war who I'm not reporting here:
@KI: Clearly Nishidani was trying to game 1RR, twice in 4 days. In fact, between the last two reverts he actually made another edit a few hours earlier [8], which was within the 24 hours restriction, then came back a few hours later to make the revert. Obvious gaming is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC) @Goldenring: Are you saying 24+2 hours (twice in a few days) is not a 1RR violation? Because people with waaaay cleaner records than Nishidani have received lengthy topic bans for exactly that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nishidani[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 Nishidani[edit]Nice morning greeting on my page. I can't see how I broke 1R- I noted to the edit-warrior they had, but didn't report it, trying to reason. If I have broken 1R I'll revert of course, but at a glance, NMMGG is looking at the page edit conflict purely in terms of what I do, not the context, nor the, to me, incomprehensible edit behavior of the other party. I must to breakfast, and will examine this later.Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I know the 2000 Ramallah Lynching case fairly thoroughly, but have never been able to help ironing out the many defects there because it is one of those I/P pages where, if you touch it, you get edit-warring by people who read one or two sources, and try to 'fix' the lead according to their preferred POV. At first I noticed just a grammatical flaw in François Robere’s edit. Since doing the edits on aborigines requires huge amounts of close background reading, I didn’t have much time to do anything but elementary fixes here.
NMMGG’s 3 edits to the page when he stepped in on the 8th, did not alter the grammar ce I had introduced, so I took this version of the page as he left it, as indicating his acceptance that the consecutio temporum issue I fixed had a 3 to 1 consensus. Notwithstanding that, Robere insisted on reverting to his preferred ungrammatical version, reverting even NMMGG on this (to me, crucial point), adding that the PA police role is still disputed (well, no source was given for this, just as NMMGG gave no source, indeed contradicted the article, in plunking into the lead the unacceptable:
NMMGG’s response was to accuse me of being the edit-warrior and threatening AE action if I didn’t revert, while acknowledging technically I hadn’t broken 1R (as had François Robere) (23:41, 8 August 2017) NMMGG over several years has a quasi professional interest in anylysing the minutiae of every edit I make since he is convinced I am a major disgrace to wikipedia. He should know after several years that we are on different time zones and that when he made that warning I had been inactive for 2 hours, and when he made this AE complaint, there was no trace of my being online. I was sleeping. He waited 2 hours and then 01:25, 9 August 2017 notified me he had reported me. Please note that NMMGG then, a few minutes later, notified Robere that he had broken 1R unambiguously 5 days earlier, offering assistance. Very very odd, since, as noted above, NMMGG had stepped into the fray, fully aware that Robere had been notified 5 days earlier by myself and Huldra, both of us taking no action against him. In short, double standards. NMMGG has a very low wiki profile, except to step in to disputes, esp. when I am present. Look at his contributions. Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra[edit]I reverted François Robere after discussing with him on his talk page, telling him that he broke the 1RR rule. See User talk:François Robere. He refused to self revert, it didn't look as if he believed me, when qouted the rules. I reverted instead of taking the bother to report him. I promise: in the future I will just report him to AE instead.
Oops, my apologies, No More Mr Nice Guy has indeed edited the 2000 Ramallah lynching article before (I have no idea as to how I missed that.) For me the choice was either to
I chose the second, as I hate all the bureaucracy of reporting other users. Apparently I should just have reported him. Noted. Huldra (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]Clearly, there was no 1RR violation by Nishidani. There is some edit-warring by various sides going on. There is a long discussion going on at the talkpage where people are arguing various points. It's a bit heated, but no more than other discussions in this area. There have been compromises by people: for instance, see this edit by Nishidani which uses "accidentally" with attribution in the body. On the other side, after NMMNG made this wrong edit, Francois Robere rephrased it here. I suggest full protection for a few days while the matter is sorted out on the talkpage. No other action is necessary. Francois Robere broke 1RR and refused to revert, but they're new in this area, so they should be warned and not sanctioned. Francois Robere thinks that invoking the 1RR rule is "lawfare"; it's not, it's simply one of the rules in this area to slow down edit wars and make people discuss on the talkpage. Indeed, Robere only started discussion on the talkpage after Huldra reverted them. NMMNG's actions here are deeply cynical. They claim that they reported Nishidani to AE because giving people a chance to self-revert is no longer considered part of informal etiquette here; this claim in a situation where it was Nishidani and Huldra asked Francois Robere to self-revert but they refused, is rather baffling. NMMNG is just importing a dispute with another editor into this one for reasons best known to themselves. I hope the norm in this area of people warning other people who break 1RR is maintained. Most people working in this area are "old hands". We don't need silly wars of attrition here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by Shrike[edit]
Statement by François Robere[edit]
Statement by Nableezy[edit]It was not "generous" of NMMNG to not report Francois Robere, it was calculated. Calculated to advance his editorial goals. There is exactly one person who violated the 1RR here, and it isnt Nishidani. That said, full protection seems the way to go here, with the version prior to any edit-warring locked in place and the "edit-warriors" locked on the talk page to achieve some sort of consensus. nableezy - 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Result concerning Nishidani[edit]
|
The Diaz
[edit]| No action. User:The Diaz is reminded not to edit war, but of the diffs presented, those that are even broadly problematic are quite stale. GoldenRing (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2017 (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 The Diaz[edit]
Per their edit count this account made its first edit Jun 17, 2016 and has about 1000 edits. They concentrate overwhelmingly on matters of nationality, race, murders, etc. which fall at the intersection of the US politics and BLP discretionary sanctions. They appear to have difficulty understanding basic principles of editing in such loaded topics, and the persistent bringing up of legal threats is especially unhelpful and in general it is not clear to me if they are here to build an encyclopedia.
Discussion concerning The Diaz[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 The Diaz[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning The Diaz[edit]
|
Twitbookspacetube
[edit]| Twitbookspacetube, a.k.a. Barts1a and PantherLeapord, is topic-banned from all American politics-related WP:BLP content for three months. This is without prejudice to any additional block another admin may want to apply. Sandstein 21:08, 15 August 2017 (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 Twitbookspacetube[edit]
No previous sanctions I can find.
This article is about a current event in which someone drove a car into a crowd. I removed the name of the driver from the article on WP:BLPCRIME grounds, as he is not well-known and (obviously, having been charged in the past couple of days) has not yet been convicted of a crime. Rather than start a discussion on re-inclusion, User:WWGB reverted the removal on the grounds that it is well-sourced. I removed the material again, again citing BLPCRIME, and started a discussion on the article talk page. Thirty-seven minutes later, Twitbookspacetube reverted the removal again, citing the talk page discussion as consensus (four editors had commented, admittedly all for inclusion). We've since had another revert-cycle. Twitbookspacetube saw fit to report me to ANEW (closed by User:El_C as no-violation) and has complained, among other things, that I pinged him when replying to him (a grave offence, apparently) and of bludgeoning the discussion (see edit summaries of the diffs above) when I have made two comments on the talk page, one of which opened the discussion. I requested at his talk page that he self-revert to let the discussion run its course and was told that I was gaming the system. I ummed-and-ahhed about just blocking on BLP-violation grounds, but considering the talk page discussion is ongoing and I could be argued to be involved, brought it here instead.
Discussion concerning Twitbookspacetube[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 Twitbookspacetube[edit]WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:BLUDGEONING at it's finest - the content that the filer is removing was in the article unchallenged until they came along with a WP:BLUDGEON and tried to beat down people that disagree with their removal of sourced content using a blatant misinterpretation of the relevant policy. TL:DR:
Statement by Shrike[edit]I am uninvolved but this caught my attention [23] I am not sure that such WP:ASPERSIONS casting is suitable for Wikipedia collaborative envoirment--Shrike (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]I'm in a similar situation to Shrike in that I happened to stumble across this issue.
Comment by involved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]I just wanted to say that while I don't agree with GoldenRing's interpetation of WP:BLP in this particular instance, to the best of my knowledge, their objection is in good faith. Once an editor has raised a good-faith BLP objection, other editors should not be edit-warring contentious BLP material into an article without consensus. I'll also add that the diff that Shrike posted[24] is very troubling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Twitbookspacetube[edit]
|
Wuerzele
[edit]| Blocked for 1 week for TBAN violations. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2017 (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 Wuerzele[edit]
This is a bit of an odd case. Wuerzele was one of the more problematic editors in GMO and pesticide topics, and was topic-banned in the initial ArbCom case. They violated their topic ban awhile ago, but that AE was closed by EdJohnston because Wuerezele immediately stopped editing for a few days once the report was made and didn't respond to the AE. The close also included a note that the case could be reopened if Wuerzele returned and issues were still coming up. The diffs above are another set of topic ban violations. They came to Fipronil, an insecticide page which unambiguously falls within the topic ban, and started making edits. I reverted reminding them that they are topic banned, only to have them edit war the content they inserted back in. I also left a reminder at their talk page about the topic ban and that I was assuming they had forgotten rather than me filing an AE case (probably should have come here instead due to the edit warring in retrospect instead of the good faith assumption). At this point, they stop editing for a few days immediately after they were called out on their topic ban again, just like the previous AE, so no case was filed until this weekend when they responded to my talk page notice rather vehemently (rather than deleting it due to their ban as I pointed out). I originally was going to let this slide as I mentioned on their talk page, but Wuerzele was topic banned in large part due to battleground behavior focused towards myself and a few others in the topic that's rearing its head in their comments. We also have a trend of Wuerzele avoiding administrative action by not editing for a few days after a topic ban violation, so I figured even if an admin wants to call this stale, it's better to have a continued record for future reference with the last AE in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wuerzele[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 Wuerzele[edit]Statement by Doc James[edit]They have been an abrasive editor.[27] They have been involved with edit warring [28]. I feel this is a wider concern than just the breach of their restriction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Result concerning Wuerzele[edit]
|
MehrdadFR
[edit]| MehrdadFR is blocked for a week, and as a discretionary sanction topic-banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months. Sandstein 16:59, 18 September 2017 (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 MehrdadFR[edit]
1RR vio:
3RR vio (1 hour 15 minutes outside the 24Hr window):
WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA / WP:ASPERSIONS:
10:13, 17 September 2017 alerted - this was prior to his latest 1RR. During the 4RR sequence he was not technically alerted to ARBPIA.
Page was placed in ECP + ARBPIA 16:54, 12 September 2017 after a high-frequency edit war between IPs on this same issue. In addition, prior to the DS alert, the user was also warned he was in violation of 1RR by myself on his talk 19:45, 16 September 2017, and by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) in an edit summary 09:17, 17 September 2017. Addendum: 15:51, 18 September 2017 is a further 1RR vio in relation to the 18:53, 17 September 2017 revert (2nd revert above).Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC) 16:00, 18 September 2017 Is yet another.Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MehrdadFR[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 MehrdadFR[edit]Situation here is pretty obvious, AMIA attack is legally unsolved case and that's an undeniable fact, and few activists are desperately trying to change it and promote one-sided politically motivated accusations, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Everything can be found on Talk:AMIA bombing in detail: investigate journalists are deleted from article (WP:CENSORED), as well as five other scholarly sources, books by lobbyist organization such as WINEP are promoted, and so on. Involved user obviously invited his fellow Israeli to vandalize article, and then they play on alleged "consensus" and "1RR" card. --MehrdadFR (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by Cambalachero[edit]The article was protected on September 12 by Samsara because of the Arbitration case (here). As I first became aware of such arbitration then, I added {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} to the article talk page, just in case, on September 17 (here). The discussion escalated anyway, so on September 18 I pinged both users to remind them of those discretionary sanctions here. Then I was informed that this AE had been already filled. Checking the background a bit more, I noticed that MehrdadFR had already been warned and then deleted the warnings. Then, he broke the 1RR: here MehrdadFR deletes and replaces a lot of info, Icewhiz reverted him here, and MehrdadFR restored his edit here (all the same day, September 18). Cambalachero (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC) By the way, I'm not much interested either way in the Arab-Israeli dispute. I watch this article because I usually work with articles about the politics in Argentina, and the AMIA bombing is a frequent topic of news, even to this day (I also created the related articles Alberto Nisman and Memorandum of understanding between Argentina and Iran). Cambalachero (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning MehrdadFR[edit]
|
Tillman
[edit]| Blocked for one week. GoldenRing (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2017 (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 Tillman[edit]
WP:CIV and threat of intimidation:
Pete Tillman has made a substantial number of contributions to Wikipedia, yet seems unable to keep himself from running afoul of controversy. He has an extensive history of tendentious editing on climate change, which has led to an indefinite sanction for articles dealing with those topics. His topic ban has not been appealed, and remains in force. However, and inexplicably, he still lists himself as being a member of the Climate Change Task Force. Balancing out his positive edits, he is habitually uncivil to editors he disagrees with, issuing threats to make things unpleasant for them (such as to myself, and for example, Jess, [31], [32]). Since he’s been a long-term and generally productive editor, I’m not sure what additional sanctions would help Mr. Tillman move past his counterproductive attitude, apart from having a time-out.
Discussion concerning Tillman[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 Tillman[edit]What appears to have brought this on: A note by me at the complainong editor's talk page, [33]:
I'd suggest that those interested in this request read editor HidariMigi remarks at the Ross McKitrick BLP talk page and following sections. My recent involvement there has been minimal. Respectfully, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Tillman[edit]
|
Resnjari
[edit]| No action taken. Sandstein 15:58, 27 September 2017 (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 Resnjari[edit]
Taunting editors about past blocks. This is very common.
Yesterday, another Albanian user, Ilirpedia (talk · contribs) posted extremely offensive material on his userpage denigrating an entire ethnic group. I removed the material, and then Resnjari not only edit-warred to restore it, but he also referred to me as a troll: Note that Ilirpedia has been blocked indef and User:Ymblanter deleted his userpage, so I can't provide diffs of edits of the userpage. Resnjari also persistently brings up my old username, even though I have repeatedly told him not to. This is nothing new, he's been doing this ever since I changed my username. He also bad-mouths me to other editors, here he refers to me as "the usual types" "otherwise we get disruptive edits from the usual types" This behavior by Resnjari is persistent and has been going on as long as he has been editing Balkan topics ([35] [36]). Many of his comments are clearly intended to get under the skin of Greek editors without crossing the line into overt name calling. It has helped him avoid incivility blocks so far, but taken as a whole, his talkpage behavior contributes to a permanently charged and highly negative atmosphere to Balkan topics. Any discussion where Resnjari get involved quickly devolves into a circus where such snide remarks and taunts are bandied about. I find it particularly bothersome that when told not to do something that he knows bothers other editors, he doubles down.
@@Sandstein:, you don't think some kind of civility parole or injunction from casting aspersions and revealing my old username is in order? Because if not, you can rest assured this behavior will continue unabated. You will also notice how he doesn't think there is anything wrong with his behavior.
Discussion concerning Resnjari[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 Resnjari[edit]Apart from the character assassination provided by the filling editor, certain comments are cherry picked and taken out of context like: was in response to a discussion about Albanian Wikipedia. The editor in question said some unbecoming things [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] about Albanian wiki administrators (who were not informed of the discussion) accusing them of "extreme nationalism", "stubborn", "childish behavior", "childish excuses" and so on. That editor made their own block part of the discussion [43]. The editor also kept persisting with that wording and i said i was not surprised by their block by Albanian administrators. I did make offers to that editor for a solution [44] and did reach one with another Greek editor in a civil way [45], [46]. I am all for keeping civility in a discussion, but editors that cannot give a right of reply while having their reputations tarnished through allegations on other Wikipedia projects, what then of civility in that instance? On privacy issues, the filing editor has no qualms in bringing up issues over the past in reference to myself (as shown here), while sidelining his own behavior toward me due to him changing his username. Both accounts are linked and there is multiple edits of that kind. His past actions have been highlighted because they were uncivil like questioning my cognitive faculties, deleting my comments on talkpages when they violated no policy or guidelines -as it was in relation to dealing with POV related content in an article. Then there was calling my comments "rants" and even accusing me once of violating a 3rr rule and then had to withdraw because i did not. And that's just with me. To the filing editor, i ask how is that conducive to establishing good rapport? To the administrators, if i place links to all that evidence here, because it’s his old username will i get sanctioned? That is what he is inferring i guess. Or is a change of username considered a clean break? Those interactions of the very recent past with the filling editor, i found it all quite offensive. In the Ilirpedia case, the filing editor took unilateral actions of deletion instead placing something on the new editors talkpage so i personally thought it was a repeat of past interactions i have had with him. In the talkpage, the word "trolls" was in the sentence as i pasted the title and weblink to a wiki guideline which has that term in the title [47]. If its an issue, then Wikipedia itself should remove it. In the end i asked the administrator for advice and clarification on the matter, it was resolved [48]. I cannot go back in time and stop what happened and neither can he. All one can do, well on my part is reflect and importantly be careful in the future from now on. If i have caused offence within the Wikipedia community i sincerely apologise. My purpose over the nearly 10 years that i have been a Wikipedia editor is to above all else bring the quality of content on articles that i can make an actual contribution to a level befitting of an encyclopedia. That is my aim. I have only ever once been blocked in that whole time (for 24 hours) and it was over a trivial matter very recently, as is pointed out. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Resnjari[edit]
|
E.M.Gregory
[edit]| Closed per filer's request. GoldenRing (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2017 (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]
The remedy states If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. That has happened at multiple articles, with E.M.Gregory declining to self-revert. E.M.Gregory is disruptively removing what nearly every single source says in the introduction of an article about this attack, that it took place in a settlement in the West Bank. He is removing from the article of the settlement that it is in the West Bank, using such completely asinine phrases like "pre-1967 Jordanian occupied terriory to describe its current status (for those wondering that's currently Israeli-occupied West Bank). This is not a complicated or POV issue. This place is a settlement, that is a factual statement backed up by countless sources. Things like saying it is partially in pre-1967 Jordanian occupied territory, cited to a source that says nothing of the sort (the source cited, which I added to try fix the issue for the record, says it fits a dual description of a settlement and a community, never once saying anything about Jordanian occupation, at all, with or without reference to the location of the territory), are, and I may be overly blunt here, propaganda. All this effort to scrub the words "West Bank" and "Israeli settlement" from an article. There is no dispute that this place is a settlement or that it is largely in the West Bank. None. I waited more than a few minutes, and asked that the user self-revert prior to making the report. They declined. That they did so at about the same as I was pressing save makes this moot, but I did wait for the user to self-revert prior to coming here. But as it stands, I think this is moot. nableezy - 04:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC) @GoldenRing:, moot I think, though the use of such things as "previously Jordanian-occupied territory" is classic non-neutral POV-pushing, that can be dealt with through the talk pages until it gets to a level of disruption that merits coming here. nableezy - 16:31, 27 September 2017 (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]Statement by Coretheapple[edit](EM Gregory talk page stalker) I note that EM Gregory self-reverted at about the time of the filing of this AE. [50] I don't think waiting a few minutes before filing this would have killed anyone. Coretheapple (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC) I'm not even sure that the edits in question were reverts. The shooting article edits do not appear to be. Coretheapple (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by Huldra[edit]Well, since E.M.Gregory posted I don't know wht you're on about but, just go ahead and fix it. I'm logging off now. (with the edit line fed up): I don't blame Nableezy for filing a report. Nothing in E.M.Gregory reply indicated that s/he would self revert. That s/he has self reverted after that, is a pleasant surprise. Actually, I spoke a bit hastily: E.M.Gregory has not reverted their edit on 2017 Har Adar shooting, only on Har Adar. There is a clear violation in their editing on 2017 Har Adar shooting Huldra (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]Regarding 2017 Har Adar shooting Nableezy admitted he was wrong in the content dispute - 2017 Har Adar shooting diff: 19:54, 26 September 2017, and did not request a self-revert on E.M.Gregory's talk page, nor is it clear which version E.M.Gregory should've self reverted to. In Har Adar E.M.Gregory did self-revert as requested. As for the content dispute - Har Adar (as Oranit) is different from the "typical" settlement in that the green line (whose exact location doesn't have "laser accuracy" - the line has a "width" (in additional to previous NMLs)) runs through it (and the separation barrier - beyond it), and that "functionally in real-estate terms" it is an upscale suburb (as opposed to a "far off" location inhabited by ideologically motivated residents). Some international sources used a short one-line of "Israeli settlement" others expanded on this (e.g. NYT) and mentioned it is an upscale suburb that straddles the line.Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]My mistake, for which I apologize. In a bit of cosmic irony, I had just finished making this comment [51] and was about to log off (because I was running late for a real life obligation); I responded hastily but sincerely [52]. I honestly did not immediately see what he was on about, so I urged him to fix whatever it was. As I packed up what I needed for my relal life obligation, I thorough through the fact that I had noticed a discrepancy between info in 2017 Har Adar shooting and what Isabel Kershner was reporting in the New York Times, info that was also appearing in the Jerusalem Post. I had changed to the wording according to those 2 sources from (paraphrasing here,) in the West Bank to straddling the Green Line, or something of the sort. Then both of us had gone to double-check, and both had added info from the same university press book to Har Adar page, but to different sections on that page so that I had not seen his edit at first, and had then consolidated the two citatoions and left what I thought was good wording on the page. As soon as I realized that the changes I had made to Har Adar must have been what Nableezy was complaining about, I logged back in, reverted what seemed to have been the offending edit, and rushed off. I just logged in to discover that this had been taken here. I confess to being guilty of carelessness, of forgetting the arcane rules that apply to I/P while editing what felt like routine facts in yet another terrorism article ( I do a lot of editing of terrorism attacks), of forgetting that in I/P even in a minor wording dispute you have to not revert - these rules do not apply in other controversial areas where I work, (like American politics) or even in the case of very similar articles where the attack occurs in Australia or France. Mea culpa. mea maxima culpa. I cannot promise never to make another mistake or never to forget or to not be aware of a rule, but I do promise to try harder and, especially, to remember my recurring resolve to stay out of the Middle East. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Result concerning E.M.Gregory[edit]
|
Avaya1
[edit]| Not actionable. Sandstein 19:28, 27 September 2017 (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 Avaya1[edit]
On 13 September 2017, a discussion started on Talk:Israel#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2017 to remove an image from Israel article.
It's not the first time Avaya1 pretend to not see other editors' rationale (see below). Then, on the talk page Avaya1 stated that I am forcing the change and no one else supporting it, although clearly it's another user who initiated the request.
Was a subject of Arbitration Enforcement on 9 January 2014 for similar behavior with the following result: "Avaya1 now subject to 0RR on articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted."
Overall, for a user, who's on Wikipedia for over 10 years with 20,000+ edits, Avaya1's behavior is very unprofessional and disruptive. He's often ignoring other editors, leaving no edit summaries, and making technically clumsy edits like a newbie. I went through some of his latest contributions: In Kurds, he blatantly ignores other editor, like he did in Israel:
In Valerie Plame, he made 75 (!) edits in one day, most are without summaries. Look how insignificant the result is, and keep in mind that there's almost no changes by other users in-between: --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC) As I understand from this notice, Israel is in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Previous Arbitration Enforcement states: "Avaya1 now subject to 0RR on articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted." --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Avaya1[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 Avaya1[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Triggerhippie4 ignored the only kind of consensus in the talkpage about the image, and removed the image. He has deleted the image and without yet gaining a new consensus at the time of his edits. The image was re-inserted according to and after we had got explicit consensus that is on the talkpage, which is within the 0RR restriction. The 0RR restriction states that there needs to be consensus for the revert- and there was. I'm not sure how Triggerhippie4's write-up about unrelated articles and edits on Valerie Plame or Kurds is relevant to the dispute, it appears more like border-line wikistalking. I used edit summaries for any notable edits on the Plame article, and likewise for the Kurds article. The image of Oz is included in the Israel article - again, only because it was according to the only consensus in the discussion page we yet have about it and because there is no new consensus yet. Also I am not sure how Oz (or the Kurds or Plame) is directly relevant to Israel-Palestine conflict. Avaya1 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Result concerning Avaya1[edit]
|
Psychonot
[edit]| Not actionable. Sandstein 20:26, 28 September 2017 (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 Psychonot[edit]
The mentioned user has apparently engaged edit warring on other pages, too (see the warnings removed by him).
Discussion concerning Psychonot[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 Psychonot[edit]Statement by Icewhiz[edit]As someone involved in Ali Khamenei in general, and Mhhossein's activities there in particular, I'd like to make a few comments:
Addendum - I just got accused by Mhhossein of HOUNDING - 06:10, 28 September 2017 - presumably (6 minutes after) for posting this AE comment (which is on my watchlist) on Ali Khamenei (which is on my watchlist as well, as well as being involved in the on-going editing and discussion there) - and this from an editor with whom I've actually had fairly little interaction with outside of Ali Khamenei Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC) @Seraphimblade:, @Sandstein: - Talk:Ali Khamenei (as well as topics such as Talk:Nuclear program of Iran) has an Arab-Israeli arbcom notice. While Iranians are definitely not Arab, post 1979 (and particularly post-1988) Iran has been an active side to the conflict - supporting Islamist Shia (Hezbollah) and Sunni (e.g. Palestinian) factions at various times and has allegedly been involved in various proxy/espionage/revolutionary-guards/etc conflicts with Israel. Iran is stated by many sources to be Israel's chief regional adversary from the decline (1991) and susequent fall of Saddam's Iraq - so I could see why this would make sense, even if the name is not appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Psychonot[edit]
|
TheAaliyahJones
[edit]| Blocked for 48 hours. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:47, 29 September 2017 (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 TheAaliyahJones[edit]
Discussion concerning TheAaliyahJones[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 TheAaliyahJones[edit]Statement by MrX[edit]This user has ignored the prominent 1RR edit notice and talk page warnings, evidently to promote the fringe theory that Heather Heyer died of a heart attack and not from being brutally killed by a car. Without a doubt, they should be blocked to prevent more of the same.- MrX 22:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by Grayfell[edit]Both the specific obscure news story used as a cite, and the underlying misrepresented claim, were posted to both 4chan's /pol/ and 8chan a few hours ago, along with a a call to add this to the Wikipedia article. I doubt this is the only time this has happened, either. This editor's talk page post about being a journalism major working on a project, casting Heyer's death as "controversial" and getting salty about how Wikipedia is always "begging for donations" while threatening to tell their peers... it's too cute by far. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]@Sandstein: The article is under 1RR restriction as part of DS. The user reverted four times. Volunteer Marek 06:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by Doug Weller[edit]The editor states " I'm completing a project detailing why Wikipedia is not generally accepted as a reliable source of information in academia." On their talk pageI've both commented on it and asked them for information so we can contact whoever is running it. I doubt that it is an academic project, but if it is it's a bad research design. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by ValarianB[edit]Hi, I had made a filing at the ANI but removed it when I saw this on the users talk page. Would just like to mention that they have continued this morning,
Also of note are 2 talk page discussions at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Cause_of_death and Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#statements_from_Heyer.27s_mother where most editors feel the material should not be included. TheAaliyahJones did not participate in either. Thank you. ValarianB (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TheAaliyahJones[edit]
|