Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive230
No More Mr Nice Guy
[edit]| Blocked for one week for edit-warring. Sandstein 18:01, 21 April 2018 (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 No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]
Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[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 No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]There is an explicit talk page consensus that the material should be removed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mandatory_Palestine#1RR_on_FAQ where 5 editors support removal and only 3 think the material should be included. Note that my reverts "whilst talk discussion ongoing" were per ONUS and CONS to the version the talk page consensus supported. Please note that Onceinawhile (who has also reverted twice) has not reported editors who support his position who also made multiple reverts while discussion was ongoing (some against consensus), including one who didn't even bother to participate in the discussion. This report is an obvious BATTLEGROUND attempt after failing to gain consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Sandstein, it's not "whatever consensus your preferred verson might once have enjoyed", it's a !vote in bold right in the discussion I linked to which I assume you haven't even looked at? Also, was I edit warring with myself? Anyhow, I self-reverted my last edit before you posted, for whatever that's worth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Pluto2012, who commented below, made 3 reverts in 5 days to the same page this complaint is about, despite an explicit 5:3 consensus against the material he inserted, in a discussion he participated in. I think Onceinawhile forgot to report him? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Just to address the above diffs in full, the complete order of things is as follows:
I would also point out that a week block for (at worst) 5 reverts over 10 days to a sub page of a talk page seems excessive and punitive rather than preventative. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by 98.159.212.219[edit]@Sandstein: do you also think that a 1 week block would be appropriate for all editors in the edit war? By my count, the OP of this request had reverted twice, Pluto2012 reverted three times, and TheGrecefulSlick twice. Is there any special reason you are singling out No more Mister nice guy, other than your personal history with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.212.219 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Pluto2012[edit]NMMGG is not on wikipedia to participate (constructively) to the development of an encyclopedy. His activity here is limited to bring controversial and useless issues again and again. Here, we are talking about the FAQ and discussions pages that was introduced 3 years ago to summarize discussions. What for ?
Statement by Icewhiz[edit]NMNNG was acting inline with talk page consensus - in the discussion concurrent to these edits, more users objected to inclusion than supported this highly POVish faq item in Wikipedia's voice. Per ONUS, the burden is on those who wish to include the material and this has clearly not been met.
I would like to point out the following edit summary by Pluto2012, made when TP consensus was clearly not inline with inclusion, diff with the following edit summary: Statement by Lorstaking[edit]No More Mr Nice Guy is correct with his reverts that the edits had no consensus. Read WP:BRD, this is not a sanctionable conduct. Issue is moot because NMMNG has made a self-revert. Lorstaking (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]
|
Anythingyouwant
[edit]| Anythingyouwant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. They may appeal this sanction using the methods outlined here. If the sanction is upheld then they may appeal every six months thereafter to me or using the methods linked to in the prior sentence. Constructive editing in other areas would make an appeal more likely to be viewed very favorably by me. --NeilN talk to me 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]
Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant[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 Anythingyouwant[edit]Saying at my user talk page that User:MrX is a POV-pusher and that he abuses administrative boards like this one was intended as an honest opinion, and his complaint here about it only proves the point. Regarding the other matter he raises, let’s be real. The Trump lead includes an allegation that he may have committed a basically treasonous act: conspiring with Russia to steal the election. That allegation belongs in the lead, and so does at least some brief mention that Trump has denied it, which he has done incessantly and emphatically. My edit explicitly cited “WP:BLP” and I did it only once, here, before taking it to the talk page. BLP is crystal clear about this: “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported”. The more notable an accusation, the more notable the denial. Sime people at the talk page say it wasn’t really an allegation because it’s merely alleged that he may have done it. Others say that it was indeed an allegation, but still the denial can be put later in the article instead, leaving only the accusation in the lead. That all strikes me as baloney. Accusers don’t have to be 100% certain of guilt, for this part of BLP to apply. Moreover, WP:LEAD instructs: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.“ After my one edit citing “WP:BLP”, I was reverted and did not repeat the edit. Instead I went to the talk page to listen to several editors make their implausible, partisan arguments. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Galobtter[edit]Sandstein violation of consensus required before restoration per [12] and [13]. (not sure why MrX didn't include those diffs) Clearly not under the purview of the BLP exemption unlike what Anythingyouwant seems to say. There isn't a vague hand wavy "BLP" exemption; WP:3RRNO is pretty clear about it being of "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Only in death[edit]Does anyone think Anythingyouwant is going to change his views about Trump in the next 3 months? Does anyone genuinely think a 3 month vacation from Trump will change his editing in any way regarding Trump? Just make the topic ban permanent and be done with this crap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC) @Masem, I see you missed the second rhetorical question. "Does anyone genuinely think a 3 month vacation will change his editing in any way?". The combination of his POV regarding Trump and his inability to alter his behaviour means that a 3 month topic ban from one particular topic in US politics is unlikely to do anything except push the problem back for 3 months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mandruss[edit]There is no exemption to the ArbCom restrictions for opposition to perceived POV-pushing. If there were, the ArbCom restrictions would be virtually worthless, as misperceived POV-pushing is rampant. BLP appears to provide a very limited exemption, but it doesn't include anything one considers biased. If it did, the ArbCom restrictions would be virtually worthless, as misperceived bias is rampant. Anythingyouwant seems unable to err on the side of caution when editing under the remedies, which I expressed to them in January. And claiming that the entire system is corrupt is tilting at windmills, pure and simple. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: BLP does not trump CONSENSUS, which is why we go immediately to talk upon a challenge even if we are asserting BLP. Once we got to talk, we saw legitimate opinion from multiple experienced editors that the preceding sentence is not an allegation as intended by that clause of BLP. Hence, err on the side of caution. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: ArbCom restrictions ≠ WP:3RR. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: At great cost to the project, BLP is often used as a weapon by self-appointed righteous Knights of the Order of BLP Protectors—editors who like (or need) to see themselves as the only good editors in the room. Neutrality looks like bias to those who fail to recognize their own bias, and that's a stone cold fact. Whether you are such a knight is really beside the point, as there has to be one set of rules for everybody. BLP cannot trump CONSENSUS, it simply does not and cannot work; if somebody challenges your BLP claim, you go to talk and seek consensus, full stop. If somebody repeatedly forces you to talk with spurious challenges of BLP claims, that's an equally serious behavior issue that warrants a harsh response. @Anythingyouwant: I submit that this BLP question, and most BLP questions, are far more nuanced than your chimpanzee example. And that's the problem, too many editors are unwilling or unable to see the nuance, and every BLP question is a chimpanzee example. They self-appoint as the only editors able to see with that amount of clarity, even when opposed by multiple editors with, collectively, many times their experience. That can't work in a project fundamentally based on collaboration. It never has and it never will. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: AE's function is not resolve content disputes. It is to decide whether you violated the ArbCom restrictions. In my opinion you did, I'm sorry if the rules are unclear, but you knew the quicksand was there and chose to walk into it. Again. NEVER say "I'm done here". Statement by MONGO[edit]I confess I saw the change made by Anythingyouwant, thought it was accurately in line with BLP so I restored it, not paying enough attention to the regs for that page, that stipulate talkpage consensus must be reached beforehand. Recognize also the reverts mentioned do not involve vandalism reverts and the BLP argument is not strong. To me it seems like an issue of ethical good taste more than anything else. While most may feel Anythingyouwant deserves a sanction here, would prefer they be allowed to participate in the talkpage discussion if they would be willing to self impose a 90 day article space editing moratorium. Just seeking a less draconian resolution.--MONGO 18:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC) The push to site ban or indef block this editor has all the makings of a rather draconian resolution. The near threats of yet another arbcom case are not pleasing to read either.--MONGO 14:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC) I'm appalled that MrX would demand that Masem, an 10 year veteran admin, who was supported 50-1 on his Rfa, and with numerous FAs and GAs under his belt, would be asked to not participate in the resolution of this matter in his capacity as an administrator of this website. I dare say that MrX does some heavy pitching here frequently to AE and while some of those he has brought forth here do deserve penalty, his heavy handed approach here and elsewhere indicates to me that the inability to edit collegially may be as much his problem to work on as those he accuses of the same.--MONGO 20:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]@NeilN: If the sanction is to be a TBAN, why restrict it to Donald Trump? Anythingyouwant's behavior spans the entire American Politics space, and its gone on for many years. I don't think it really should be a temporary sanction, either, but that is typical of the timid approach Admins have taken in recent enforcement. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC) @James J. Lambden: Your "evidence" seems to suggest that Trump-oriented editors (e.g. ones with pin-ups of POTUS on their user pages) tend to violate DS whereas neutral editors, who generally do not violate DS, are repeatedly brought here on specious, undocumented and generally incompetent complaints. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC) @Mandruss: Some fallacies should not even be dignified by the name logical. It's just a "one of those". SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Sorry, Admins, but I'm going to repeat something I've said on this page several times before: Anythingyouwant got a TBAN from abortion-related topics after some epic misdeeds in that area. The post-1932 politics has become an extension of that battleground. Many pro-life advocates will do anything necessary to sustain Republican leadership that will appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices. Anythingyouwant's behavior in American Politics articles should already have been deemed a violation of his TBAN, but the connection may not be within the domain of mere Admins. I'm sure if we take this to Arbcom, this user would likely be blocked indefinitely from WP. There needs to be decisive action to stop the corrosive misbehavior that has been the core of Anythingyouwant's participation on Wikipedia. A simple AP2 TBAN is required. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]Here are all cases where 1RR/Consensus Required AP2 complaints were dismissed:
Here are all cases where they resulted in sanctions:
In only one case was a complaint against an editor seemingly advocating the conservative position dismissed, and it involved them removing an unsubstantiated accusation of "child rape" from the lede. Note the editors who restored "child rape" faced no consequences. In only one case was an editor seemingly advocating the liberal position sanctioned, and the complaining party was sanctioned with an interaction ban. To editors familiar with the topic the pattern is evident. I have listed only violations reported to AE. Past decisions and comments have had a chilling effect, and editors in the topic know to avoid disciplinary noticeboards as, depending on the violator, a complaint will at best be dismissed and at worst result in their own sanction. Here are two examples I've encountered just in the last month of the same 1RR/Consensus Required violation which were not sanctioned: diff1, diff2. If there a question as to whether a complaint would have resulted in action note that one of the violators (who I repeat violated the same policy) feels confident enough to comment here recommending a full topic ban. To quote Justice Judy's decision in Brawthen, a domestic violence case:
Unfortunately I have seen more examples of Discretionary Sanctions and enforcement as a "weapon" against editors than a "shield" to protect articles. I expect this will continue absent significant reform. Note regarding the list above: I have omitted complaints dismissed due to conspicuous policy misinterpretation by the filer. If I have excluded 1RR/Consensus Required complaints with a reasonable policy basis please link them and I will amend the list. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Reading down the page, I found Only in death's comment (in favor of an indef Trump topic ban) persuasive at first, since I think he's quite correct that a short Trump topic ban for AYW isn't going to make much of a difference. Then I read Bishonen's comment (3 month indef block), and that seemed to make even more sense, although I (personally) would still doubt that AYW would change their combative way of editing (on full display here) even then, but a few months in the desert is better than allowing AYW to continue practicing their editing style on other American-politics related topics -- which they would certainly do. Therefore, I would suggest to NeilN that Bishonen's suggestion is the better choice, if we're to have any hope of encouraging AYW to change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Atsme[edit]This case moved forward quickly so I apologize for getting here so late. My perception of AYW's attempt to add the denial to the lede was that it was a GF edit based on NPOV and BLP. AYW did go to the article TP in an attempt to discuss the inclusion. I don't think irritating another editor at a TP justifies a block or TB. My interest in this case is more focused on the NPOV argument which I see as being inseparable from BLP. Prior to this case being filed, I posted a tough question on the TP of TonyBallioni hoping to get some thoughtful input. The diff I used in that same discussion included AYW's edit as an example. While waiting for more answers at Tony's, I discovered this case had been filed. I respect MrX, and realize that our Trump-related articles are highly controversial. There also appears to be an expanding left-right divide in RL which may explain why we're seeing mention of party affiliations in the discussion above. Political persuasions should not be an issue if everyone is truly focused on NPOV, but I also understand why some may think political persuasion may create an inadvertent COI, especially if one has a strong loyalty to or hatred for a particular party. I can also see that the results here are not leaning in AYW's favor, but I'm going to ask for leniency anyway. Editor retention is becoming/has been an issue, and as Legacypac pointed out above, we may be eliminating too many editors whose opposing views actually help WP achieve compliance with neutrality and balance. I hope it's a worthy enough point for admins to ponder. Atsme📞📧 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]A quick look at AYW's contributions shows they have interests beyond politics. Their contributions in those areas don't appear to be problematic. An indefinite topic ban from American politics as proposed by User:NeilN, rather than a block, would let them continue to contribute where their activity isn't causing problems. Admittedly there's a chance that they could cause problems in related areas that fall outside American politics (e.g., British politics or something). But I think it's worth trying a broadly-construed, indefinite AP topic ban instead of a block. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]
|
A. Katechis Mpourtoulis
[edit]| A. Katechis Mpourtoulis indefinitely banned from all edits related to the Balkans. GoldenRing (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2018 (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 A. Katechis Mpourtoulis[edit]
The editor has been engaging in edit warring on multiple articles under the purview of ARBMAC.
Similar patterns hold on Alexander I of Macedon, Seleucus I Nicator, Alexander II of Macedon, and others
I'm not sure what solution is best here.
Discussion concerning A. Katechis Mpourtoulis[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 A. Katechis Mpourtoulis[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning A. Katechis Mpourtoulis[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy
[edit]| Appeal declined. --NeilN talk to me 17:12, 26 April 2018 (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 No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]I was blocked for a week for edit warring on a talk page following this report. I made 5 edits over a 10 day period to a talk page. The first edit was not a revert. I self-reverted the last one as soon as I saw the report (no courtesy of a warning, as per the filer's usual MO with me). I couldn't have possibly been edit warring alone yet I am the only one whose behavior was scrutinized (including the filer of the report who edited against consensus). A week block for something like this is obviously punitive and not preventative. This is not the first time Sandstein closes an AE I'm involved in unilaterally and in less than 24 hours, with an unusually harsh punishment not supported by any other admins. Check out my talk page where I predicted something like this will probably happen before Sandstein posted on the request. I know AE admins have wide discretion but this is ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein[edit]I recommend that this appeal be declined. The evidence submitted in the AE request clearly indicated edit-warring by No More Mr Nice Guy. What No More Mr Nice Guy submits on appeal is unconvincing. Any misconduct by others (see WP:NOTTHEM), or the presence or absence of consensus for any specific content, does not justify edit-warring. If others also need to be sanctioned, separate requests concerning them can be filed, but as submitted there was not enough evidence to justify action against others in my view. While No More Mr Nice Guy did self-revert themselves, they did so only after the AE report was filed and they did not acknowledge that they had in fact acted inappropriately. I therefore consider the block to be necessary to prevent the reoccurrence of such conduct. Sandstein 07:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Icewhiz[edit]Per NMMNG's request, I copied this appeal over from his talk page. I would like to note that in Talk:Mandatory Palestine#1RR on FAQ at the time of NMMNG's revert (to remove the disputed section) there was no consensus to include the disputed FAQ section (in terms of "raw head count" - more editors opposed than supported inclusion - there were serious arguments to exclude (both due to misrepresenting sources and not presenting aspects of the issue, and due to this being simply off-topic)) - WP:ONUS had not been met. Some of the supporters of the inclusion of the section, were convinced of some deficiencies - diff in the wording. NMMNG self-reverted after the AE started, he was also less aggressive (ignoring his initial challenged that led to a discussion/semi-RfC (opened here - probably should have been a full fledged RfC and without the pings)) than Pluto2012 who reverted thrice with WP:POINTy edit summaries - let's start by being able to real what it is all aboutrv - account who is not there to contribue a constructive wayLet's open an ARBCOM case once for all.. The AE case was closed 21 hours after it was opened.Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Pluto2012[edit]NMMNG, ie no more Mr Nice Guy..., is no more on this project to contribute constructively to the development of an encyclopaedia. All his interactions are fights [sic] dedicated to prove WP would be biaised, anti-Israeli and not to say antisemite. We know his past. His bitterness is not curable. And this has lasted for years now. Most of time he joins "forces" to others to lead their fight on baseless issues. All this generates a bad climate in importing the I/P conflict on WP. Sandstein fits his analysis to the facts and only them with a zero tolerance's policy towards NMMNG. That's why he blocked NMMNG one week for edit warring. But that edit war is a symptom and not the cause. NMMNG would just need to be topic-banned, which would avoid the contributors to endlessly have to come and extinguish the fires that he and his mates start. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]
|
ApolloCarmb
[edit]| ApolloCarmb is now fully apprised of the editing restrictions in this area. Any future violations will likely result in a block or topic ban. --NeilN talk to me 00:47, 26 April 2018 (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 ApolloCarmb[edit]
Was specifically warned of the 500/30 rule - [14]. In addition @Drmies: warned the user regarding some of the particulars of the edits in ARBPIA - [15][16]. Note - this partially involved the article up for AfD. Furthermore - I believe there may be a wider NOTTHERE/BATTLEGROUND issue here that revolves around different topic areas (Syria, Catalonia/Spain, and I might be missing out on a few others - the editing history and talk page history for this 12 day account is quite instructive.
Discussion concerning ApolloCarmb[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 ApolloCarmb[edit]
Statement by AlexEng[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ApolloCarmb[edit]
|
GizzyCatBella
[edit]| GizzyCatBella blocked 72 hours --NeilN talk to me 14:47, 26 April 2018 (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 GizzyCatBella[edit]
Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018
In short - we have two violations here - a violation of the "original authorship provision" with revert1, and a violation of normal 1RR with revert2 in relation to revert1. IPs from this range have admitted to being GCB. You can see this in - admission at SPI, User talk:2A01:110F:4505:DC00:1DAD:B65D:E100:9863, User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/May#Hi, yes, and [17]. Please also see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella. The IP in question is quite dynamic (at times - a few changes a day), however the prefix is consnant - searching for 2a01 (or an even tighter (longer) range) on the page in question go back to (probably) GCB. There are additional issues with editing here - including long term edit warring and talk-page behaviour.. I'd like to note that revert2 returns a newspaper article written by an author that appears to mainly write WP:FRINGE softcover books (a self-evident list of book jackets may be seen here). User has also added Ewa Kurek as s reference which is questionable as a source both due to the publisher, and due to Also -Revision as of 06:54, 25 April 2018, reverted as BLP vio here, and reinstated - Revision as of 23:26, 25 April 2018 is a BLP issue as well as being contradicted by sources provided (see Talk:Leszek Pietrzak#BLP violation - lecturing position at KUL) - however BLP DS alert was placed on their page following the addition after the revert.
notified GCB, and IP1, IP2, and IP3.
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella[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 GizzyCatBella[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by slatersteven[edit]I have already warned her about the DS restrictions [[19]], moreover the material she added is still being disputed by multiple edds [[20]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Result concerning GizzyCatBella[edit]
|
AmYisroelChai
[edit]| Topic-banned for one month from everything related to Donald Trump or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Sandstein 19:21, 26 April 2018 (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 AmYisroelChai[edit]
If anyone else agrees that this edit is a WP:BLP violation, please revert it.- MrX 🖋 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AmYisroelChai[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 AmYisroelChai[edit]Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]A TBAN is warranted. I don't see any reason to fine tune this to Trump-related rather than using the AP2 Post-1932 American Politics definition. It's just forcing us to parse what's Trump-related or what's motivated by the same impulse that's led to Trump-related disruption. For nearly all the disruptive editors we've seen at AE, the origin of their behavior is generally not Trump. It's some broader POV that includes Trump or his standing. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Galobtter[edit]I'd remind that this is the same person who's said ""wikipedia is not a conspiracy site for anti trump wackos" + a BLP violation about Clinton collusion, among other excellent edits to talk:Donald Trump and elsewhere on talk pages. Do recommend AP2 tban perhaps longer than 1 month as the person clearly cannot edit here without being a problem, complaining about everyone having an anti-trump agenda. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC) James J. Lambden The article is about Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections. Is there any evidence that that visit is about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Nobody is saying that Reuters "would be deemed unacceptable". That is a straw man. If he does not understand the notice MrX gave, then he has a WP:COMPETENCY problem, in addition to his everything is anti-trump POV and agenda (and resultant basically attacks on other editors as being "anti trump wackos"). Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC) The source, in fact, does not say the meetings were secret. The word secret has extra meaning and saying someone had secret meetings with the Russians and putting it under an article called Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections carries a pretty heavy implication entirely unsupported by the source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]The claim itself is not controversial. The only possible BLP violation is that the source attributes the claim while we do not. But scrolling to the next section I see the following:
The Reuters source attributes that claim to unnamed "current and former U.S. officials" yet our article states it as fact. Poor articles result from inconsistent standards which may explain the state of this one. AmYisroelChai clearly violated the consensus required provision but judging from this talk page conversation he was unfamiliar with it. The confusing claim of a BLP violation didn't help. Is there evidence elsewhere he understood this restriction? @Sandstein: Is a 3 month (or 1 month) topic ban typical for a first-time consensus-required violation? I will have to search the archives. Regarding WP:POINT, the editor's frustration that Reuters would be deemed unacceptable in an article that cites Raw Story and The Huffington Post is, I would argue, understandable. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC) @Galobtter: I was not arguing it was relevant, I was arguing it was not a BLP violation. I can cite several instances of experienced editors misunderstanding one Discretionary Sanctions provision or another. It is hardly evidence of incompetence. Secret: confidential, top secret, classified, undisclosed, unknown. I could find no public announcement of the meeting so although I would not have, his use of the word is defensible. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by MelanieN[edit](Commenting here because I am WP:INVOLVED at the article.) First, it is true this does not belong in the article. The source provides no evidence, or even a suggestion, that a visit to Russia by Obama's CIA director had anything at all to do with the subject of Russian interference in the election. For all we know it may be routine for the CIA director to meet with counterparts in Russia. Including it in this article implies that it was related to the election, which would be a very serious allegation if true. We need two sources to make a serious allegation against a living person, and we only have one. Then there’s the problem with the source. Please note that the source for this information is not Reuters (a reliable source); it is Interfax (which we would not generally regard as a reliable source). Reuters is not citing a product of its own reporting, it is merely repeating something that Interfax said. Maybe we could use it since Interfax attributed the information to a specific source, but we would have to name the individual who is being quoted (certainly not Wikipedia's voice). IMO AmYisroelChai did not notice this problem with the sourcing (can’t blame him; several discussants here have made the same error) and was acting in what he believed was good faith. The consensus-required issue remains, but it seems to me that a one-off incident like this could be handled by education. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning AmYisroelChai[edit]
|
Phmoreno
[edit]| Clear-cut violations and no acknowledgement that reverts violated restrictions. Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN talk to me 23:45, 29 April 2018 (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 Phmoreno[edit]
The user also fills the talk pages (and occasionally articles) with conspiracy mongering nonsense: "[25]" and [26] (needless to say this is a gross misrepresentation of sources) and [27] (pushing a discredited and obnoxious conspiracy theory - and when this was disposed off with a very apt reply by User:Objective3000 [28], Phmoreno just doubles down with yet another conspiracy theory based on a conspiracy website [29]). And then more misrepresentation of sources [30] in which there's also some BLP vios (alleging criminal behavior) While strictly speaking these are more or less content issues (to the extent that trying to include conspiracy theories in an article is a content issue), they do demonstrate a WP:NOTHERE. Regardless, the 1RR violation and the "consensus required" violations are pretty straight forward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Hey @Phmoreno:, can you provide diffs or links or explanations for the following claims:
Discussion concerning Phmoreno[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 Phmoreno[edit]
I restored an edit that was reverted by a false claim that it hand no consensus on Talk. I actually did have a consensus so there should have no been no initial revert of my edit. Second revert still based on false claim involving first. Please see Talk and clear my record of this.Phmoreno (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Among the comments: "This sounds like legitimate content, maybe in the section we have about litigation. We cover this kind of thing. Go for it." There were also false claims about OR because it was a primary source (the DeSantis letter); however, there was defense of using it in the discussion. The source is perfectly legitimate in the way it was used. Someone started another Talk section defending me.Phmoreno (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC) As for "pushing conspiracy theories about Steele, Clinton, et al. being arrested" I did not say they were going to be arrested, I said they were referred for criminal investigation based on the Grassley-Graham memo (Steele- last paragraph) and the DeSantis letter (official document of House of Representatives) referring the others related to specific laws cited in the letter.Phmoreno (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Winkelvi[edit]Over 11k edits, has been here for quite a while, so not a newbie and WP:NOTHERE doesn't seem to apply. "Conspiracy theories" on talk pages gets a big shrug from me. My opinion is they aren't any more annoying than many editors I've encountered in my time at Wikipedia and are much less annoying that those who revert endlessly and pointedly in order to game 1RR. Warning only, no block, in my opinion. Maybe some mentoring could be offered? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by power~enwiki[edit]It might be for the best if Trump–Russia dossier were full-protected for a while to avoid this bickering about the day-by-day theories from both sides, and to force changes to get consensus on the talk page. As that's unlikely to happen, I see some merit to these claims. There's a technical violation of 1RR/Consensus required, but I'd be willing to ignore that. More troublingly, Phmoreno has been pushing claims that the Steele memo is going to result in Steele, McCabe, Hillary Clinton, or someone else being arrested for a long time ([32], [33]). Until someone is actually arrested, this is either gossip or POV pushing. I think we need to wait on a statement from Phmoreno, but a TBAN from pages about both Donald Trump and Russia seems like the right sanction at first glance. In response to the "the other side does it too" comments, there are likely other editors who should be TBAN-ed from that page, as is allowed by Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Phmoreno[edit]
|
K.e.coffman
[edit]| Admins reviewing the situation are of the opinion that no enforcement action is necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:17, 30 April 2018 (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 K.e.coffman[edit]
At last count it was about 6 for the purposed text and 5 against shown by votes at the end of this section. An RFC or spin off article was suggested in the discussions but had not happened yet. The page is under 1RR and consensus required here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: I think you might be reading it backwards. BullRangifer added it on the 12th, I reverted same day, and K.e.coffman restored it on the 24th. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: I had brought up the BLP aspect in a few places on that mess of a talk page, hard to find anything on there at this point. Others in the votes had brought up the NPOV aspects as well. I am surprised that you would say given the arguments it was enough of a consensus for restoration or at least enough for it to be uncontroversial enough for the "If in doubt, don't make the edit" portion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC) @Objective3000: I will note I brought up it two separate times on the talk page [34] & [35] as well as talked with them on their talk page after they reinserted the information. I think it would be fair to say I made a fair effort to go though my options before coming here. Also yes 12 days of active discussion both ways, which is still going on, does not seem to be a consensus situation. If I am in the wrong in this situation I apologies, I have never wanted to bring someone here, nor have I ever in the past, and did try in good faith to avoid it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC) So is this basically going to yes he should not of done that but no action? I would at least hope there is a warning and revert. PackMecEng (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning K.e.coffman[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 K.e.coffman[edit]I made the edit nearly two weeks after the initial edit/revert, with plenty of discussion in between. One of the opposes that PME lists hinged on not including the pre-presidency material, which has been rectified: [37], so I don't believe it should be included in PME's tally. One ivote was unclear & remains uncounted, but I interpreted it as leaning "support". I would be happy to self-revert if deemed appropriate. I also note that PME did not include in the filing the discussion he and I had on my Talk page, where I offered, for example, to clarify the uncounted vote: #Presidency of Donald Trump. It's possible that I acted prematurely since, after a lull, the discussion continued today with two additional opinions: one oppose & one support, but I did see rough consensus when I made the edit. I also would have appreciated letting me respond to the last PME's message on my TP vs seeing this report filed. In general, no other editor has objected to the edit, either on my TP or on the article's TP, where the discussion instead moved onto what heading the section should have: Better heading, with comments such as: ...we have never seen a politician like Trump, etc. Still, I apologise for the disruption this may have caused and I can self-revert if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by (SPECIFICO)[edit]This complaint is battleground nonsense. There was evident consensus at the talk page after extensive discussion, and K.e.coffman has had not a hint of aggressive or POV editing now or ever in his contributions to American Politics. There's no RfC at play here, and the insinuation of a mooted RfC is a further battleground blur of the facts. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000[edit]Seems minor with what we're used to these days. (Although it's amazing what you can get used to.) Suggest KEC self-rvt and the filer withdraw the complaint. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by BullRangifer[edit]Since that content has SINCE been subjected to radical alterations to bring it into line with the complaints of those who at first opposed it, we now have a situation where, through the normal process of collaborative editing (by editors who hold opposing POV), the content is compliant with a clear consensus; most of the opposition is satisfied. It would now make no sense to undo content which is largely satisfactory. Let's just close this thread and move on. Let's not destroy what has been fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Statement by Politrukki[edit]The content currently in the article pretty much reflects my oppose (which was limited to events that predate Trump presidency, I believe K.e.coffman is now retro-actively counting my oppose as full support), but K.e.coffman acted improperly. When K.e.coffman said (23 April) they were going to reinstate the material, I asked them to explain how the content is not original research. I find their dismissal ( Regardless of whether this enforcement request has merits, it would be wise for K.e.coffman to self-revert, which would allow rebooting the discussion: it is becoming increasingly difficult to say whether the editors are supporting/opposing the original proposal or what is currently in the article. Politrukki (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Atsme[edit]As I was reading the comments, I literally had to wipe the Cheetos residue from my fingertips so I could respond. Greasy Granola (make that cheesy not greasy)! [FBDB] I'm too much of a softy to see anyone get blocked or TB when they're productively debating an issue and not using the F-word inappropriately Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning K.e.coffman[edit]
|
The Banner
[edit]| The Banner is topic-banned from everything related to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them. The Banner is invited to request review of this sanction after six-months of productive, conflict-free editing in other topic areas. Sandstein 18:36, 30 April 2018 (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 Banner[edit]
Discussion concerning The Banner[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 Banner[edit]This filing is a typical example of preventing criticism and killing off discussion. The Banner talk 21:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]I wouldn't call this mild trolling, but rather persistent long-term disruptive editing. There's a pretty good record of The Banner getting a mild sanction (usually a block) saying it wasn't that bad, but don't do it again only for the cycle to repeat. The only reason The Banner hasn't been topic-banned with the other editors in this topic (this is a good example of this same rhetoric at AE and what it leads to) is because they normally pop in the topic for a little bit, make accusations like this, and then leave. They knew this behavior was inappropriate going in, and it doesn't look like it's going to stop at all either. One can say don't feed the trolls, but us editors in the topic have been doing that for years, which is why I proposed the principle at the original ArbCom case meant to tamp down on this this years ago. Editors who blatantly do this just make the topic more toxic and disruptive. The last thing we want are editors who rile things up to the way it was around the ArbCom case. There's a whole mess of casting aspersions that comes up with The Banner fairly often at admin boards as well as other diffs that usually get a slap on the wrist since the picture is usually viewed in isolation rather than the long-term history:
That's just from my quick perusal outside glyphosate, but it's pretty clear they have no qualms with maintaining a battleground mentality after so many warnings by frequently referencing cabals, industry influence, etc. I can't say I recall once when an editor cautioned The Banner about this without them taking the opportunity to continue sniping like we see in their response here. They've had plenty of other sanctions already, so whatever happens, I'd just ask that we don't have to keep dealing with it in the GMO/pesticide topics anymore (organic food falls into the broadly construed). That principle was put in place so editors who resorted to that kind of behavior could be more easily removed for something they shouldn't need to be warned about in the first place. While not quite as disruptive on a regular basis like other editors that have been topic-banned, there's also a point where we need to say enough is enough. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning The Banner[edit]
|
Andrewpostman93
[edit]| Blocked per WP:NOTHERE as a regular admin action (not AE). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2018 (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 Andrewpostman93[edit]
The three diffs series above, are the only thing this user has done in WP. They clearly have some real-world beef with Garcia and are carrying that out here in violation of WP:BLPCOI and the discretionary sanctions.
Discussion concerning Andrewpostman93[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 Andrewpostman93[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Andrewpostman93[edit]
|