Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive82
Twilight Chill
[edit]| Twilight Chill topic-banned for a year, Vandorenfm blocked for 72 hours |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning User:Twilight Chill[edit]
User:Twilight Chill and its alternate account User:Brandmeister is a user with a long history of disruptive editing, racially-motivated battleground attitude, surreptitious removal of referenced and neutral information and its replacement with unverified POV texts taken from hate websites. User:Twilight Chill is in violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors(Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon), constantly reverting edits of the five editors, vandalizing the article and replacing NPOV assessments of internationally-recognized neutral academics and references from unadulterated primary sources with OR taken from hate websites (such as [5] and [6]). These websites, in addition to broadcasting hatred and calling to violence, distort texts of primary sources, in compliance with official requirements of the autocratic and nationalistic leadership of Azerbaijan, as per assessment by Robert Hewsen, a historian from Rowan College and the acknowledged authority in this field, wrote in his book Armenia: A Historical Atlas, published by no less a respectable a publisher as Chicago University Press:
User:Twilight Chill covers up his POV pushing referring to WP:CHERRY and WP:NPOV, meaning of which he evidently does not comprehend. In his opinion, state-sponsored hate websites are more NPOV than the collective opinion of accomplished Western academics from top schools and institutions, such as Thomas de Waal, Robert Hewsen, George Bournoutian, Victor Schnirelmann, etc. When challenged by User:Gorzaim to show references to works which could dispute the collective opinion of these academics, User:Twilight Chill failed to engage in adequate response and instead went back to vandalizing the page. User:Twilight Chill cannot communicate and engage with others, despite constant reminders of his inadequate conduct. Several months ago, User:Nishkid64, while supporting a block against User:Twilight Chill/Brandmeister, commented to him “You simply cannot say "per talk" when no consensus has been reached and you cannot invoke IAR to validate an edit war. Nishkid64 12:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC) [7]. Despite that, User:Twilight Chill’s attitude never changed, and he refuse to engage in meaningful discussion, continuing his “per talk” attitude [8].
It transpired that User:Twilight Chill is the same User:Brandmeister. While mentioning on his page that he is “retired,” User:Brandmeister indicates that he and User:Twilight Chill are the same individual, and User:Twilight Chill still uses User:Brandmeister's sandbox. User:Brandmeister has been warned of misconduct, and the transition toward User:Twilight Chill account serves the purpose of hiding User:Brandmeister’s history of misconduct and abuse. Here is the history of sanctions against User:Twilight Chill/User:Brandmeister.
After being warned by be me [11], User: Twilight Chill filled a request for Sockpuppet investigation on a number of his disputants (including mw), while having unclean hands himself - [12] - apparently as a measure to intimidate his opponents and stop their participation in Wikipedia by means other than reverting their edits. When that failed, User: Twilight Chill moved to request protection on pages which he has been vandalizing, to prevent his opponents to challenge his disruptive edits; however, his requests were denied and he was advised to engage in dispute resolution [13].
Discussion concerning User:Twilight Chill[edit]Statement by User:Twilight Chill[edit]Vandorenfm appears to be a single-purpose account. Being active solely in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, he backed other accounts of Gorzaim (talk · contribs) and Aram-van (talk · contribs) to keep a blatant NPOV violation and contested claims in Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): [18], [19]. The latter revert was made without any rationale and despite that Vandorenfm was asked to stop edit-warring. Previously Vandorenfm was warned for unilateral removal of maintenance templates from Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Recently he received the AA2 warning. Regarding my account, it doesn't serve "the purpose of hiding User:Brandmeister’s history of misconduct and abuse": the transition occurred simply because of password loss, reported at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 19#Unique CU and Rename request. As for the alleged 3RR violation, there was none: the first rv in question was made on January 31, and the rest on February 1 and 2.Twilightchill t 18:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning User:Twilight Chill[edit]Comment by Biophys[edit]People who work in the area of AA conflict, some of you were recently sanctioned on ruwiki [20] [21]. Please do not edit war here. Biophys (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Fedayee[edit]The user who filed this report has forgotten other restrictions placed against Brandmeister. For example, he was previously placed on 1RR for six months. This did not improve his behavior so he was topic banned for six months. [22] Important note to administrators: This did not change his behavior since he continued engaging in disruptive behavior. See the report filed against him here. Brandmaster/Twilight Chill got away with it because of a technical problem, the report closed with the following statement: Request suspended because of the unclear status of Brandmeister's account; may be resubmitted if editing resumes. Standstein wrote: It can be submitted again as soon as Brandmeister (under that or any other account or IP) resumes making controversial edits in the topic area; in that case the diffs submitted here should be considered as though they were recent edits. So to the evidence included here should be added with those from that report. Six months topic ban did not do any difference, perhaps a longer topic ban is required. - Fedayee (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Twilight Chill[edit]
The request has merit. The evidence submitted supports the contention that Twilight Chill (talk · contribs), previously editing as Brandmeister (talk · contribs), has edit-warred at Caucasian Albania, no matter whether or not he also broke the three revert rule. As Brandmeister, he was already revert-restricted and then topic-banned for 6 months in 2009 because of edit-warring. There was also another episode of edit-warring in 2010 (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65#Brandmeister). Considering that a six month topic ban did not deter Twilight Chill from edit-warring again, it is appropriate to escalate the sanction by doubling its duration. Consequently, in application and enforcement of WP:AA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, Twilight Chill is topic-banned for one year from Armenia and Azerbaijan, as defined at WP:TBAN. But the request is also disruptive. It includes personal attacks and sweeping claims of severe misconduct, including: "is a user with a long history of disruptive editing, racially-motivated battleground attitude, surreptitious removal of referenced and neutral information and its replacement with unverified POV texts taken from hate websites", "referring to WP:CHERRY and WP:NPOV, meaning of which he evidently does not comprehend", "failed to engage in adequate response and instead went back to vandalizing the page" and "cannot communicate and engage with others". Such claims may not be made, especially in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, unless accompanied by thoroughly convincing evidence in the form of diffs (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions). Vandorenfm (talk · contribs) did not supply convincing evidence for his claims. Consequently, in application and enforcement of WP:AA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, Vandorenfm is blocked for 72 hours for personal attacks and inflammatory conduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 22:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC) |
Momento
[edit]| Blocked for a week and one year topic ban reset. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Momento[edit]
Discussion concerning Momento[edit]Statement by Momento[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Momento[edit]I believe that Momento has indisputably violated his topic ban. Will's proposed remedy, however, of a seven-month site ban appears to be too severe. As I understand it, blocks should be imposed in an escalating manner to give editors a chance to correct their behavior. None of Momento's previous blocks were longer than 72 hours. Therefore, it appears that a two-week to one month site block would be appropriate in this case. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Momento[edit]
This is a clear violation of the topic ban. In enforcement, Momento is blocked for a week, and the one year topic ban is reset to begin anew as of now. The "site ban" requested by Will Beback is not authorized, as an enforcement measure, by any applicable remedy. But subsequent topic ban violations may result in rapidly escalating blocks. Sandstein 09:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
|
Iadrian yu
[edit]Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Iadrian yu
[edit]- User requesting enforcement
- Hobartimus (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Iadrian yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [29] Most recent edit by Iadrian yu (log) where he made accusations of harassment, canvassing etc without supporting them by diffs. He also injected himself into a discussion uninvited where Nmate commented (relevance below)
- [30] A previous arbitration enforcement request filed by Nmate on Iadrian showing among other things pattern of accusations without supporting them by diffs.
- [31] recent instance calling non-vandal edit that reverts to long standing previous version, vandalism. On the same topic Iadrian yu claims"when an editor know about some rule and still violates it, it can be considered as vandalism." Further implying that he will call edits vandalism in case in his opinion they "violated some rule"
- [32] accusation of bias against an admin in the topic area covered by Digwuren (unsupported by diffs, unfounded)
- older accusations (unsupported by diffs) using terms such as "ultra-nationalist" this was said towards user:Squash Racket Note that this is an older diff, used to establish that this is a long term issue with more recent flare-ups.
- [33] "your comments are biased" said towards an IP editor from the USA (in the same topic area)
- Going back to the previous request [34] for enforcement I won't copy the material here, but there are abundant examples of the same, such as saying for him Wikipedia is just a toll for expressing his irredentism feelings over this matter towards user:Rokarudi. It was unfortunately mostly ignored on procedural grounds, discussed in additional comments.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Arbitration sanctions warning Warning by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- A sort of civility sanction if there is such a thing. When in the area covered by Digwuren, Iadrian yu should be banned from making any accusations in edit summaries, talk pages or user talk pages such as calling people biased, ultra-nationalist, canvassers without evidence. Or a sort of interaction ban that limits interaction with users or especially problematic article areas. Or anything that protects against future instances of the same.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- This is a request to review the situation since the last request was filed. While that request was ignored that time for lack of prior administrative warning. Now however I believe the conditions laid out in administrator EdJohnston's comment are met Otherwise the case will probably be dismissed, but if your edits merit attention in the future, it can be reopened. for the reopening of the case. With the above examples I think there is sufficient new evidence as well as the old case to consider. Because admin Edjohnston made the comment about reopening the case I linked the old case so it could be reviewed as well for discovering possible patterns in Iadrian yu's editing. Hobartimus (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Responding to Iadrian yu, there is no diff or other content, above older than 2010 so even the oldest stuff is less then a year and it is required to show there is a long standing issue. As such your statement about the material covering 2+ years is false [35]. Your other point about redacting comments I can reply to with WP:REDACT "It is best to avoid changing your own comments", still they were said at that time publicly. Hobartimus (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see that Iadrian removed his answer while I was replying so my above comment doesn't make much sense now. Anyway it was clearly visible to me at the time I started writing my reply and could be better if comment deletions are handled
like this. Otherwise I could change my original post too. Anyway it's still all visible in the history section and the diff above about the 2+ years is visible as well. Hobartimus (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see that Iadrian removed his answer while I was replying so my above comment doesn't make much sense now. Anyway it was clearly visible to me at the time I started writing my reply and could be better if comment deletions are handled
- Regarding Iadrian yu's second answerhere. Seems he doubled down on exactly the same thing the report was about. He says he "corrected" his comment in (1) but in fact he did not it still said (and still says) harassment in that comment AND in his answer he repeats the same accusation doubles down on the "harassment" charge. Astounding. It was one of the main issues in the first place, accusations without proof. Initially I only requested civility sanctions so the constant problems stop. Now based on Iadrian Yu's answer I don't think it's sufficient. Yes even in (4) it is a perfect example of Iadrian's habit of accusing people without basis. It only proves that in case the accusation was so blatant so baseless so senseless so unfounded so unsupported by diffs that it was even realized by him. Yet at that point in an ongoing Afd it was seen and then removed or altered. It served it's purpuse in that discussion. Even if it's discounted there is more then enough evidence with the earlier report as well. Hobartimus (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just a quick question. Iadrian yu provided this link saying the warning he recieved "was a mistake" but on that link we can read from administrator Stifle You accused someone of having ultra-nationalistic opinions regarding Romanian lands, with insufficient evidence. You should be aware... As we can see it's one of the exact same issues, accusing people with insufficient evidence of various things. And this link proved that it was a mistake????? Hobartimus (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding this [36] Events happened like this, correct? 1. You made comments towards others without any supporting evidence 2. you are questioned by admins 3. then and only then you provide some diffs.
- You seem to think by saying it was a mistake that it is OK to throw around terms like "ultra-nationalist" or many other accusations and names AND if you are questioned by admins then and only then you will try to justify it.
- By the way in this edit [37] you seemed to encourage me to file a report yourself regarding that issue. Well "please fell free to file a report. Greetings." were the exact words used. And now you attack me for filing it, isn't that a contradiction? Can any admin remove accusations of bad faith and similar attacks from Iadrian's response[38]? By the way I feel that evidence for such strong claim that it was a "mistake"-n warning would be something like an admin saying "it was a mistake" and not you saying it. In my view it was a perfectly legitimate warning given by an administrator, if I didn't think so I couldn't file this report. Hobartimus (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [39]
Discussion concerning Iadrian yu
[edit]Statement by Iadrian yu
[edit]By all this, I could file the same report against Hobartimus... This is the "analysis" of my ALL contributions(2+ years) on wikipedia.... taken by that, every user could be banned, if analyzed from the begging like this. Therefore this report is nothing that further harassment by Hobartimus toward Romanian users (Iaaasi also)...
Looks like user Hobartimus does everything on wikipedia to ban users and not to be constructive with them which can be seen in many instances..
Analyzing the "evidence" (in order from the top):
- (1) First, this is taken out of the context, this is my final version of the comment 1, where I said in my edit summary "my mistake, it is not up to me to say what policies are violated here." and modified my comment to avoid any possible misinterpreterpatation from Hobartimus and Nmate. - I am surprised to see this as "evidence" , where I corrected myself.
- (2) This report, as such, proves nothing... especially not as Hobartimus says "pattern of accusations without supporting them by diffs" , this is from his POV. I proved that particular report to be false.
- (3) This is where user Nmate, in many instances, violates one same rule.. WP:PLACE. I explained further in my comment [40].
- (4) This is where I deleted my comment when I found it(myself) non-constructive). How can comments that are deleted by myself, to be used as evidence? Therefore, this is also the case (as in example 1)where I corrected myself.
- (5) This is strange, to represent this as "evidence" and to omit everything user Squash Racket said to me(where this user even had a Wikiquote report)... If this example is investigated , it can be easily seen what was the problem. Afterward we resolved our problems.
- (6) If this comment is taken into consideration, user Hobartimus should be banned [41], and confirming his rude attitude [42].
The last comment, I and user Rokarudi have a history, where he said many thing, I said many things.. But that is long behind me (and Rokarudi). As I said, this is the total analysis of all my 2+ years of wikipedia, all my conflicts, and for some of them I was punished (my block log) - and as it can be seen from my contributions, since my last block I was a constructive user. I am not sure how is it on wikipedia, but since I corrected my behavior, and was banned for that, I am in a possibility to be banned again(for things I was banned and never repeated them) just from my old conflicts?
As it can be seen, I and Rokarudi sorted our differences and even became friends [43]. Since we resolved our problems, why is this used as evidence against me here ?
About the warning issued by Admin Stifle, it can be seen that it was issued by a mistake[44].
It looks like user Hobartimus is offended by my recommandation to let it go [45], therefore this whole report can be seen as WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality.
Since this report is made in bad faith, if needed I will answer further questions. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
To answer latest accusations, please read my comment again, I said exactly "Therefore this report is nothing that further harassment by Hobartimus toward Romanian users (Iaaasi also)... ", about other (repeated accusations) for my comments (that served the purpose?) where I corrected myself as explained in my initial answer. Adrian (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As requested, I will explain again the mistake, where I received the warning [46]. As it can be read the conversation from the link provided, the evidence for that user IP is provided in my last message in that conversation. However, I will repeat them here [47];[48];[49] and here threating me [50]. I hope this answers your question. Adrian (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(1)I am sorry, but you don`t understand my message then. To answer it, it is not correct. Please read the whole conversation (that section [51]). Evidence is presented in my last message, and you can find them in the link provided. (2)You accused me for violating NPA(no personal attacks) rule. I asked you to file a report, based on that problem , not a general report against me. There is a specific ANI for personal attacks, if you think I violated them, and I still think you should file a report (about that) at the right place if you think I was wrong there, and I will explain my actions again(please read my first comment, number 3).
- This report is in bad faith since you rather file a general report(throwing non-existing problems) against me rather than simply talking first, or even filing the right report if you felt that I violated NPA in that case.. If you asked me on my talk page about this problem, I would answered your every question. Also, this report is written after my recommandation to let it go [52], therefore this whole report can be seen as WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality.
(3) From your POV, it is a legit warning, but as it can be seen from the conversation and evidence I provided, it is not really like that. (4) Because I am not sure you have read the right conversation, I will paste it here also. Pasting the message:
- "Hello, I have seen you message on my talk page. My I ask why did I received this warning? What did I do to receive this warning on behalf Nmate`s wishes ? I don`t understand why did he reported my in the first place? He deletes my comment and then reports me and I receive a warning for what? I quote from the warning " If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban." What inappropriate behavior ? If anyone should receive a warning that is Nmate for deleting my comment and for supporting a vandal. I am sorry, but I fail to see any logic in this so if you can explain it to me please. As I explained, Nmate`s request is false and biased. As such I would like for this warning to be retracted. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- The conduct in question is outlined at WP:AE#Iadrian_yu. You accused someone of having ultra-nationalistic opinions regarding Romanian lands, with insufficient evidence. You should be aware that there has been endemic content disputes on several articles about Eastern Europe, so ensure you conduct yourself appropriately there. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Isn`t this enoguh evidence ? 1; 2;3, where he insulted me also and threating me. I understand this, but I don`t think that I deserved this warning having in mind the evidence I have. Please, I am asking if there is a possibility to reconsider this and for retracting this warning. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a warning. It does not change anything. It just makes you aware that conduct of various users in the past has been negative enough that there may be sanctions applied to users in the area. Removing the warning will not make you unaware of this, or accomplish anything. If you continue behaving as well as you are doing in the area, there will not be any further issue. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)" - end of paste Adrian (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention that this "incident" was approximatively 5 months ago.. And as I proven , it was substantiated by evidence(diffs). Adrian (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a warning. It does not change anything. It just makes you aware that conduct of various users in the past has been negative enough that there may be sanctions applied to users in the area. Removing the warning will not make you unaware of this, or accomplish anything. If you continue behaving as well as you are doing in the area, there will not be any further issue. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)" - end of paste Adrian (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Isn`t this enoguh evidence ? 1; 2;3, where he insulted me also and threating me. I understand this, but I don`t think that I deserved this warning having in mind the evidence I have. Please, I am asking if there is a possibility to reconsider this and for retracting this warning. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Iadrian yu
[edit]Result concerning Iadrian yu
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Hobartimus and Iadrian yu, can you please stop editing and expanding your statements so that we can take a look at this? There does seem to have been suboptimal conduct on the part of several people here, but at first glance this (rather difficult to understand) request does not really convince me that sanctions are required. This seems to be a matter more suited for dispute resolution. Sandstein 23:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
ZuluPapa5
[edit]| An admin has deleted the evidence subpages. Editor may be blocked up to one year if disruption resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning ZuluPapa5[edit]
User:ZuluPapa5 maintains climate change-related material in his user space that arguably violates his sanctions in the Climate Change case. This material has been nominated for deletion (here and here). The concern is not so much the material itself, which is being considered through the usual process for such things, but ZuluPapa5's wholly inappropriate behavior toward those who have in good faith nominated the material for deletion. In response he has developed the concept of "deletion harassment" (here), which is admittedly difficult to fathom with its references to laws on stalking. A sample of problematic diffs include:
Whatever it takes to either calm him down, or remove him from the field of battle. I do not think the usual short punitive block (few days to a week) would be effective. On the other hand I hope a siteban or similarly harsh measure is not needed. Perhaps something like an interaction ban would be appropriate.
This comment by User:MastCell is a good summary of the overall problem. Addendum: Any action on the underlying conduct concerns? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ZuluPapa5[edit]Statement by ZuluPapa5[edit]
Comments by others about the request concerning ZuluPapa5[edit]
Result concerning ZuluPapa5[edit]
|
Isonomia
[edit]| Warned about discretionary sanctions and blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Isonomia[edit]
Discussion concerning Isonomia[edit]Statement by Isonomia[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Isonomia[edit]Agree this does look like an obvious WP:CIVIL violation. A ban does appear warranted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Statement by User:ResidentAnthropologist[edit]Having Notified Isonomia of topic sanctions. I feel obligated to make a statement. Kicking some one who is restricted from responding by Arbcom crosses all known lines of WP:CIVIL constitutes a WP:NPA. This user's comments at Talk:Global warming are clear trolling for a reaction Examples: [59] [60] [61] [62]. These cumulatively with the post on WMC in addition to Talk:Global warming show a clear pattern of Trolling suggest check user check to see relation to any other known Trolls in topic area past or present. Some sort of sanction would seem wararnted The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Query: So he gets a free pass on the personal attacks, etc. because of a technicality? If it had been someone who sided with the scientific consensus he'd have been drawn and quartered by now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]For the record this threaded discussion and the resulting admin action seems to have collided with an edit by me which I explain here and here. I apologise to all for blundering in and exacerbating raw feelings in ignorance, and in particular I apologise to Isonomia and, at least for a while, withdraw from discussion or interaction with him. We're all supposed to try to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia and that's what I think I need to do. This statement was added after this discussion was originally closed, but I think it belongs here for the sake of completeness. --TS 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Isonomia[edit]
(Edit conflict) The edit is a strongly objectionable personal attack, and as such sanctionable. It is not, however, actionable under WP:ARBCC#Discretionary sanctions because that remedy requires that "the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator with a link to the decision authorising sanctions". The warning by ResidentAnthropologist does not meet these requirements because it was not issued by an administrator and because it links to (now superseded) community sancions rather than to the arbitration case. Without objections, I intend to apply a "normal" admin block for personal attacks and issue the correct {{uw-sanctions}} warning. Sandstein 23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
|
MarshallBagramyan
[edit]| MarshallBagramyan is restricted from making certain derogatory statements, as explained in the Result section. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]
MarshallBagramyan made the following excerpted contributions on 20 or 21 January 2011 to Talk:Caucasian Albania#WP:CHERRY:
As in the cases of Xebulon and Tuscumbia, whom I topic-banned for 3 and 6 months respectively for similar statements, MarshallBagramyan has disrupted the Wikipedia editing process by making these sweeping statements which are based on nationalist prejudice rather than on policy, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Users national background and neutrality: "Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view."
Warned by AGK in 2009; has since been subject to sanctions under this case.
Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]Statement by MarshallBagramyan[edit]Alright, I think I now see the basic gist in this misunderstanding: nowhere in the statements above have I said that we should reject authors on an ethnic or national basis. What I took objection to, and what has apparently been misunderstood, were sources emanating specifically from Baku and the country of Azerbaijan, since it is essentially ruled by a repressive regime which regularly jails dissidents for criticizing the administration or for voicing unpopular opinions and because many of the sources are published under close government sponsorship. That does not even come anywhere close to saying that all scholars who happen to have Azeri heritage should now be disqualified from consideration as a reliable source. Such a statement would personally go against my own editing activities, since I have greatly profited and made use of valuable sources written by Azeri authors relating to the history of medieval and early modern Iran and Ottoman Turkey and the article on the Nagorno-Karabakh War. In my statements, I have been extremely careful in distinguishing the people from the entity: by Azeri I refer to ethnicity and by Azerbaijan I refer to works published in the current-day Republic of Azerbaijan. Nor, as it is alleged, have I acted upon making my arguments on the basis of "nationalist prejudice rather than on policy." They have, instead, been predicated entirely on on what scholars and other individuals in the field have stated. Seraphimblade makes an excellent point below in saying that sources that are excluded must be given adequate reasoning. To facilitate in the attempt to clear up this understanding, therefore, I have quoted several authors below regarding the unreliability of such sources and I ask that everyone fully read their statements. Robert Hewsen, a historian from Rowan College and the acknowledged authority in this field, wrote in his book Armenia: A Historical Atlas, published by no less a respectable a publisher as Chicago University Press:
The British journalist Thomas de Waal documented the systematic attempt to remove Armenians from history in his influential 2003 work on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict:
Professor Victor Shnirelman, a senior researcher of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, authored a monograph titled The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity, and Politics in Transcaucasia in 2004. While his book is too extensive to quote from, he took objection to the manner in which historiography progressed in modern Azerbaijan, as can be gleaned from the following chapter titles: "The birth of the Azeri nation", "The search for historical concepts, and major politics", "The Median temptation and Soviet Patriotism", "Between Media and Caucasian Albania and the Turkic World: Thirst for a new view", "Revisionists: the Pan-Turkic assault", "The struggle between conservatives and revisionists and a school education". There are at least half a dozen other sources which I can quote, all of which speak about how political ideology has compromised the academic reputation of scholars working in Azerbaijan, regardless of their ethnicity. But what everyone above is saying or alluding to is that sources which intentionally edit or remove people from the pages of historical sources, which reconsecrate historical monuments and give them new identities, or distort the data that is available should be avoided as best possible. I have therefore been not so much airing my views but merely repeating what others have already stated. My chief objection was to sources originating from Azerbaijan, not sources whose authors are Azeri. To the contrary, and as I emphasized several times to Tuscumbia during our long exchange, what mattered to us was not whether a scholar was Armenian, Azeri, or Martian, but the "breadth of their scope and their acknowledged expertise" in the area. And even then, my objection stemmed from the politically repressive climate that exists Azerbaijan, not its nationality. This has turned out to be a misunderstanding on massive proportions and I don't think I can emphasize it enough that my arguments were never predicated on the basis of excluding sources on the ethnic or national heritage of someone and I ask that the administrators to please ask me to clarify anything which might seem unclear since this is, after all, a very difficult and complex topic. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]Sandstein, I was unable to locate what is it exactly about the lines that you have selected from his contributions that you think justifies imposing sanctions upon MarshallBagramyan. How exactly do they violate the established remedies concerning the topic area? Are you recommending this topic ban simply because this user was not topic banned initially when the other two were "as a matter of fairness"? Am I to understand that the very participation in similar exchanges irrespective of user conduct or substance of responses will now warrant a topic ban?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Volunteer Marek Having looked through this I also don't really see any justification for any kind of sanction, except a warning to be careful in statements. There does not appear to be any kind of a "peg" that you can hang a topic ban or other editing restriction on. Basically, I agree with Seraphimblade below. Some of the wording of the comments is less than satisfactory. But these do not appear to be motivated by either WP:BATTLE or bad faith, but rather are simply a result of an editor commenting quickly and off the top of their head in midst off a heated discussion. If you edit in a controversial topic area (and we do need editors willing to do so) at some point or other you're going to be unclear, imprecise and maybe even a little frustrated and this is in fact just a natural part of how human interaction usually takes place. There's no evidence here of any kind of wrong doing. A reminder to be more careful (which we - especially content editors, since non-content editors rarely ever actually deal with difficult content issues - could all use sometimes) is sufficient. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC) I got to add that Sandstein's characterization of MB's second statement [67] with I am much less impressed with MarshallBagramyan's second comment, which does not address his conduct and instead appears to argue at length why disagreeing with him in the content dispute (which AE does not care about) is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. seems to be on the whole quite inaccurate. The 2nd statement consists of two (fairly long) paragraphs and in them MB essentially reiterates the distinction between Azeri scholars and Azeri-government-produced sources which is the locus of confusion here. In fact he explicitly states that a similar distinction could apply to Armenia and Turkey in the early 1990's. This is just an elaboration on a previous point. At the end of these couple paragraphs, the statement does stray into "content disputes" but this is really just a reflection of the fact that as much as you try, at the end of the day, you can't clearly separate out "behavior disputes" from the "content disputes" that underlie them (and his point is valid - is Holocaust denial on Holocaust related articles a content or a behavioral dispute? - though it is a bit of a Godwin Law violation). I would also encourage admins involved in this discussion to try and put themselves in the shoes of someone who has just all of sudden been brought to AE and for whom severe sanctions have been proposed - it's a stressful situation and honestly, it's often quite hard to know how to properly react, which issues to address and which topics are relevant (that's actually why in real life we do have lawyers). Nothing here. Volunteer Marek 00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Check out MarshallBagramyan's recent edit here. For Nth time, removing the map from Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page, while arguing in favor of map at Democratic_Republic_of_Armenia. And this and numerous other POV edits by MarshallBagramyan fit well with his eloquently expressed: "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources." Well, of course, he does. He is Armenian contributor who demonstrated inability to detach his personal biases from his contributions, thus resulting in non-neutral edits. Atabəy (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Vandorenfm, I only sought to demonstrate that MarshallBagramyan continues to revert war on other pages with the same POV position, while his case goes on in AE. I don't see why MarshallBagramyan saying "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality... almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent" is not considered racist, while my comment that MarshallBagramyan does represent Armenian POV is? Can you explain me the difference? If this is about sources, again I would like to find out based on which sources MarshallBagramyan removes one map for Nth time, while doing exactly the opposite about the same area here? Thank you. Atabəy (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Fedayee It is bizarre to find that an analogy is being made between MarshallBagramyan's statments and Tuscumbia's. I must've missed something. The mentioned Armenian scholars are only Armenian scholars by their ethnicity, many were used by the two sides here before. Hewsen whom Tuscumbia discredited because of a possible partial Armenian background has been used by the other side several times in Wikipedia. He is recognized as an internationally reknown scholar who is by all means Western. So Tuscumbia's comment in that light could have only been interpreted as saying that because someone has Armenian blood flowing in his veins, he can't be credible. Disturbing. That's quite different than MarshallBagramyan's comments when considering that those scholars (which he named) of Azerbaijan have been systematically criticized for having erased Armenians and Armenia from the face of history. The position is backed by several sources that the dictorial regime in Azerbaijan has systematically financed and trained their scholars to follow that line of reasoning. How can a user be topic banned for half a year for such a comment? Also, not that Atabek is answering again in the results section when he most probably knows that the said place is actually the administrator's section... he's been here for years and did it even after his comment was removed. Also, his language was disturbing to say the least... directly accusing an editor of having ulterior motives fueled by that editor's ethnicity. He had his chances here, he was one hair away from being banned in AA, he's received several topic bans, he was engaged in mailing lists to disturb Wikipedia and now to top it off, he comes here and makes that infuriating comment. If anything, he should be topic banned for that much... it is long overdue. Besides, what is the relevence of the freedom of press of Armenia when most internationally known Armenian scholars live abroad and therefore not affected by the levels of freedom of press in Armenia. That's pretty much all I had to say about this and will be adding no further comments about this issue. Thank you. - Fedayee (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]
Reviewing the discussion among uninvolved editors above, Volunteer Marek and NuclearWarfare believe that the conduct at issue is not sanctionable, an assessment with which I disagree, while Seraphimblade agrees that sanctions are called for, but not necessarily a topic ban. Hodja Nasreddin (signing as Biophys) does not support but also does not explicitly
|
Koakhtzvigad
[edit]| Topic-banned for two weeks. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Koakhtzvigad[edit]
Talk:African-American – Jewish relations
Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy
Discussion concerning Koakhtzvigad[edit]Statement by Koakhtzvigad[edit]
Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy
Talk:African-American – Jewish relations
Comments on intended block by Sandstein
Comments by others about the request concerning Koakhtzvigad[edit]Comment by Sean.hoyland - Koakhtzvigad's B'Tselem related statement "The information was eventually included in the relevant section [93] by consensus." is not an accurate description. What happened is that I removed all of the information that was OR and left the information that wasn't OR in this edit. It was this action that was preserved by consensus if you want to call it that i.e. the number of staff was retained based on the source cited. It's a small point but I don't like to miss an opportunity to be pedantic. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment by BorisG - Koakhtzvigad, I in my opinion, your statement is way too long. Admins have to review many such cases and they will be irritated by the need to read such a long statement. Please try to be concise. - BorisG (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Koakhtzvigad[edit]
After reviewing the request, I find most of it not actionable. The edits to Talk:African-American – Jewish relations do not seem to violate any relevant policy. Disagreeing with consensus (if any) is not forbidden. With respect to Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy, merely saying "Just look at the whole mess of a page" is not useful for evaluating how Koakhtzvigad is supposed to have violated any applicable policy. Evidence in AE requests should be as specific as possible and be supported by relevant diffs. The sweeping allegations made by Malik Shabazz, "Koakhtzvigad has a tendency to push his POV in articles related to Israel and Palestine, and he frequently filibusters, Wikilawyers, and exhibits IDHT behavior on the related Talk pages", are also useless here. If such allegations are not accompanied by convincing evidence in the form of diffs, they are disregarded at AE, and are also disruptive in and of themselves, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions. I am consequently warning Malik Shabazz not to make sweeping allegations of misconduct against others in the Israel/Palestine topic area. That said, the edits to B'Tselem cited in the request are indeed problematic. By adding the text "... including 11 ethnic Arab Field Researchers [94]" to the article, Koakhtzvigad has misrepresented the source he cited, [95], because that source does not contain any information about the ethnicity of the persons concerned, and has also engaged in original research by claiming in the edit summary ([96]) that he can tell the ethnicity of the researchers by their names. In addition, the diffs cited in the request show that Koakhtzvigad has edit-warred to reintroduce these errors into the article. Finally, these edits can be interpreted as implicitly advancing the opinion that the ethnicity (rather than the nationality, education, professional credentials, etc.) of the persons working for the organization is relevant for an encyclopedic description of the organization. This arguably violates the neutrality principle by describing the organization from a racialist rather than a neutral point of view. Koakhtzvigad's statement does not recognize these problems. While this is (based on the usable evidence presented here) an isolated incident, misrepresenting sources and violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:EW in this topic area is a serious matter. Without administrator objection, therefore, I intend to ban Koakhtzvigad from editing this topic area for two weeks. Sandstein 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hxseek
[edit]| Appeal declined. A new appeal in 3-6 months might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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 Hxseek[edit]This was set in place after I violated a 3RR. I was given a 72 hr block for this, which is fair enough. However, I think the further discretion above is far too steep. My violation of 3RR for that article was a one off. I have not engaged in any offensive conduct. In fact, my contribution to the article has been substantial. The process we are using requires pain-staking negotiations. At times, some editors will take unanimous action and change eentire sections of text. This will need to be monitored. The above action will severely curtail any monitoring of this to the detriment of the above article. Responce to Athenean's statement[edit]Firstly, Athenean is an involved editor, as he was whom I engaged in the Rv war with. Secondly, Athenians actions not only show a lack of good will, but are in fact calculative. His hypocritical actions are shameful, and purely serve self-interest, under a guise of concern for the article. This all began when I added some newly published references, they were well referenced, and came from some of the leading scholars in the field. His reveerts were blatant, and purely because they did not siut his personal views. He trumped up claims of 'editorializing' , etc, despite the fact I was quoting the scholar themselves, and not concocting my own statements or POV. nevertheless, I have spent hours writing on the talk page' creating drafts, referencing, etc so that we can all agree on a concensus version. By the way, my changes were seen as good improvements by other editors, certainly improving the article from what it was In response, he took it upon himself to take advantage of the situation and went ahead making wide ranging changes, contra to the agreement, and self-contradicting his stance on not editorializing, and requiring for consensus. Yes, I have got hot under the collar at times , what Athenean did not mention is that all those posts were responses to inflammatory statements. Contrary to what Athenean said, I am not going to any length to have my way. The effort I have put in the talk page , engaging in civil dialogue and forging draft suggestions is a testament to this. What, rather is clear, is that Athenean's actions are hypocritical, self-serving and dishonest. And that's a shame because i thought we were finally making progress Hxseek (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hxseek (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Statement by HJ Mitchell[edit]Statement by Athenean[edit]
Asking for the restriction to be lifted so that he can "monitor" the article (i.e. revert war over anything that he doesn't approve of) should set alarm bells ringing. I have every indication to believe that if the restriction is lifted, he will go back to revert-warring (and that's presumably why he is asking for the sanction to be lifted). This is a user with a history of disruption on this topic, including inflammatory talkpage posts [101] [102] [103] [104] (and this is just a recent sample) and a certitude that he is neutral but that everyone that disagrees with him is part of a "coalition of the biased" [105]. This user clearly has very strong views on the topic and is willing to edit-war
I see that even when he is appealing the sanction and should know better, Hxseek is launching into personal attacks against me. He is even canvassing friendly [106] editors to come to his aid [107], including editors [108] with a history of overt, implacable hostility towards me [109]. It's also ironic that he claims that his edits are "well referenced, and came from some of the leading scholars in the field". And what are mine? OR? There is nothing controversial about my recent edits, all are impeccably sourced and improve the article, such as ref formatting [110] and corrections of his own poor grammar (e.g. [111]). Nor have I revert-warred or taken "advantage" of the situation. I did not revert any of the changes that were deemed good by other editors, in fact the only edit of mine that could be considered a revert during this whole time is the replacement of this piece of editorializing [112] ("What matters most....not as Greeks, but Macedonians") using cherry-picked sources (and a spurious "dubious" tag a to Britannica ref, which is anything but dubious). I also do not recall signing to any agreement prohibiting me from editing the article. And where is the editorializing on my part? Where do I use editorial language? And here at last Hxseek admits that he has no problems with my edits [113] (which I appreciate). On the other hand, Hxseek made major edits with a heavy editorial tone [114] (the ones which started this dispute) without consulting anyone, and is now demanding that no one make any edits without obtaining consensus (i.e. his approval)! He repeatedly claims that he is "neutral", that he quotes reliable scholars and that I blanket-revert him, when in fact the exact opposite is true. He blanket-reverted me (before self-rving)! And no, his edits do not "show both sides" as is plain for everyone to see, but rather consistently and unmistakably push the Macedonians-are-anything-but-Greeks meme. As for his claims that he attempts to resolve things on the talkpage, the inflammatory, trolling comments in the diffs above speak for themselves. Hxseek has been blocked 5 times [115], all for editwarring, including twice in recent months. Enough. Athenean (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <Hxseek>[edit]Comment by Aigest[edit]Being myself a participant in Albanian and Dacian projects, I've had several contacts with Hxseek. He is a contributor which is very civil and informative in his discussion not only with me but even with other contributors in this wikiprojects as you may see me, Zenarnah, Hxseek, Dazius and Hxseek, Codrin.B, Dazius, Hxseek, Codrin.B, me and Hxseek etc. In every discussion I've had with Hxseek, I've found that he is very well informed in the topics he engages and he tries to be as much as possible academic and NPOV on the matters and his edits are well sourced with the latest references on the field. I would like to say something more on the Ancient Macedonians topic before commenting his behavior there. I suppose other editors know the Macedonian issue, name, identity etc. There are two sides of the story which claim the "truth" on their side. Beside political consequences this situation has repercussions even in wikipedia related articles. There are heavily POV editors who in the name of a nationalistic agenda are more interested in propagating "their truth" than expressing the academic view on the matter. From what I can see from this specific situation Hxseek first edit were an improvement of the previous version as accepted by an admin here. Just look at the way how the problem is tackled by Hxseek in the previous diff, not from "they were Greeks" or "they were not Greeks" POV, but from the latest (more than 20 years now) trend in history and archeology regarding fluid and complex identities in past times. This generated much reverts in the article by anon IP with a clear nationalist agenda so the page was semiprotected. Hxseek expresses his intentions here and I also find his position very logical, based in RS thus giving a fresh air to the status of the article. We can see also that Hxseek proposed a new version for the language section in the talk page. It might have take him months to read and hours to write that proposal but the response sounds more like a false accusation than a collaborative behavior. While in Hxseek contribution it is stated clear that "That Macedonian which is available to us comes from surviving inscriptions and personal names (onosmatics)." and "Hammond’s conclusion has been criticised by Borza and Crossland." he is accused of POV because "position that states that the language is related to Greek is "criticized" and "zero mention of the epigraphic evidence," while there was nothing like that in his edit. I believe that we all here know how frustrating this kind of situation might be. The fact the other users ( user:A Macedonian, a Greek, so much for the NPOV of the article) without participating in the debate intervened with the false "(actually this is the version per talk page...)?! didn't help the situation. I am not saying that what Hxseek did was right, but under these circumstances it is comprehensible to loose control, as he himself admits. In the end its efforts did improve the article a little bit and as far as I see from this the things are calmed down. Hxseek is an excellent contributor and a good talker and most of all, admits his faults and is always opened for a consensus, a rare thing among Balkan contributors. For all these circumstances I think that a 72 hour ban is more than enough for the case. That indefinite ban is an extreme measure, Hxseek learned the lesson and he does not have and edit war mentality. Summarizing, his contributions are of excellent quality with latest references open-minded for consensus and accepting his faults. The extended ban will only lead to impoverishment and POV pushing of related articles (judging by numerous heavily POV anon IP interventions on that articles that we can see from history) and we need good contributors there. P.S. I would like to add something about my opinion here. I am recently working on the maps and although I knew the good reputation that Hxseek has regarding map creations I felt that I should have thanked Hxseek for his great efforts while his excellent maps are widely in use in Balkan related articles. I saw the block and I've already expressed my opinion in his talk page even before he made the appeal here. Regardless of others opinion, I don't need an invitation to express my opinion on him. I think that he is one of the best contributors I've seen on wikipedia both in articles and maps and he should be considered like a valuable asset of this project, cause he has given a lot and has much more to give. Aigest (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Comment by Daizus[edit]I endorse Aigest's assessment above: Hxseek is a knowledgeable editor with lots to offer. For example, see his last two major proposals for this article: [116] and [117]. Some replies to this appeal make accusations which are groundless or one-sided. Both editors (HxSeek and Athenean) engaged in edit-warring and reverting (even though only HxSeek violated 3RR), so IMHO if HxSeek is a "hazard" (as BWilkins concluded) then so must be Athenean and other several editors with a long history of reverts in this article. This quarrel was started by a recent addition by HxSeek. Athenean accused him of "consistently and unmistakably" pushing "the Macedonians-are-anything-but-Greeks meme", but in the diffs provided as evidence ([118]) we can read: "Indeed, Macedonian’s possessed an eclectic mix of linguistic and cultural features, incorporating both Greek and non-Greek elements. Whilst the Macedonians were certainly part of a broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century, what matters most is that they made their mark not as Greeks, or a different Balkan people, but as Macedonians." (emphasis mine). Sure, such edits can be toned down, but I don't see the substance for the accusation above. Let's note this contribution was appreciated and defended by other editors against anonymous reverts: [119] [120]. As for this restriction and the protection of this article, Two recent comments by Athenean made me wonder:[121] and [122]. Apparently he is willing to compromise the quality of the article to gain score points in his personal quarrel with Hxseek. The attitude displayed here is "revert, not improve". And doesn't seem to me that HxSeek is the main offender. He was already blocked for 3RR and that seems fair enough. Here's a short history of reverts involving Athenean and HxSeek, some of them may be well justified, but some of them may be not, or at least should have been discussed first.
The pattern I see here is HxSeek trying to change or add something in the article and being reverted, mostly by Athenean. Sometimes HxSeek defended his position, sometimes he didn't. It's interesting to note that in all these cases HxSeek eventually conceded. Athenean shows no compromise, and as it's apparent from his last comments, he'd rather revert HxSeek's edits (even when appreciated by other editors) than build something on them. These being said, IMHO a restriction on HxSeek only is one-sided and unfair. The pattern above suggests it's rather HxSeek's edits being reverted (by users like Athenean). Daizus (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Hxseek[edit]
The administrator whose action ([136]) is being appealed has not been notified of this appeal. If this does not happen within 24 hours, and the corresponding diff is not logged in the appeal, the appeal may be summarily closed. Sandstein 07:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
|
George Al-Shami
[edit]Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning George Al-Shami
[edit]- User requesting enforcement
- Pantherskin (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- George Al-Shami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBPIA#Editors reminded, WP:ARBPIA#Editors counseled
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [137] first interaction with this editor, and his first comment on me (a few weeks ago), accusing me of "cook[ing] up some disingenuous argument" and having a "unabashed extremist pro-Zionist stance" and "highest caliber of POV-pushing", no sanction was imposed
- [138] revert of my edit with a gracious edit summary, not related to the content, but to my persona
- [139] again attacking and unnecessarily personalizing a content dispute
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
[140] Civility warning by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Topic ban/mentorship
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- This editor has a history of attacking and accusing other of having a particular POV, instead of actually discussing the content. In particular, the comment on me a few weeks ago on WP:AE was quite unacceptable. I would have hoped that this was a one-time incident, but apparently it was not as my edit was reverted with accusations, instead of a serious content discussion. What is also concerning is this edit of 2008, [141]. It is indeed a long time ago, but it is an edit to the same article that introduces a claim that is ostensibly supported by a source. But as is clear from looking at the source [142] there is nothing on the cited page, nothing indeed in the whole book about the claim that "according to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were caused and started by Israel". This might be several years ago, but it leaves the question to what extent we can trust this editor to be honest with sources and citations. He might have changed of course, although I have my doubts given the continuining incivility and battleground mentality.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [143]
Discussion concerning George Al-Shami
[edit]Statement by George Al-Shami
[edit]In my response on the talk page, I advise User:Pantherskin to stop editing any political article, because of his apparent disregard of Wikipedia's neutrality. My comment was borne from a frustarting disbelief that an editor with a history, such as User:Pantherskin's, is still allowed to edit. Regarding the actual edit that sparked my rv and comment to User:Pantherskin; User:Pantherskin went along and removed a properly sourced passage, which he doesn't want in the article for the above reasons mentioned in my original comment; User:Pantherskin's many reverts to remove the properly sourced Dyan quotes got him banned for 30 hours. Despite being banned for removing the Dayan quotes, User:Pantherskin continues to remove it; after getting banned he waited for some time and now he's back removing the same quotes. The quotes in question were discussed for a lengthy time, however despite the lack of consensus for removing them, User:Pantherskin continues to remove the aforementioned properly sourced quotes. To prove the above, please look at the reverts User:Pantherskin made, which eventually got him banned for 30 hours, [144]
With regards to an unrelated edit I made 2 years ago (which User:Pantherskin is using to discredit me), I misreferenced a reference, which was taken from a scholarly text. I accidentally provided the wrong page and ever since User:Pantherskin has been using this example to discredit me and my whole editing history on Wikipedia. The actual numbers were taken from a documentary from an American official, who stated that 64 of the 69 border-flare-ups were deliberately started by Israel to provoke Syria and once Syria was provoked Israel sent manipulated press clips to the US to prove that Syria was the real aggressor and not Israel, when in fact it was Israel that was deliberately provoking Syria. User:Pantherskin reverted my edit and I never reverted that edit. I am still waiting to see how to properly source a documentary. Furthermore I remember reading from the text in question that it was Israel which started the overwhelming number of border flare-ups. Because User:Pantherskin cannot accept the actual historical line of events, he keeps removing a quotes from an Israeli general which backs up the edit I made more than 2 years ago.
Pantherskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of edits that violate the ban from editing the Syria article. Despite getting into trouble for this, User:Pantherskin continues to either alter or remove the Dayan quotes and other passages.
- [145] Removed Dayan qoutes and passage.
- [146] Again removed Dayan qoutes and passage.
- [147] Removed properly sourced passage and the source, the New York Times. User:Pantherskin is ok with the NYT when it backs his POV, but not ok wih it when it doesn't back his pov.
- [148] Again for the third time removes the Dayan qoutes and passage.
In conclusion, I believe I made a mistake, rather than making a comment about User:Pantherskin's obvious disregard to wikipedia's neutrality; I should have reported him for reverting the same passage that caused him to get banned in the first place. Moreover, to provide more context about the comments (referenced by User:Pantherskin) I made 2 weeks ago on another request (filed by a different user) against User:Pantherskin, please check this [149] and read what the closing editor said.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- So if you accidentally provided the wrong page, what is the correct page? Because searching for the number 69 in the book does not show anyting supporting this claim. There might or there might not be a documentary that makes these claims, but then why do use a completely unrelated book as a reference?
- And yes, I got blocked for edit-warring. But I learned from this, and was careful from then on to discuss the content and to build a consensus for the removal of a quote and rewrite of the section. You might not agree with my assessment (and in fact other editor's assessment) of what should be in the article and what not, but that does not give you the right to be incivil and paint me as an extremist and as someone with complete disregard for Wikipedia's policies (as once again you did here...) Pantherskin (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Re removal of a quote - you might notice that there was a discussion on the talk page, and that there was a rough consensus for not including the quote (and several other editor also removed the quote), due to the WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV problem. Of course one could argue that I misinterpreted the consensus, but whatever. In any case I note that although you are quick to revert other editors with edit summaries such as "removed brazen POV additions", "no consensus has been achieved by this extreme POV pushing, a new york times article is only acceptable if it casts a positive light on Israel?)" or "wow, I still don't understand how the previous editor is still allowed to edit. Undid unbelievable POV editing, restored deleted paragraphs" you are not participating in any talk page discussions, except for two posts that discussed/attacked editors, but not the content. Pantherskin (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, there was never any consensus for removing the Dayan quotes, 5 editors were against removing, whereas another 4 were for it; I'm sorry that's not a consensus. I do participate when a point I want to make is not made; however I did discuss the Dayan quotes once and then stopped when other editors were making the same points I wanted to make. If you disagree with my comments about your editing, then how would you describe the behavior of an editor who keeps removing a properly sourced quote when no consensus has been achieved to remove it and the said editor has been warned before about such actions. Honestly speaking Panhterskin, I have closely monitored your behavior; and I have noticed that when you object to a source you start coming up with every excuse in the book just to remove it. For example with the Dayan quotes, you first mentioned that an Israeli general's comments should be discounted because, in your opinion, other pro-zionist scholars disagree with him. Then you started attacking the actual source, NYT, arguing roughly that it's not reliable; and then you started mentioning that this passage has no place in the Syria article. Pantherskin, please be honest; if you are truly sincere about bettering the Syria article then why would you attack a source from every possible angle? What would you come up with every possible argument just to remove the source. As mentioned before many other editors, including myself, objected to the reasons you were providing, on the grounds that your reasons were not legitimate.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe, if you would actually participate in talk page discussion instead of edit-warring with your gracious edit summaries you would notice that I and several editors gave specific reasons why including this quote, without any qualification, violates WP:NPOV. And no, the scholars are not "pro-zionist", although apparently you use this label quite often, despite several warning not to do so. And contrary to you, at least I come up with reasons for my edits, instead of just edit-warring and attacking other editors as you do. Pantherskin (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Shell Kinney's singular comment does not amount to "several editors". Moreover I do not attack editors, I comment on the nature of the edit itself; there's a big difference between the two. In your case I did call you out, because I was frustrated by the fact that the community was allowing you to continue to edit, even when it was demonstrated that you were not able to contribute neutrally to the Syria article. You placed sources that other editors referred to as "cherry-picking" and I never removed them; however when other editors placed sources that contradicted your sources you began attacking the latter sources, edit-warring and removing them, which led to the aforementioned ban. Last but not least, I did participate in the discussion and stopped when other editors were making the same points I wanted to make.George Al-Shami (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe, if you would actually participate in talk page discussion instead of edit-warring with your gracious edit summaries you would notice that I and several editors gave specific reasons why including this quote, without any qualification, violates WP:NPOV. And no, the scholars are not "pro-zionist", although apparently you use this label quite often, despite several warning not to do so. And contrary to you, at least I come up with reasons for my edits, instead of just edit-warring and attacking other editors as you do. Pantherskin (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, there was never any consensus for removing the Dayan quotes, 5 editors were against removing, whereas another 4 were for it; I'm sorry that's not a consensus. I do participate when a point I want to make is not made; however I did discuss the Dayan quotes once and then stopped when other editors were making the same points I wanted to make. If you disagree with my comments about your editing, then how would you describe the behavior of an editor who keeps removing a properly sourced quote when no consensus has been achieved to remove it and the said editor has been warned before about such actions. Honestly speaking Panhterskin, I have closely monitored your behavior; and I have noticed that when you object to a source you start coming up with every excuse in the book just to remove it. For example with the Dayan quotes, you first mentioned that an Israeli general's comments should be discounted because, in your opinion, other pro-zionist scholars disagree with him. Then you started attacking the actual source, NYT, arguing roughly that it's not reliable; and then you started mentioning that this passage has no place in the Syria article. Pantherskin, please be honest; if you are truly sincere about bettering the Syria article then why would you attack a source from every possible angle? What would you come up with every possible argument just to remove the source. As mentioned before many other editors, including myself, objected to the reasons you were providing, on the grounds that your reasons were not legitimate.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Re removal of a quote - you might notice that there was a discussion on the talk page, and that there was a rough consensus for not including the quote (and several other editor also removed the quote), due to the WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV problem. Of course one could argue that I misinterpreted the consensus, but whatever. In any case I note that although you are quick to revert other editors with edit summaries such as "removed brazen POV additions", "no consensus has been achieved by this extreme POV pushing, a new york times article is only acceptable if it casts a positive light on Israel?)" or "wow, I still don't understand how the previous editor is still allowed to edit. Undid unbelievable POV editing, restored deleted paragraphs" you are not participating in any talk page discussions, except for two posts that discussed/attacked editors, but not the content. Pantherskin (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning George Al-Shami
[edit]Result concerning George Al-Shami
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
The Four Deuces
[edit]
Request concerning The Four Deuces[edit]
It was suggested previously [153] it would be highly likely he will continue to characterise anyone he disagrees with as harbouring pro-fascist or extreme right wing sympathies. This is unacceptable that he continues to do so. --Martin (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning The Four Deuces[edit]Statement by The Four Deuces[edit]My comments were about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented rather than his personal point of view. The far right in the former Communist states seeks to re-write history in order to villianize ethnic minorities within their borders, in particular Russians, whom they believe are within their countries illegally. The connection of this POV with the far right is well-documented. Not only do they argue that the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, which is a mainstream view, but that (as Martintg presented) " - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR". The implication is that Russian and other ethnic minorities are illegally in the Baltic states.
Reply to Martintg's additional comments: Martin, just because you have found a source that calls the "double genocide" theory "comparative trivialization" (not btw "holocaust denial") does not mean that I called it that. The double genocide theory is merely the belief that the crimes of Stalin and the Nazis had equivalency. Here is a link to the discussion of the topic in the source your provided. It says, "Central to the notion of comparative trivialization is the so-called double genocide or symmetry approach to the Holocaust in post-Communist East Central Europe". The term "double genocide" does not imply comparative trivialization, although you have found a source attacking the double genocide theory as comparative trivialization. I notice that you googled "double genocide"+"holocaust denial". TFD (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Reply to Biophys - the article Right-wing politics was protected because a dynamic IP was edit-warring. Several of the IPs were blocked for sockpuppetry, but there were approximately forty numbers that the IP used. This article and Roger Scruton were semi-protected. When the IP continued to post on the talk page, the talk page was semi-protected as well. An editor however posted comments by the blocked account. Here is an example of what was re-posted: "What a truly nasty woman." (referring to SlimVirgin) "This may make you uncomfortable, and you would prefer that it was not the case, but if the aim is truth rather than deception, ignorance is no defence". All of that can be found in the links you provided. When you linked to your reply to me you should have included my comments. "But the sources used include the [[Mitrokhin Archive]], The Black Book of Communism, and The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, all of which are controversial books published outside the academic mainstream (although the Black Book was later republished by the Harvard University Press). A lot of conflict could be avoided if there were tighter restrictions on sources used, as for example in [WP:MEDRS]]." TFD (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning The Four Deuces[edit]Comment by Sander Säde[edit]Editors have been blocked for far, far less than the direct personal attack by TFD. Of course he commented directly on Martin and not "about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented", it is completely clear from the diff ([160]). This is not the first time he has directed comments on the editor and not content - in fact, this is his usual modus operandi. I would recommend an indefinite ban from all Eastern Europe and politics-related topics, which could be lifted only by appeal after six months.
Furthermore - as I just realized, I fell into his trap. The quotes he brings here are completely irrelevant. This is a case about direct personal attack, not "right-wing extremism", "rewriting history" or something else. This is a case where The Four Deuces smeared an another editor, something which he has often done and he sees nothing wrong in portraying his fellow editors as fascists or "ethnic nationalists". No quotes from anywhere will change that fact. Please don't be misled by his intentionally inflammatory comment, like I was. Off-topic, but as a food of thought. Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica (IRL) is considered to be the rightmost major Estonian party. We have elections coming in March. Two main election slogans for the IRL are free university education (something that already exists in Estonia) and mothers getting a pension increase in relation to the number of children. Their views are quite a bit left of U.S. Democratic Party. Estonia also has an actual nationalist party, Estonian Independence Party. In 2007 elections they got 0.2% of votes, in 2011 they will probably get even less than that. Right-wing nationalism simply has no support in Estonia. As for me, I consider myself to be somewhere between the center and a Social Democrat, although Social Democratic Party (Estonia) probably won't get my vote this time, as their behavior has been a pretty spineless lately. Comment by Biophys[edit]
Comment by BorisG[edit]Language used by TFD is very troubling and unacceptable. In the countries that have been oppressed for many decades the issue is very sensitive and requires care. I also disagree with the substance of his comment (including his comment on this thread) but this is not the point here. - BorisG (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
comment by darkstar1st[edit]extremist ethnic nationalist is a harsh way to address an editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Collect[edit]Looking over the comments in question makes the situation all too clear as to TFD's attitude towards civility towards others. Collect (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Result concerning The Four Deuces[edit]
While TFD has made intemperate comments in the past, I do not find anything in the evidence presented or their recent contributions that would rise to the level of requiring a sanction here. The furthest I might go would be to point out that in topic areas where disputes often become heated (including anything covered by our several ethnic disputes discretionary sanctions), it might be best practice to avoid any comment that might be construed as reflecting on an editor rather than an edit, and that sources may be best rebutted with better sources, not personal analysis (howsoever obvious it may be). Recommend close without action. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
|