Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive88
JonathanGo
[edit]| JonathanGo (talk · contribs) topic-banned indefinitely from the area of conflict. T. Canens (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Request concerning JonathanGo[edit]
Topic ban or indef block. Pretty much the same since he doesn't edit any other areas.
I hadn't checked that article in months. I was actually curious as to who managed to get rid of the silly lists "for" and "against" the analogy. Upon visiting the talk page however, I found a recently blocked AE editor soapboxing there. Time for another, longer block methinks.
Discussion concerning JonathanGo[edit]Statement by JonathanGo[edit]1. "It's self-explanatory if I just quote it". one just can't quote other editor's sentence and declare that it is "self-explanatory" . this kind of complaint is both insulting and an a blunt abuse of the right to file a complaint. that's because of 2 reasons: first - it is a long sentence and I have no idea to which part of the sentence he/she is referring to and therefore I cannot defend myself from such a complaint. second - this kind of complaint is assuming that the other side has intentionally and deliberately acted wrongfully, in order to insult or harm other users. which is of course nonsense. nevertheless and without admitting any wrong doing I have decided to rephrase the initial request for article deletion. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy |Jonathango| 18:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) therefore I declare that this answer is also a counter complaint. on the ground of insult.and asking to block the user for 2 days 2. the second argue is misleading, because Mr. Tijfo098 didn't quote the full explanation that I gave for the revert but only part of it - the part that support his/her baseless complaint. when I made the revert I wrote "Vandalism. the section is relevant|Jonathango| 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)" tijfo098 wrote in his complaint only "Vandalism". this is misleading, because one can assume that this is the only word I wrote. when it wasn't so. in fact this was a mistake. as you can guess, at the beginning I wrote "vandalism" , then when I sow that the other user gave explanation I added the "section is relevant" with intention to delete "vandalism" , but for some reason I forgot to do it. any way "Vandalism. the section is relevant|Jonathango| 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)" is not equal to "Vandalism" only. I would like to refer to this answer also as a counter complaint against Tijfo098. and asking to block the user for 2 days 3. as to this:"I hadn't checked that article in months. I was actually curious as to who managed to get rid of the silly lists "for" and "against" the analogy. Upon visiting the talk page however, I found a recently blocked AE editor soapboxing there. Time for another, longer block methinks". I have no idea what he/she is talking about. I need to say regrettably, that in the few days I'm here I see concentrated and deliberate efforts to block and shut up , any user who is not bluntly "pro-Palestinien"|Jonathango| 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mcm. mow I understand what the plaintiff meant. and therefore I would like to add some comments. 1. as indicated. I am new here and was completely unaware about these rules. 2. about legal "threat" - I had no idea that this kind of language is forbidden, I can see the logic of this rule here, and promise not to repeat this mistake, also I corrected it now in the talk page. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#propose_to_delete_this_article 3. about "offensive language" , I admit, I should have chosen more appropriate words , and in fact as indicated above I did change the sentence immediately as I realized it. I think this fact alone is worthy reconsideration of the complaint. but I have to admit that the use of the wording "apartheid" and "Israel" in the same sentence , is to me, at least as offensive and insulting as the language I used. therefore at the time I wrote the request for removal I was expressing anger as result of insult. finally I would like to add that in my opinion WP can benefit from my contribution , and in fact it is desperately in need for my services. because as I see it, this arab-israeli conflict article spectrum has become increasingly single sided , with almost no place for balanced opinion. and yes - I consider my opinion as balanced, comparing to the majority opinion here. I think that as much as I have my own obvious views about the conflict, I always try to remain devoted to truth as only goal. blocking me, may result even more severe bipartisanship in this scope of articles and eventually it will diminish WP reputation more then mine. considering all this, and the corrections I made, I think, more then one week blocking will be considered, disproportionate and almost draconian measures. |Jonathango| 10:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning JonathanGo[edit]
Result concerning JonathanGo[edit]
Looks like a straightforward case. I think an indefinite topic ban is needed here. T. Canens (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Yes, this user doesn't seem ready to contribute neutrally and collegially in this topic. Agree with topic ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Bizovne
[edit]| Special powers of AE aren't needed. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Bizovne[edit]
Indefinite topic ban on Hungary and Hungarian related articles, broadly construed.
According to this ANI-report on 27 April 2011
On 29 April 2011 User:Bizovne displayed the same map as what was on the user page of Iaaasi [8] with which the user plainly signed that became a recruited meat-puppet of Iaaasi, in my opinion. On 3 May 2011 there is still made one another message written in Slovak ,which violates WP:NPA; I do not speak Slovak at all, but its edit summary is "fasista coolkoon" as well as its title name is "Madarsky fasista CoolKoon". Please note that the word "Madarsky" means Hungarian in English.
Discussion concerning Bizovne[edit]Note by Fut.Perf[edit]Just to note here that the Slovak passage cited above [12] seems to translate (with a little help from my friends) to something approximately like: "Hi, I think that the English wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for the promotion of Your fascist, irredentist, revisionist and Great-Hungarian views. Stop promoting Hungary and Nazi Germany in WWII. Your fascism has no place on Wikipedia." – Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Bizovne[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Bizovne[edit]My thought is that in light of the aggressive and degrading ethnic attacks that an indefinite ban from Wikipedia is probably more appropriate than something limited to this arbitration decision. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Bizovne[edit]
|
Debresser
[edit]| Moot. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Debresser[edit]
I was topic banned by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) because of a conflict with Chesdovi (talk · contribs) [13]. As it turns out, that editor had been warned on his talkpage before [14], as well as blocked [15][16][17], for his insistent and belligerent behavior in relation with WP:ARBPIA. I have never been warned, topic banned or blocked before in relation with WP:ARBPIA. Nor do I usually edit articles related with that subject. Nor do I think that the disagreement I have with Chesdovi is really related to that area. I never saw it as such, in any case. On the WP:ANI discussion where the topic ban was announced, I have logged my protest. Likewise, I have approached the banning admin on his talkpage to reconsider his decision based on my arguments at WP:ANI [18]. He has not done so for over 36 hours, as far as I can see. I therefore now ask you to consider my request on WP:ANI, and rescind the topic ban as an inappropriately harsh and unfair sanction. I have come here after an editor wrote me that I should come here [19] [20] [21], implying that he also believes I have a point with my request. I have informed the banning editor of this appeal [22].Debresser (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Just now I noticed that the WP:ANI section has been closed, while the closing editor also recommended me to come here [23]. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Discussion concerning Debresser[edit]Further statement by Debresser[edit]
Comments by others about the request concerning Debresser[edit]
Comment by Georgewilliamherbert[edit]Both parties were misbehaving equally in the ANI and edit warring dispute. I didn't feel that either deserved worse punishment, either for the instant behavior or for prior history. Further questions and comments welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Chesdovi[edit]
Result concerning Debresser[edit]
|
Imalbornoz
[edit]| Four editors are restricted from the Gibraltar article in various ways. Normal editing can resume after a binding RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||
Request concerning Imalbornoz[edit]
Discretionary sanctions to be imposed on User:Imalbornoz.
This has proved a particularly intractable content dispute, but its intractability is made far worse by the fact that Imalbornoz (and fellow editor Richard Keatinge) have proven themselves unwilling to engage in the consensus-building process. You'll see several things in the discussions I linked above. There's WP:OWN violations (see the title of this section for a typical example - Curry Monster is essentially told that he is not allowed to be WP:BOLD). You will see in the discussions above lots of times when asked for objections, these editors cite lack of consensus consensus. When pushed, they state that things are "required", or "very notable and relevant" with no argument whatsoever backing that up. It takes literally weeks of asking to get an argument of any kind objecting to any proposal - which would seem to be exactly the "roadblocking" that Vassanya described in the warnings provided. And even then it is generally couched in the sort of bad faith accusations that you saw in the diff from this evening. Today, Imalbornoz has twice reverted a work in progress because, he said, the Great Siege of Gibraltar took up one third of the history scetion. That was the only objection expressed. Never mind that it was very much a work in progress and that the Great Siege would not have been a third of the length in the end (and Imalbornoz had been told that). Never mind that the Great Siege was one of the most significant things to have happened to Gibraltar in the last three hundred years (and thus given lots and lots of weight by reliable sources), and that the reverts remove it from the article altogether. Note in that diff that there is no constructive criticism. It's all about "[w]hat I think isn't reasonable at all is WC Monster's current History section" and "[s]omeone should convince WC Monster to be reasonable". This is entirely typical of the sorts of responses we get. The article is at a standstill because of this egregious "roadblocking", and I and Curry Monster have asked repeatedly that it stop, but as you can see, it has not. For me, that accusation of bad faith this evening was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even taken alone, this is something that I should not have to put up with on an article under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, particularly when the editor concerned has been warned under those sanctions. But I believe the above demonstrates that it is not the only problem with this editor's behaviour here. As such, I would now like to ask that discretionary sanctions be applied. Note that I will be going away on Sunday for a week, and during that time will almost certainly not respond to discussion. Note also that Curry Monster has a bereavement to deal with at the moment.
Discussion concerning Imalbornoz[edit]Statement by Imalbornoz[edit]There has been a discussion in the Gibraltar article since October 2009 (one year and a half!), in which PfainUK and WC Monster have tried to avoid mentioning certain events in Gibraltar's history, while Richard Keatinge and myself have thought it reasonable to mention them. About the ARBCOM:
About the dispute:
About PfainUK's accusation:
Conclusion: I actually think that this is a very sensitive dispute and we are not able to find a solution by ourselves. Now that the matter has been brought to this noticeboard (for the 2nd or 3rd time in 1.5 years) I would ask for admin intervention in the discussion and (especially) some opinion on WC Monster's and PfainUK's behavior (and my own behavior as well, of course). We need help!!! Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz[edit]I'd like to support Imalbornoz's comments and commend his patience in an intractable dispute; I suggest that this particular request is not worth further attention. While I'm here, I would like to record my thanks to NebY for recent helpful edits which may actually break the logjam on this article, and if any editors are prepared to follow his bold example I'd be really grateful for further substantive help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(Moved from below Pfainuk talk 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC))
Adding to the above, on a more general note, I am very disappointed that it seems to have been decided that Imalbornoz is allowed to accuse other editors of bad faith editing. If he's allowed to tell me outright that my concerns are not based on genuine concerns regarding neutrality and on the clear errors in fact and false implications in the existing text, but instead are purely based on some bizarre notion of embarrassment for an event that is relatively minor when compared with other incidents that my country has been involved in during the 307 years since, then it is difficult to see why he will not continue to do it. Shoot, he even tells you I'm a nationalist in his own statement. Going on about "PfainUK" also doesn't help here - yes, there happens to be a "uk" at the end of my user name. It seems rather presumptuous to assume that this has anything to do with anything, other than the fact that I like the sound of the word "Pfainuk". If I called myself "Tokusa" (to cite a non-existent account name), would he go about calling me "TokUSA"? Again, he seems to be trying to present me as some kind of nationalist - an assumption of bad faith. If we are now saying that Imalbornoz is allowed to assume bad faith in other editors, this would poison future discussions on the subject, not just of this particular point, but of all future discussion in which he is involved. If he's allowed to call me a British nationalist, then what is to stop another editor from calling him a "Spanish nationalist" - I make this point because it's one of the things that mentions in his repackaging of his case from the original Arbcom (and never mind the facts that - despite his claim - I never condoned Curry Monster's language, Curry Monster repeatedly apologised for it, and the whole thing was considered by Arbcom). I won't go into the detail of the dispute, other than to mention that the problem with any text that goes into significant detail about certain aspects of the 1704 Capture of Gibraltar (even if it was accepted that this was neutral in and of itself), but then entirely fails to even mention the Treaty of Utrecht or the Great Siege (as per Imalbornoz's most recent edits) should be obvious to any reader with even a passing knowledge of Gibraltar history. I would finally note that I find Imalbornoz's contention that I am not allowed to change my position based on new evidence from sources rather bizarre but not terribly productive. What I said in September 2009 was accurate based on the limited sources I had seen at the time, and you will note that I was happy not to have the words "fearing reprisals" in it. As such, I would like to give admins the opportunity to confirm my impression that changing one's position with a changing understanding of the sources is not just allowed, but an inherent part of the consensus-building process. Pfainuk talk 15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Statement from TRHoPF[edit]This article basically needs a new generation of editors - it long ago went beyond content disputes to become personal, and the wording of a couple of sentences has become a very unhealthy obsession for one or two people. This blocks progress and a communal atmosphere. As someone who used to edit this article, who has no intention of editing it again, and who was involved in the ArbCom case, I say the proposal looks good. Running here and "telling tales" is not a solution to the problem. A solution which impacts all four of the current warring editors is needed and - short of topic banning everyone mentioned in the ArbCom case, asking them to voluntarily do something else with their lives, or waiting a few decades for them to pass away - this looks good. (On the subject of passing away, I ask WCM, now in his seventh year of arguing with people in the Gibraltar article, how he feels about the thought of him outliving Imalbornoz and Richard, successfully keeping mention of San Roque out of the article until the day of his death, but one day later, some young upstart decides to put it back in, and there it stays for eternity? Were the years spent arguing about it well spent? Life is too short, people!) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Wee Curry Monster[edit]I have removed my initial comment as those remarks are now amplified below. It is also instructive to consider Imalbornoz's contribution history [60] it is nothing but reverts on Gibraltar articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC) On a tangent, you might like to consider this and this humorous quote by an involved editor. "*COUGH* Pf And Wee, where has your pro-British POV gone chaps? OH wait, was never there in the first place ;) And I agree with you both on this subject matter". Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Start of Evidence via Diffs[edit]Remarks related to "British Embarassment" at the events of 1704[edit]I believe that you have too quickly overlooked this as a demonstration of bad faith. It is regularly trotted out that the British are embarassed by the events of 1704 and suppress or ignore what happened. First of all let me address the truth of that comment. The events are described accurately in Hills (1974), Bradford (1971), Francis (1975), Jackson (1990), Andrews (1958) and Garratt (1939). All published in the 20th Century, no major work glosses over what happened. In 1845, Ayala a Spanish work is translated verbatim into English by T.James (1845), there are the accounts of Sayer (1862), Martin (1887), Drinkwater (1824). Reputable histories published in the 19th Century don't gloss over the facts. In 1704, Admiral Byng and the Reverend Pocock wrote detailed eye witness accounts from a personal perspective. Again in the 18th Century the facts aren't glossed over. The statement of Garratt (1939) "The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books." does not stand up to scrutiny - every reputable history published in English since the 18th Century addresses what happened. Yet it is repeatedly used to imply that Pfainuk and I are following the same line to "remove facts cited as embarrassing by British historians". Were this statement a one off, I could understand why it was so lightly dismissed. But it isn't a one off. Its a recurring statement [61],[62],[63] often rebutted by pointing out the above [64] and [65]. I want to draw particular attention to a quote from Imalbornoz in this diff [66].
Please note the repeated referral to "coincidentally or not" cited as embarrassing by British historians. The accusation is I believe clear and it is an accusation repeated again and again. I am very tired of it and btw being Scottish I don't have any hang ups about embarrassing the Sassenachs. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Accusations of removal of facts[edit]Note in this diff [67] Imalbornoz alleges we wish to remove facts. The statement does not reflect any edit that is proposed. See User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN, he alleges I am removing facts when in fact I include every piece of information that he demands. The accusation of removing facts, suppressing facts, censoring facts are numerous. We do not wish to remove any facts. We have suggested that if certain facts are to be included, then to achieve a WP:NPOV additional facts should be included. We are in fact urging additional content to balance the WP:NPOV by including text that reflects the range of opinions in the literature. Again refer to User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN to compare the content suggestions. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Disruption of RFC and Notice Boards[edit]During the mediation case I made a comment about the multiple issues in the way an edit was being formulated [68]. Part of which was related to WP:RS using Google Snippets, part was related to WP:OR in which a conclusion was synthesised from certain facts. I raised this at WP:NORN at the request of the mediator User:Lord Roem here [69]. Rather than raising the issue focussed and relevant to this noticeboard, Imalbornoz raised multiple issues that were not pertinent to that discussion [70]. As discussion diverted from the issue relevant to the noticeboard I asked a focussed question for outside opinion [[71], Richard immediately followed this by again raising mattera that were irrelevant [72]. Unsurprisingly the outside opinion sought never materialised. The suggestion was made for an RFC, so I started one [73]. It never stood a chance, Imalbornoz posted a wall of text, then Richard completely hijacked it aand rewrote it [74] so that it did not address any of the issues that have been raised. It seems clear that outside opinion is not wanted and Richard and Imalbornoz will intervene to deter it or ignore it. Surprisingly we did get a very reasonable suggestion from User:Andrew Dalby for a process to follow. And I did precisely what he suggested here which was to produce a large text and gradually summarise it. Both Richard and Imalbornoz refused to engage in that here but sought to perpetuate the current text without addressing the external opinion that the article didn't reflect the full story. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Sourcing[edit]The principal sources named for the edits are Hills and Jackson, quite reasonable, both are well-referenced and regarded reliable sources. The problem is that Imalbornoz has neither source Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him - he relies on a 3rd party for quotes to support the edit he wishes to make. Basically he writes an edit then looks for a supporting cite. How can he for two years argue WP:DUE without any access to sources? He doesn't address this by seeking sources, rather he asks another editor to email him selected scans to support the edit he wishes to make. [75] translation [76]. He continues to claim he can establish WP:DUE without recourse to sources and on the basis he has a 3rd party to provide quotes claims access to the sources [77]. Without access to reliable sources, he is reduced to looking for scraps of information in Google Snippets to source his edits. A) This is not considered a reliable means of sourcing and B) it produces misleading results. For example during mediation he cited Andrews p.54 as proving the establishment of de facto control shortly after the capture. The problem is this chapter is about the period after Utrecht 10 years after the capture. When I pointed this out, he continued to make the claim [78] as "You say, for example that Allen talks about the period after Utrecht (1713)... when he is mentioning Shrimpton, who was governor from 1704 to 1707!!!" This finally gave me the clue to find the snippet he'd used [79]. Shrimpton was indeed Governor from 1704-1707, the problem is that quote relates to the corruption of the early Governors post-Utrecht citing that it started with Shrimpton. BTW Hills argues that this incident in fact demonstrates the opposite of what is claimed (de facto British control) and that Shrimpton got away with it as a Hapsburg appointee as under British Military Law a British appointee would have been court martialed and hanged. Imalbornoz has frequently posted this table [80], when I looked more closely I found he had been misrepresenting his sources see this table [81]. More interestingly if you check this link [82] and look at the article history (Tab on the LHS) it was edited shortly before Imalbornoz first published this table converting British Overseas Territory to British Colony. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC) "Bibliometry"[edit]What Richard terms "ingenious Bibliometry" is a recurring feature of discussions. Conveniently Imalbornoz explained his methodology here [83]. This Bibliometry is used to construct a metric, which is not used to guide any discussion on WP:DUE, rather it is used to assert a claim that other editors are giving weight to factors that are of less significance. He refuses to ackowledge the flaws in the argument, which is at best simply an example of Confirmation Bias due to the way he structures his searches, and instead asserts that other editors are unreasonably giving weight to factors of less significance more weight (eg the Great Siege of Gibraltar, the Battle of Trafalgar or even Gibraltar's significant role in WW2. In any case, hit counts in Google searches are not a reliable indicator of weight see WP:Google searches and numbers, I want to quote the first paragraph.
This so-called Bibliometry is not a substitute for reliable sources in establishing WP:DUE but that is precisely how it is argued. Worse it is used to impugn editors by claiming they give undue weight to facts of "less signifiance" see [84]. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Laugh and a Giggle[edit][85] I have tried repeatedly to find a compromise edit acceptable to all, in fact I've compromised so many times now that basically I have given in and included every piece of content demanded by Richard and Imalbornoz. Still they revert any content suggestion I make. I just find it extraordinary that he can openly state he opposes my content suggestions not for any lack of merit but rather it amuses him. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Misrepresentation[edit]There are numerous examples of Imalbornoz misrepresenting a position held by an editor. There is an example here. Above he claims I edited to insert this:
Actually I never did and TBH I'm not sure of the editor who did or the source they used. I accepted they'd sourced it as a matter of WP:AGF. I repeated it as an example of one of many reasons why they left but principally my argument (on the basis of Hills, Jackson, Bradford et al) is that they left due to the expectation of a Spanish counter attack and their cited loyaly to Philip. This hasn't actually been mentioned since October 2010, so what is the purpose of bringing it up now and misrepresenting what editors actually argue? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Civility[edit]WP:CIVIL states:
For the benefit of those not in the know, I was diagnosed as suffering from PTSD some time ago. I had a real bad time between October 2009 and March 2010 suffering from flashbacks, nightmares and insomnia. During that period I said a number of things that I regret and for which I have apologised unreservedly on numerous occasions. Those who know me recognised my behaviour as utterly uncharacteristic, I did not shrink from the destructive nature of my behaviour, I have not and never will use my condition to excuse my behaviour. I was sanctioned by arbcom as a result but I have not repeated any of the behaviours that lead to my sanction for well over a year. This is despite the fact I have been subjected to baiting behaviour to try and elicit an intemperate response. Even though I've never repeated this behaviour, again and again Richard and Imalbornoz have referred to my past mistakes. Imalbornoz does so directly above here at WP:AE. Both repeatedly attack me for past behaviour, they were warned this was unacceptable and yet they continue to do so. Worse still for me, this is used to attack Pfainuk as "condoning" my past mistakes. This is done without any supporting evidence whatsoever and such uncivil remarks seemingly will be allowed to pass without comment. For the record, whilsy Pfainuk has shown sympathy for my condition he has never ever excused my behaviour. I do consider that this personal attack against Pfainuk, done in this very forum should not be allowed to pass without sanction to send a very clear message it is unacceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Cherry Picking[edit]In a recent edit, Imalbornoz included this "in 1711 the British government covertly ordered the British Gibraltar governor, Thomas Stanwix, to expel any foreign (not British) troops in order to render the place "absolutely in the Queen's power".[1]" Would you not agree it would be signficant to note that those covert orders were never acted upon and that Dutch troops remained until 1713? Is this edit not just the tiniest bit misleading for its selection of facts? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Final Comments[edit]Before commenting on the proposal from T. Canens, I would like to pick up on a comment made by EdJohnston. How can editors draw conclusions and make edits without access to the full text? How can WP:DUE be established without recourse to the full text? On the one hand you have editors arguing weight based on researching the subject in mutiple sources and producing an edit based on that research and supporting it with inline cites and extensive quotes. On the other you have editors who start with a premise, look for cites to support it and then ignore and veto content suggestions that attempt to redress the very real problems with WP:NPOV. I would also point out this book published by Spain whilst under the fascist dictatorship of General Franco. Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. Retrieved 2 February 2011. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked". Actually there are a range of opionions expressed in the literature to explain why the Spanish population left, not least of which is a letter from the population to Philip V that explains they left because of their loyalty to the Spanish crown and refusal to live under Hapsburg rule. The article currently reflects only one opinion and that one opinion is advanced by Spain in pursuit of its modern sovereignty claim; it doesn't reflect the range of opinion in the historical literature. Comment on proposals from T. Canens[edit]With respect to T. Canens' proposals. I fear that they will not prove to be a means of resolving this dispute rather they will actually perpetuate it. I don't think an RFC will work, even under supervision from a committed admin. Richard and Imalbornoz are past masters at frustrating RFC and outside comment with walls of text and will filibuster it into oblivion, all the while maintaining the status quo which is their objective. I would suggest modifying the proposal slightly.
Result concerning Imalbornoz[edit]
I don't see anything in the request that would, on its own, clearly require admin intervention. From a brief look at the issue it seems more likely that J. Johnson's guess is correct and that we have a problematic group editing situation. I'm not sure that AE is equipped to deal with it, though. Discretionary sanctions are more suited for addressing clearly identifiable misbehavior by individuals. Consider trying more formal content dispute resolution, such as a content WP:RFC or mediation. Sandstein 05:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
After considering the inputs above, I propose the following:
Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave this open for 48 more hours, to see if Wee Curry Monster and Pfainuk have anything to add. T. Canens (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
|
talknic
[edit]| Banned for three months from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning talknic[edit]
Block or topic ban.
There are two issues here. First the 1RR violation. Talknic has previously violated 1RR on this article (see my report [88]]) for which he received notification of the case. This is the second time within less than a month. The second issue is that he has been edit warring against consensus on 1948 Arab–Israeli War for the past week+. And when I say against consensus I mean that three different editors reverted him and an additional 5 said they object to his edit on the talk page, while no other editor supported the change he made 6 times in 8 days. The discussion is here, his multiple reverts can be seen on the article history. Let me know if diffs are necessary. The discussion and history look self explanatory to me.
Discussion concerning talknic[edit]Statement by talknic[edit]Edit warring goes both ways and is started by someone, for a reason. The reasons for my being reverted have been rather less than substantial. None have challenged the validity of the source. Consensus is by a familiar and predictable rally and seems to be vaguely based on 'I don't like it'. Were there an actual policy based reason other than the blatant misuse of consensus in order to stop information... I'll leave the Talk pages to do the rest of the talking. talknic (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning talknic[edit]Result concerning talknic[edit]
Blocked 31 hours for the 1RR violation. I'll look into the other aspects of this matter when I get some time. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Atabəy
[edit]| Atabəy is banned from Iranian topics for 3 months and is indefinitely restricted to 1RR/week. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Note the enforcement requested is not against only Atabəy but the whole article.
The Safavid article needs AA2 remedies like Caucasian Albania where all people under AA1 and AA2 were sanctioned permanently, and the article had semi-ip protection for at least one month. It has been both ip attacked from the outside and also has seens its share of WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTBATTLE from some users, specially Atabəy (talk · contribs) (Atabek (talk · contribs)). It shares of archives shows that some users have repeatedly ignored sources as shown belown.
Note Atabəy (talk · contribs) had the previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) and has been in two arbcomms, as well as banned permanently from some topic. [remedies]
Also I should note that recently, there was an Azerbaijani Russian wikipedia list that was exposed in Russian wikipedia to do coordinating editing: [96] A similar English wikipedia list was also found with some still active participants (who if they remain active should be exposed to more admins and users). I can forward to the admnistration, evidence of the off-wiki coordination (the same evidence used for the Russian case) and hateful comments by Atabəy (talk · contribs): Here are some highlights from the list, the messages pertaining to Atabəy (talk · contribs): <redacted, T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)>
violation of 1rr by Atabəy on article[edit]Per AA1/AA2, Atabəy is on 1rr
Other problems of poor behaviour including accusing others of being anti-Turkish[edit]Throughout the talkpages (and I can bring numerous examples) user Atabəy has accused others of Turcophobia (even authors who have been falsely accused of being anti-Armenian at the same time [98] (and are not !
I can cite numerous examples where the user constantly and falsely accuses others of being anti-X or anti-Y. This sort of comments as well as numerous comments bringing ethnicity of users into his comments are hard to report to AE, but if the admins have patience, they can look at the users edits to see numerous such examples. I would also mention that several years ago, Atabek went totally out and removed all references to Armenian Genocide..
A search in the archives of AE shows clearly how much Atabəy (talk · contribs) (previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) has wasted the communities resources. The wikipedia coordination list which was exposed in the Russian wikipedia actually has more unfortunate information that such users are actually lobbyist for regional governments which makes their neutrality 100% questionable. floating ip with the starting address 75/76[edit]The ip is different than Atabəy (talk · contribs), but it is about the same topic, showing why I am requesting severe sanction on the topic. The ip has not enganged in the talkpage once (except in an article on the Orontids) and has constantly removed any references to Turkish names and background. I have tried to revert him and ask him to discuss, but to no avail. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and the article is an AA1/AA2 related article, so I will report his actiivies here. He has easily broken 3rr as noted in the here: [123]
This is an unrelated topic.
I ask the same remedy that was applied to Caucasian Albania to be applied to Safavid dynasty. Furthermore, given some of the comments by Atabəy (talk · contribs) which violates all norms of Wikipedia, I request the user be permanently banned or topic banned from editing all Armenia/Azerbaijan/Iran/Turkey (broadly construed) pages. The ip with floating number 75/76 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia as it is a SPA.
Some of the xenophobic comments are from couple of years ago, but nevertheless, they have an effect on the general atmosphere of editing. One can hardly assume good faith given the above attacks on people's background and nationalities. The off-line English wikigroup can also be sent to the relavent admins (just like it seems it was done in the Russian arbcomm case), but since it has personal names, I will not divulge it here.
User has been notified [128] Discussion concerning Atabəy[edit]
Another point. Atabəy (talk · contribs) constantly has repeated three times that I am connecting an ip 75/76 with his edit. But I have mentioned at least twice that this is not the case. This is in general part of the pattern of what I consider poor wiki-behaviour by the user. He simply repeats the same accusation or sometimes the same wrong statements.
consistently refers to names with zero hits in English. And I have pointed out the 2011 behaviour as a continuation. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Atabəy[edit]
And all of the above, simply for what? Disagreeing with my talk page comments, inability to come to consensus without attacks violating WP:NPA. Arbitrators are welcome to check Safavid dynasty page history, to see what IPs are doing there, and for some reason, Khodabandeh14 was less concerned about their behavior, instead focusing on attacking only contributor who takes time to comment and provide references on talk page. And above all, Khodabandeh14 shows interest to get rid of opposing view by suggesting to topic banning me from range of subjects based on talk page discussion in one article. Implying that anyone editing Orontids is connected to me is another "pearl", be my guest, run all IP checks and logical comparisons and prove it. I always did, do and will edit under a single user account, regardless of where I am. Unlike Khodabandeh14/Ali doostzadeh/Nepaheshgar, I don't see a need to change user names over time to reestablish Wiki identity. In short, my position is that current Safavid dynasty article is a complete POV pushing starting with the first sentence: "Safavid dynasty of Iran was one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran.". Apart from disputable POV, the statement "of Iran" is duplicated in sentence. Google Books search for "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" returns over 2,980 references, another more specific search for "Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty" returns 4630 references, including 7 specific ones to expert scholars like R.G. Suny or a combination of scholars who developed country study summaries for the Federal Research Division. But no, Doostzadeh/Khodabandeh is more "expert" than those, claiming that this dynasty was only that of Iran, when the official name of state was "Dowlat-e Safaviyya" (State of Safavids). Moreover, Khodabandeh14's edits in Wikipedia are not apolitical, especially considering some of his publicly available off-Wiki political writings. If there is anybody who deserved to be added to AA1 and AA2 ArbCom lists of restricted users for his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, while being somehow left out till now, it's User:Khodabandeh14 also known as User:Ali doostzadeh/User:Nepaheshgar. Atabəy (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Atabəy[edit]Speaking as someone who is relatively familiar with Atabey and his edits, I don't think a mere ban on this single article will do any good. If the past is any indication, it has proven that even after Atabey has been banned from editing a particular article, he has shifted the locus of his disruptive edits to elsewhere. In February 2008, he was topic banned for several weeks from editing the article on the Shusha pogrom. One month later, he was topic banned from editing the article on Osroene. In September of the same year, he was permanently topic banned from editing two different article. Given this history, there is little hope to hold out that he will be start making more constructive edits and drop the generally bellicose attitude toward resolving conflicts and other editors. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Atabəy[edit]
I have redacted the alleged off-wiki communications. These should be sent directly to the arbitration committee via email. It may be necessary to open a new arbitration case ala WP:EEML. T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Passionless
[edit]| Blocked one week by T. Canens for violating an interaction ban. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Passionless[edit]
On April 7, 2011 user:Passionless was topic banned from I/P related articles in all namespaces Today user:passionless made the comment in the discussion clearly related to I/P conflict.
Discussion concerning Passionless[edit]Statement by Passionless[edit]Does anyone else think that Broccoli is a sock? I mean just look at his last 100 edits they are one, spread out over time really thin for an editor as serious as he is, I mean most of us experienced editors could make 100 edits in a day or two instead of 4 months. Also his edits have a very high rate of voting on issues compared to his number of article space edits, his edits are solely in one area - on pages where disputes are occuring. Does any uninvolved editor think that Broccoli is helping to build an encyclopedia? It seems to me he is here to create trouble and waste peoples time. Passionless -Talk 22:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Also, if Brocoli was wanting to bring possible infractions of Arbcom bans to arbcom's attention not based on a BATTLE mentality would he not be bringing in other editors as well? Last time Broccoli boy decided to bring me here hoping I would be permanently blocked he cited only edits I made to an article about the war in Iraq...is it not obvious he hates me and brings this here to battle and not because he thinks it would benefit wikipedia. Passionless -Talk 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yo Ed, you sure you want to be doing things like this "The article on 1982 Lebanon War ought to be fixed. The wrong statement is still there in the first sentence of 1982 Lebanon War#Precursors to war.", as you must know, being an admin and all, that working on behalf on a banned editor is against wiki policy. How can I expect a fair case here when the judges both act above the law, and act in favour of banned users they like, and against those they dislike. Passionless -Talk 16:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Passionless[edit]
Um, wait a minute, Broccolo just got off scot free for a transparent violation of 1RR on an I-P related article (I'm still struggling to comprehend the logic behind that decision), and now Passionless is facing a 48-hour block for mentioning that someone edits from a mobile device? How does this comment infringe on her ban precisely? Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Passionless[edit]
Propose 48 hour block. T. Canens (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Hans Adler
[edit]| No action taken. The parties are urged to disengage. T. Canens (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Hans Adler[edit]
None, requested here.
Warning not to make personal attacks on opponents in pseudoscience-related content or conduct disputes, with a link to the discretionary sanctions remedy, as a condition for sanctions should such conduct reoccur.
This request is made in my capacity as an administrator, and not as a party aggrieved by the conduct at issue. I previously issued a warning of my own, but later withdrew it because I could be considered to be involved given that the comments were made in the context of a then-ongoing arbitration case to which I was a party and in which Hans Adler had criticized my conduct. An arbitrator instructed me to address my concerns to the clerks, but the active case clerk did not decide whether or not to act on my request before the case was closed (and the request archived). Acting on the assumption that this is now again a standard AE matter, I ask another administrator to issue the warning. Sandstein 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hans Adler[edit]Statement by Hans Adler[edit]This report is what I call chutzpah. As I already mentioned elsewhere (in at least one location where Sandstein must have read it), an arbitration case is not the kind of location where we cannot speak about editor conduct. The conduct of QuackGuru was one of the key reasons that led to the case in which I commented on him, and in fact, while a number of editors are using the chaos produced by QuackGuru for political reasons, AFAICT not a single editor has gone so far as to defend him openly. Even Sandstein appears to support him only in practice. He doesn't go so far as to say that what I said about QuackGuru was not true, or not a reasonable interpretation of the evidence about QuackGuru which I introduced into the case under WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop#QuackGuru's pattern of tendentious editing. I think the expectation that editors who are discussing on the case talk pages have familiarised themselves with the evidence presented, at least to the point that they know that several editors (Ludwigs2, Ocaasi, Hans Adler, Becritical) have presented evidence about QuackGuru, is a reasonable one. A negative statement about an editor does not become a personal attack just because the evidence on which it is based is referred to implicitly. Sandstein is trying to get me on a technicality, in much the same way that he got Ludwigs2 on a technicality. He tried to protect his predictably controversial block of Ludwigs2 against reversion by abusing the arbitration enforcement mechanism (the block had nothing to do with the old case on which it was ostensibly based) and when that didn't work ran to Arbcom with his fifth complaint about an unblock of one of his blocks by another admin within 24 months.[145][146][147][148] It is fairly obvious that this report is retaliation for the evidence I presented against Sandstein at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence#Sandstein's behavioural patterns. By blocking the messenger in reaction to this report of on-going (at the time) disruption by one of Wikipedia's most notorious IDHT artists, Sandstein actively encouraged chaos and disruption on pseudoscience-related articles. Now he is trying to use the case which was supposed to address these problems as a tool for revenge. First he tried to give me a formal arbitration enforcement warning himself. [149] He had to remove it [150] on the advice of an arbitrator. [151][152] The incident appears to have influenced the voting behaviour of another arbitrator [153]. (This happened just after I criticised this arbitrator harshly, so I doubt he was biased in my favour.) It appears that after learning [154][155] that I am not an admin (see WP:Requests for adminship/Hans Adler), he thinks in spite of the negative feedback he received from Arbcom for his earlier stunt, that he can get away with asking for a licence to hand out random blocks against me. I doubt it. I think that's enough in my defence. For various reasons I have come to the conclusion that Sandstein does more harm to the project than he is worth. I don't want to be instrumental in his losing the admin bits by becoming his punching ball. But if he insists and the consensus here is that this is desirable, then I can stand it and I will not go out of my way to prevent it. I am certainly not going to say false things about QuackGuru to prevent it. Hans Adler 01:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Hans Adler[edit]I'm totally uninvolved here, I've never crossed paths with Hans and I hold Sandstein in high regard. Given that these comments (and I'm not making any judgement about them one way or another) occurred on the workshop page of an active ArbCom case, isn't it really up to the case clerks to enforce decorum on those pages, not admins patrolling this AE board? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought clerks had the discretionary power to enforce decorum on ArbCom case pages via blocks if necessary. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein, take a hint already. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Sandstein, you need to slowly take your hands off the keyboard, and back away from the computer. This is a user very involved in the ArbCom that just closed. You also are now uninvolved in AE enforcement, per your own statement aren't you? So please, stop this. It's unbecoming an administrator. BE——Critical__Talk 01:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hans' comments above are accurate descriptions of the editors in question (even the comment he redacted) and they were all made in contexts where such statements are reasonable and necessary for the evaluation of the situation at hand. The effort to cast this as personal attacks is simply rubbish. --Ludwigs2 03:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the principals in the recent Arbcom case Just Don't Get It. Aside from Sandstein's dubious request above we have spurious "warnings" from User:Ludwigs2 directed toward individuals who unquestionably are already aware of the things they're being "warned" about, and heated responses thereto (see e.g., here and here for a small sampling). The impression is that these are thinly-veiled attempts to provoke. Someone -- an Arb, a clerk, or whoever -- should tell these guys to stay the hell away from each other and from the venues that are causing the problems, namely Pseudoscience and arbcom enforcement, for a period of one month. Wikipedia won't collapse if Sandstein doesn't do AE for a month and if the other editors stay away from one another and the topic area for a month. The hope is that after a rest away from the heat of battle they can work more cooperatively with each other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment by BorisG[edit]I think people are seriously confused here about Sandstein's role. Sandstein has made this request as a regular editor, not as an uninvolved admin (unlike the previous warnign which he made in his capacity as an uninvolved admin, wich was wrong). This page gets requests for AE enforcement from involved editors all the time. This is normal. So his involvement in the ArbCom case does not somehow exclude him from filing such requests. When arbs advised Sanstein (unofficially) to stay away from AE, they obviously meant him in his capacity as Arbcom sanction enforcer. Here he is not doing so, so procedurally everything is fine here. At the same time, I do not think there is any serious incivility by Hans and I think this case should be dismissed. BorisG (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Hans Adler[edit]
|
- ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar. Hale. p. 216. Retrieved 7 April 2011.