Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive220
Stormwatch
edit| Not actionable because the alert has expired. New alert issued. Sandstein 17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Stormwatchedit
Cassie Jaye is the producer of The Red Pill, pretty unambiguously closely related to the Men's rights movement and I strongly believe, related to GamerGate for which sanctions apply. Note that I personally take no position here on whether or not Cassie Jaye deserves an article outside of the documentary. I do strongly take the position that notability has not yet been established, and that IMDB does not serve to establish notability. This position has been raised on the article's talk page. Note; I am an admin, but may be considered involved here because on 2017-03-07, I nominated this article for speedy deletion. At that time, the article consisted of nine words. I currently take no particular position on whether the article should be a simple redirect or should be a separate article. --Yamla (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
User has been notified. --Yamla (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Discussion concerning StormwatcheditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by StormwatcheditStatement by (username)editResult concerning Stormwatchedit
|
Angel defender
edit| Indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action by Doug Weller. Sandstein 08:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Angel defenderedit
Despite repeated notifications[1][2][3][4][5] of the 500/30 restriction, this editor continues to edit articles covered by the sanction. Today, they made a series of defamatory edits to a BLP covered by the sanctions. They have also made several POV edits to the article Olive production in Palestine[6][7][8][9][10], another article covered by the sanctions.
Discussion concerning Angel defendereditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Angel defendereditStatement by Ryk72editECP requested at WP:RFPP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Angel defenderedit
|
2.29.61.73
edit| The IP is blocked two months for Troubles-related edit warring and vandalism as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning 2.29.61.73edit
Repeated imposition of their clearly POV and contested edit violates 1, 2 and 3 of this section of the Arbitration decision.
I requested via my last edit summary and at the IPs talk page to provide evidence for their change however they provided none. This is now their 6th imposition of their edit and have now ignored my request for a source as well as the DS alert I gave them yesterday.
Discussion concerning 2.29.61.73editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 2.29.61.73editStatement by ScolaireeditThese edits relate to Janet Devlin, a 22-year-old singer from Northern Ireland. I can't see any Troubles-related content in the article, and there is no notice on the talk page to say that it falls under the ArbCom case. Simply changing somebody's nationality from "Northern Irish" to "Irish" is not a Troubles ArbCom issue. Scolaire (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mabuskaedit@Scolaire:, actually it does. Notwithstanding their edits to other articles, in this instance persistently removing Northern Irish for Irish especially calling it a spelling error can easily be construed as being Troubles related. Indeed see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions, which whilst stating pages, does state "broadly interpreted", and the issue here is clearly within the catchment of it. The talk page ArbCom message which doesn't have to be included does state in it edits related to British and Irish nationalism, not just the Troubles.Mabuska (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning 2.29.61.73edit
|
Volunteer Marek
edit| No action taken. Sandstein 13:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Volunteer Marekedit
Lengthy block log, but nothing recent seems relevant.
I asked Volunteer Marek to self-revert but they have ignored me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer MarekeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer Marekedit
Additionally, inline citations are not required in the lede as long as the text is well sourced in the body of the article. Which it is. Hence, it's sort of hard to understand the objection and why Dr. Fleischman is bringing this here. Dr Fleischman's own edits
Masem's claim below that "any (Forbes) "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not (reliable)" is also completely false. The two discussions at WP:RSN are a) this one and b) this one. a) Most certainly DOES NOT say "definitely not reliable". What it says is "reliable if the contributor is reliable" which is the case here. Likewise b) again says "reliable if the contributor is reliable" and "no, it's not user generated content" (and in the particular case discussed there the commentators deemed Forbes reliable). Masem, please don't falsely misrepresent discussions like this, especially since this is something that is trivial to check. There's absolutely no "definitely not" in there by any stretch and I have no idea how you came up with that. Please retract or strike. Regardless, like I said, 1) there are other sources in the article, 2) lede doesn't need citations if it has them in text, 3) additional citations could - and were - easily provided, all that Dr. Fleischman had to do was ask for them. I'm also not quite sure what DS was suppose to be violated here. There was one revert by Dr. Fleischman and one by myself. I did start a discussion on talk. Dr. Fleischman responded by making the claim about Forbes' reliability. So I added a second source just to appease him, although, one more time, this actually was not necessary since there were inline citations in main body already. So this is sort of a strange request over ... not sure what exactly, but definitely something trivial that could've (and I think was) handled simply through good faithed discussion and clearing up of what appears to be a misunderstanding on Dr. Fleischman's part. Volunteer Marek 05:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Honestly, since Dr. Fleischman himself added the buzzfeed source and didn't object to the text within the main body, this seems like an attempt at playing some "gotcha" game. Volunteer Marek 06:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved SoftlavendereditFrom the edits quoted, it appears that DrFleishman believes himself to be the sole arbiter of content on this article, and if he unilaterally removes something without discussion, he then threatens the good-faith user with AE if they revert for cause. It seems to me that a boomerang is in order here more than anything else. There was no violation of 1RR, since VM's first edit was adding content, not removing or altering another editor's content. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianeditOverall, there is no violation because 1RR was not violated, and one can just replace the Forbes source with the Buzzfeed source. Discussion is proceeding on the talkpage, and I don't see any issues. 1RR has this "loophole" because the initial edit is not counted as a revert, so the person who is objecting to the change finds it irritating that the initial change can be reinstated but if they revert it, they will break 1RR. In the ARBPIA area therefore, a slightly modified 1RR remedy is used, which reduces irritation. ArbCom might want to consider implementing that remedy for ARBAP2 as well. However, this is not a matter for AE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Statement by JFGedit@Sandstein: There is no 1RR violation but there appears to be a violation of the "do not reinstate challenged edits" provision, which is displayed prominently in the article's edit notice and on the talk page: I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute, and content is out of scope for AE anyway. As others noted, it should be resolved by talk page discussion. Until then, the contested edit should stay out. — JFG talk 09:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved LegacypaceditAll I can see on review is normal editing, no violation of anything. Lede does not need sources for content sourced in the body. I don't see an edit war either. Legacypac (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardeditThe Forbes contributor sections are not reliable. They clearly say "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Edit warring to use them as a source for BLP related content is exactly what DS are for. --DHeyward (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernsteineditThis discussion currently hinges on whether Forbes contributor articles are reliable, but that is utterly irrelevant to the question. The facts in evidence, which are clearly pertinent, are known through Joseph Bernstein’s original reporting in Buzzfeed, which has since been widely discussed. These facts are clearly pertinent to the article; the reversion with a comment complaining about the source cited was surely disingenuous, as numerous alternative sources (especially the original reporting) could be adduced in its place. Instead, the complainant sought to suppress these facts; a vain effort in all likelihood, but one that we have seen time and again here and which on which we expend a vast amount of time. This sort of fact suppression makes Wikipedia seem ridiculous. Recent disclosure of well-funded Russian efforts to subvert Facebook and Twitter should give you pause. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim SystemeditJust a comment that if an admin imposes a discretionary restriction on a per article basis there should be a requirement that the restriction be periodically explained and renewed. According to the admin discussion below this restriction was imposed in 2016 - these should not be allowed to sit on a page indefinitely for no reason, until the admins who imposed the restriction just forget about it. If the admins do not renew these restrictions they should expire after a certain time (like 6 months.) Seraphim System (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOedit@JFG: RE: As to this complaint, there was no harm done or intended, so it should be dismissed. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Volunteer Marekedit
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Lexers615
edit| SNOW close. The action appealed is not an arbitration enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
″ Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Lexers615editBasically, it's WP:DOUBLESTANDARD at its best... On one end, you have an "established editor" who's profile is nothing but a flamebait WP:GAME], and then you have his buddies who ganged up to defend him, in an increasingly annoying WP:GAME, and I wasn't aware at that point that WP:ANIISLOUSY. I still disagree that my entry was a mere dictionary entry, but that's not my appeal here. The problem is that the administrator who arbitrarily decided to "show off", worded his post in an unequivocal way reflecting his bias, gaming further on, and exacerbating an already annoying situation. Given the very arbitrary nature of the powers of editors with powers and administrators, this macho show of force arguably has the same future consequences as a short ban. And, this said, I'd like to remind that said admin said that calling someone "self centered and arrogant" is against the rules, but referred to me as "thin skinned", and that the editor who caused the incident caricaturizes anyone disagreeing with him on his profile page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David.moreno72 using trash language. In such circumstances, I believe civil language being unnecessary and impedimenting, and trash talk has the added advantage of candid honesty, without any possibility to WP:GAME, while involved people did game on, using apparent civil language for public shaming. This is excruciating even more, as one of the "editor with powers" refused to check the flaimbaiting profile and, cherry on top, did make allegations that I plagiarized the Merriam-Webster relevant definition, while I did quote it, and it was only use as part of a much larger definition. So that guy basically insulted me three times in a few sentences, and his baseless accusations are proven rubbish when we compare my post vs Webster's entry and we just click on the other guy profile. And feel free to compare my original post with some existing articles... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Damaged_beyond_repairs vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_society Basically, A Train's action was nothing but ganging along his buddies. Also, with what I've read tonight, and what I experienced yesterday, given the ANI page has severe known unaddressed ongoing issues regarding bad faith and ganging up, I believe its very existence should be reconsidered. WP:ANIISLOUSY Statement by A TraineditStatement by (involved editor 1)editStatement by (involved editor 2)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Lexers615editResult of the appeal by Lexers615edit
|
Jytdog
edit| Request withdrawn, and almost certainly not a violation anyway. GoldenRing (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Jytdogedit
Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The user broke 1RR if he will self revert I will withdraw this request. --Shrike (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Technically that was a breach per WP:3RR "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material".--Shrike (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
[19]--Shrike (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Discussion concerning JytdogeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JytdogeditStatement by Seraphin Systemedit@EdJohnston: I want admins to be aware of this. I have encountered this before, and it has been discussed at length elsewhere, but I couldn't dig up an example. Seraphim System (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Jytdogedit
|
Collect
edit| Not actionable. Sandstein 07:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Collectedit
Not applicable
@GoldenRing and Black Kite: For what it's worth, there's a longstanding rumor that Ames, whose birthplace isn't public knowledge, was born in Russia so this doesn't meet the WP:BANEX "obvious" standard. (If it's true, it's a BLP violation but if the only thing missing from a factual claim is a reliable source, it's not an obvious violation.) And would either of you mind copying and pasting the specific, exact text you're citing at BANEX? I looked through BANEX for what User:GoldenRing called "standard exceptions" as well as what User:Black Kite "fixing an error" exception and, in light of the restriction at WP:EDR ("Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace"), couldn't find what you're referring to. CityOfSilver 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CollecteditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CollecteditStatement by Shock Brigade Harvester BoriseditThis could be regarded as a violation of the ban only in the most extreme and rigid technical sense. I recommend declining this request as "silly." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniqedit@CityOfSilver: Wikipedia is not a game of gotcha. Is there a reason to dispute the edit in the week-old diff you provided? Is that edit the only problem? Why has no one reverted the edit if it is a problem? Why has no discussion occurred at the article talk page since 3 June 2017? Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning Collectedit
|
Volunteer Marek
editThis needs to be resolved. While I generally agree that the 'consensus required' restriction has some drawbacks, attempts to remove it have met no consensus, the admin who imposed it has come back from a seven-month absence to endorse it and, per TonyBallioni below, the restriction was in place, the editor was very aware of it (having been reported for the same thing only a month ago) and it should be enforced. If someone wants to try crafting a new restriction to replace it, they are welcome to post a new section here or at AN to start a discussion which could replace it. In the middle of a complaint about a violation is not the place to have that discussion. Moreover, the disruption around this subject needs to stop. Therefore:
|
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Volunteer Marekedit
Volunteer Marek was just let off the hook for another clear-cut DS violation in October because—while all parties acknowledged the violation—no admin was actually willing to sanction him. Rather than admit error in this case, Volunteer Marek personally attacked James J. Lambden, calling him "obnoxious and creepy" and responding to James J. Lambden's DS warning as follows: "fuck off you creep you know you're not welcome". (James J. Lambden did not respond in kind to these and other aspersions by Volunteer Marek.) Volunteer Marek also belittled me and suggested that I was acting in bad faith for pointing out that his repeated DS violations are not appropriate, thus prompting me to file this report.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC) MastCell, I did not allege that Volunteer Marek violated 1RR. James J. Lambden's second revert was arguably exempt from 1RR because otherwise the "consensus required" and 1RR requirements cancel each other out whenever the editor making disputed edits reverts once. While I agree that the "consensus required" rule that Volunteer Marek violated is archaic and enables tendentious WP:GAMING, as long as it is on the books it should be enforced consistently: Admins often seem eager to interpret Volunteer Marek's actions in the most charitable light possible, but I do not think that such courtesy is generally extended to other editors in similar circumstances. I support rescinding the "consensus required" warning from the article if it is not enforced in this case. I have also amended my earlier timeline for greater clarity.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC) It's ironic that Volunteer Marek is simultaneously accusing James J. Lambden of blindly reverting him and maintaining that because James J. Lambden's edit was only a partial revert specifically challenging the reliability of one Business Insider opinion piece that he couldn't have known it was a revert at all. Compare that with his comments at this same venue just last month, in which he similarly claims that his DS violation was unintentional because "it's sort of hard to understand the objection" and attacks the filer of the report for "playing some 'gotcha' game." As GoldenRing says, Volunteer Marek's recidivism is relevant to this case. Personally, I thought that Volunteer Marek's position was far more credible last time around.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer MarekeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer MarekeditFirst, I want to note that I made a proposal to remove the "consensus required" provision from the template here. Several administrators in the past have stated that their intent was just to add the "1RR restriction" DS to a page but inadvertently added the "consensus required" provision ONLY because it comes "packaged" into the template. When asked about enforcing it they've expressed no interest in doing so, as has been noted below. Second, and relatedly, yes, that provision is stupid for a whole host of reasons, one of which is that a tendentious user can just jump in, blindly revert and then "demand consensus" (which they have no intent of working towards). This is more or less what's happened here. I don't know if I've violated the provisions - Lambden changed the wording and removed a part of my edit. He did not entirely remove my edit. I can't tell if that's an over all "challenge" to my edit (it wasn't a revert but a rewrite) or just a rewording. I guess it's a "partial challenge". Or something. The "consensus required for challenged material" provision is stupid. There's no BLP issue here and nobody's ever raised a BLP objection. Business Insider is fine as a source. Regarding the "unverified" wording. The removal of that info occurred before Nov 2 (late October), and the info that and the testimony by Page which, according to sources, explicitly verified some info. Basically, the information that's out there in sources changed and hence an update to the article was needed. If you update an article with brand new sources, is that a revert? However, if this was all there was to this disagreement, I'd be happy to wait on it. My comment to Lambden, which TTAAC brings up, was NOT in response to his DS warning. It was in response to his continued posting of taunting comments on my talk page. I have asked him MULTIPLE times before not to post on my talk page. He knows that I regard his actions regarding me as constituting WP:HARASSMENT - he follows me to articles he's never edited before and makes blind reverts just to mess with me. Other users (User:SPECIFICO, User:Snooganssnoogans and I believe User:NorthBySouthBaranoff have made similar complaints regarding Lambden, so it's sort of a general problem with his WP:NOTHERE editing on Wikipedia; he has trouble interacting with editors whom he regards as having wrong political views). Hence his posting to my talk page JUST AFTER I removed his previous comment was pretty clearly made with an intent of ... being annoying. As for "consistent enforcing" of the "consensus required" provision. I don't believe I personally ever filed a report on anyone for violating that provision (if I did it was so long ago that I've forgotten). Precisely because I think it's a stupid provision. I'm also pretty sure that the sanction is NOT generally enforced, except in cases where there's some other form of chicanery going on. So ... "consistent enforcing" here would be to ignore it. Volunteer Marek 12:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC) @TTAC - nothing ironic there. What constitutes a revert is pretty clear cut. What constitutes a "challenge" (which is what I specifically discuss) is not. That's part of what makes this "consensus required" restriction so confusing. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Just wanted to point out that while I may or may not have violated the "consensus required" provision (which is inane and easy to forget about since it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's BRD guideline) unlike Lambden I did not violate 1RR. Furthermore, once the DS violation was pointed out, I did not restore the part of my text (it's still not in there) - and personally, whenever *I* see someone violating this particular provision or even the 1RR provision I do them the courtesy of reminding them of it first, rather than running off to WP:AE to try and "score points" and agitate for sanctions. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've performed this courtesy for the filing editor, User:TheTimesAreAChanging on several occasions - there have been several instances, where I could have reported him here but instead just approached them on their talk page and said "hey, remember there's that DS sanction, be careful". That is why it's so disappointing that the courtesy is not being returned and that TTAC has instead chosen to revert to the type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (and yes, filing WP:AE reports when not needed is exactly that) which characterized his editing before his (now expired (lifted?)) topic ban in this area. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess. Volunteer Marek 14:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Here is the last example of what I'm referring to above [23]. TheTimesAreAChanging violated 1RR on the article Donald Trump on social media. I could've run here and reported him. Instead I went to his talk page and just reminded him of the restriction. When he replied I indicated that I was happy to assume good faith and let it go [24]. I'm pretty sure there have been similar situations elsewhere and I've acted in a similar manner (though I think my comments were on talk). Now I'm saying to myself "you've been here 12 years, you know how Wikipedia often works, why did you try to be nice, why didn't you just go report him when he violated the sanctions - then he wouldn't be here today reporting you". Such is life on Wikipedia I guess. Volunteer Marek 14:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Another 1RR violation by LambdeneditSo first that second revert is indeed a revert since it concerns the contentious quote by Goodin. Now, I'm guessing Lambden is gonna argue that it's not a revert because he didn't "EXACTLY" restore the same text (he's tried using this argument before). But compare "Dan Goodin, of the technology site Ars Technica, said he was disappointed in the report which provided "almost none of the promised evidence" linking Russia to the DNC hack" to "Ars Technica security editor Dan Goodin wrote that, "The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.". It's the same thing, just paraphrased. Second, Lambden knows this is a revert and knows that there was no consensus to include it because he participated in the discussion and attempted to (unsuccessfully) have this piece of text added before [29]. Third, and in light of second, it seems strange that Lambden would actually restore this text and violate 1RR in doing so. I'm guessing - and pardon my lack of good faith here - that the revert was made to provoke a revert from someone else (prolly myself, maybe User:Geogene or User:SPECIFICO) which could then be leveraged into a sanction-seeking report. It seems Lambden has adopted the "I'm willing to go down, as long as I take someone with me" tactic here (and GoldenRing's suggestions sort of play into that kind of strategy). Volunteer Marek 18:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC) So Lambden, instead of explaining why you violated 1RR for the second time in, what?, two days?, you instead drag out some old diffs and pretend they're 1RR/3RR violations by me (they're not, and this was already covered at the time). Man, talk about Whataboutism. This is like some Wikipedia version of "But her emails!!!!" - when your own disruptive behavior is brought to light, don't even bother denying it, just try to deflect it and change the subject. Volunteer Marek 01:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC) OKay, this is pretty desperate.
Lambden's violated 1RR on two articles in two days. The second violation was made while this report was already open. It's a pretty clear cut case of "I don't care about rules and I intend to be disruptive". He can bring up some irrelevant AE report from one year ago, or post diffs to some edits on completely different articles, and make up whatever nonsense about these he wants to, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still two 1RR violations in two days, AFTER being made aware of the first one. This is sort of how Lambden operates. Whenever the facts/sources/evidence is against him, he tries to deflect and when someone points out that they're engaging in disruptive behavior he employs the "uh uh, I know you are but what am I" tactic, basically ensuring that no productive discussion can be had. THAT "is not how consensus editing is supposed to work". Volunteer Marek 20:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved SoftlavendereditI can't speak to the actions of James J. Lambden or what to do regarding him, but I would recommend against a topic-ban for VolunteerMarek unless the situation gets out of hand. I say this because, although over-zealous at times, he does excellent work in the political sphere. I would also recommend that the "consensus required" dictum re: replacing cited info be removed from the posted sanctions, as we've had complaints about it here and agreements to fix that, but it hasn't been done. Also, as GoldenRing has noted, Coffee isn't going to be returning to Wikipedia, so another admin needs to step up and change the sanction or initiate a proceeding to officially decide to change it. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by James J. LambdeneditMastCells' characterization of my 1RR accusation against VM as an "aggravating factor" assumes it's groundless or insincere which is it not. I presented it clearly twice, here again:
This occurred while an RfC to settle this exact question - whether "some" or "partially" should be used - was in progress violating consensus required as well as RfC procedure. VM has repeatedly ignored RfC procedure in political articles, most egregiously at Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials where he repeatedly restored disputed text during an RfC (@D.Creish:)
VM's use of language offensive not just in verbiage but meaning, and aspersions which have persisted for months ("fuck off you creep", "Please fucking stop stalking my edits you creep", "obnoxious and creepy stalker", "You're freakin' obsessed and it's creepy as fuck. Get a life") should be addressed. Immediately following this dispute VM made a "revenge revert" at Daily Caller then proceeded to Uranium One (an article he had never edited) to restore text that I had removed a week earlier. This behavior should be addressed. These topics are covered by DS with the expectation of higher scrutiny. I am seeing the opposite and it has created an atmosphere of unproductiveness and hostility. The rules of the page in question specify consensus required and 1RR, so we have one the one hand:
and on the other:
The suggestion below is the latter be sanctioned and the former ignored. I reverted a straightforward consensus required violation (and a poorly-sourced edit which has not been restored) specifically because it violated DS. It is not preventative to mislead editors with a provision posted in authoritative language, disregard it after the fact to eliminate justification, then hold them responsible for an unjustified revert. If the consensus required provision will not be enforced it should be made clear. Had it been I would not have reverted. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Here I removed an inaccurate BLP claim* The claim is not included in our current article because it's incorrect. I made 2 reverts to remove it yet that is not seen as justification and no mention is made of VM's edit-warring to reinsert an inaccurate BLP claim by anyone but GoldenRing. * The inaccurate BLP claim is the line: "The meeting [with Andrey Baranov] was also documented in the dossier and confirmed in Page's testimony, as well as by US intelligence sources." Neither the Steele dossier nor the intelligence community document a meeting with Baranov. They claim a meeting with Sechin which is not confirmed by Page's testimony. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
That is just what I could find easily. You often remove the default edit summary from your reverts even when character count is not an issue, making them difficult to track. Maybe that is more so-called "strategy." James J. Lambden (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I wondered about their previous interaction so I followed that comment to this frivolous AE complaint VM had filed against him. So frivolous that not one administrator commented before it was archived. Scrolling down I see my own comment, which I had forgotten - comment. Comments about VM's behavior by all editors in that request are just as valid now as they were a year ago. His behavior has not changed nor I suspect has the inability of our processes to deal with it. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by power~enwikieditFor those suggesting a topic ban: would it be for all of AP2, or just "Trump/Russia" topics? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wisheseditI think this is just the latest episode when James J. Lambden persistently follows VM on various pages to get him banned, while VM is working very hard to improve the content everywhere, and specifically in the area of US politics. Also, I think this "consensus required" editing restriction is extremely unhelpful and should never be used. It does not really help to establish consensus, but prevents quick improvement of pages on recent controversial events. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOeditTTAAC and James Lambden have demonstrated on this AE thread what editors in American Politics see every day. Each of them appears incapable of discussing facts and policy without personalizing their remarks, disparaging other editors, and mounting irrelevant and dismissive aspersions. They both have a long history of stalking and harassment of other editors. In TTAAC's case, he has already received a TBAN per ARBAP2, he socked to evade the ban, and he squandered the good faith extended by Sandstein, who lifted his ban based on TTAAC's promise not to resume his personal disparagement and battleground rants. And that's just in calendar 2017. This AE complaint is over a trivial matter that's typical of the dozens that arise -- which may or may not entail technical violations -- that are never escalated to this enforcement page. Marek has consistently refused to take the bait from TTAAC and has tried to collaborate courteously with him Marek has repeatedly asked Lambden to stop his harassment. I recommend a TBAN for James B. Lambden for his ongoing stalking and harassment of Marek and others. I recommend that TTAAC's TBAN be reinstated due to his manifest failure to reform his disruptive battleground participation in American Politics articles, in effect violating the terms of his parole. Black Comedy: TTAAC's AN complaint on me within days of promising Sandstein he would not resume his battleground rants [35]. It's disturbing that TTAAC appears to have stepped back and waited until another AN complaint about him was archived the day before he posting the current pointless AE complaint about Marek. [36]. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Volunteer Marekedit
|
Huldra
edit| Withdrawn, and considered non-actionable by reviewing admins. Sandstein 08:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Huldraedit
@User:GoldenRing The user is editing from 2005 and clearly editing from one sided agenda while we all have our POV per WP:YESPOV.I think as old time editor she clearly understand that usage of term "segregation wall" have negative connotations toward Israel and its not neutral term Such not neutral language to promote one sided POV is not acceptable in my opinion. Our article about the barrier says
@User:Zero0000 No one ask to use Israeli name i.e "Anti-terrorist fence" but usining WP:NPOV name "barrier" like BBC and UN use is a reasonable request from a user with 12 years of experience in the area--Shrike (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Given Huldra expalantion I will WP:AGF and withdraw the request.--Shrike (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning HuldraeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Huldraedit
Statement by KingsindianeditThe request is weird. What is the supposed policy which is being violated? Also, for some reason, there wasn't any talk page discussion about issues of content and phrasing, prior to bringing this to WP:AE. There are several issues here, and I'll deal with them in order:
Statement by Zero0000editHuldra can make transcription errors like everyone else, but in more than a decade of close observation I haven't once seen her fail to correct such an error immediately when it was pointed out to her. Deliberately doctoring it would be 100% out of character. As for "segregation wall", why should the Israeli name have priority over the Palestinian name, especially in an article on a Palestinian town? (Incidentally, for quite a few years "separation barrier" was the official Israeli name, which is essentially the same.) Finally, I've said elsewhere that I think ARIJ should be attributed, not because it is inherently unreliable but because it is good practice in this corner of Wikipedia to attribute practically everything that has a political component (including most pronouncements of the Palestinian or Israeli governments). But this opinion cannot be said to have general consensus yet. Zerotalk 12:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by NishidanieditApplied Research Institute–Jerusalem is an internationally recognized research institute. The fact that it is 'Palestinian' should not raise eyebrows of concern. It is funded by the European Union; it is used all over google books in scholarly works without attribution (Google 'Arij +Jerusalem 'and you get 5,500 results there), and just broadly googling yields 143,000 hits. It is one of the primary sources used on most Israeli settlement articles which, when not citing ARIJ or the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics for real history or data, use such egregiously eyesore non-RS sources as Keneged Kol HaSikuim, Harmodia, Arutz Sheva,israeltown.com. Rami Levy Hashikma Marketing, The Temple Institute,torahalive.com Nefesh B'Nefesh, etc.etc.etc., without a murmur of worry or concern by pertinacious NPOV/RS monitors of the sister Palestinian articles. If your concern is NPOV, Shrike, there's a lot of work out there on settlements begging to be done, along the lines of what Huldra does with Palestinian villages with extraordinary patience and meticulous erudition. Almost none have datum-by-datum RS sourcing, they are free compositions, and totally unencyclopedic. That said, it is true that where Arij uses its preferred term, segregation barrier/wall, it should be used, if at all, with attribution. There are no neutral terms to describe the security/separation/apartheid -barrier/wall/fence as one can see from specific studies like that of Richard Rogers, Anat Ben-David,Coming to terms: a conflict analysis of the usage, in official and unofficial sources, of ‘security fence’, ‘apartheid wall’, and other terms for the structure between Israel and the Palestinian territories, Media, War & Conflict vol. 3, No.2, 2010 pp- 1–28. You make far too many frivolous complaints against editors with an outstanding record here Shrike.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Huldraedit
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer Marek
edit| By consensus of administrators, the appeal is granted. The interaction ban of Volunteer Marek with respect to TheTimesAreAChanging is lifted. Other sanctions are not appealed here and remain in force. Sandstein 15:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Volunteer MarekeditAs of right now, I'm just going to appeal this one provision - the interaction ban with TTAAC. There's no reason for it. It's dumb. There was no consensus for it, hell, it wasn't even MENTIONED in the relevant AE report [43]. Not a single admin, including GoldenRing, brought it up. In short, where the hey did this one come from? The only connection in that report between TTAAC and myself is that he is the one who filed the report. So it looks like the only reason GoldenRing imposed this sanction is that - that a user brought an AE report against another user. So apparently now, bringing a report to AE automatically (and I mean "automatically" because there's no other reason given for this iban) results in an iban between the two users involved. Ummm.... what??? How does that make sense? This looks like a case of a trigger happy admin who didn't bother reading the diffs, didn't bother reading the comments by his fellow administrators, didn't bother actually familiarizing themselves with the topic area and the users involved at anything more than a superficial level, just decided to slap some random sanctions on folks because s/he could. More to the point, my interactions with TheTimesAreAChanging have been nothing but cordial. And I mean that. I even mentioned that in my response in the AE report. I even went out of my freakin' way to assume good faith when he violated 1RR [44] (which should be a lesson to everyone who assumes good faith it seems - you do that at your own peril). At least since his topic ban expired, he's never complained about any problems with me, never accused me of incivility or personal attacks and vice-versa. I mean, come on GoldenRing, can you provide at least ONE diff which would support your i-ban? As the kids say, diffs please. I do want to note that this is the second instance that GoldenRing has fumbled the ball in their attempts at placing weird sanctions on me. In Sept 2017 they placed a topic ban on me from immigration related articles which was quickly removed by another admin (User:Fram) which then was reinstated cuz of technicalities, which he then had to rescind [45] due to criticism from other administrators (User:Floquenbeam, User:Drmies, User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:Black Kite, User:Neutrality, User:Chris Howard ... I'm sure I'm forgetting someone, there was a ton of admins disagreeing with GoldenRing). I have no problem with the IBAN being removed bilaterally (i.e. TTAC shouldn't be banned from interacting with me either). Like I said, there's been absolutely no interactions either way which would warrant this ban. And since I-BANs are (well known) minefields and very easy to violate accidentally, this should be removed for both of us. (Note: I have no idea if the interaction ban prohibits me notifying TTAC of this appeal so I'm just gonna ping'em here @TheTimesAreAChanging: ping!. Volunteer Marek 16:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC) @GoldenRing - "VM's protestations ring a little hollow when the complaint in question accused him of belittling and assuming bad faith of the complainant" - TTAC's claim that I was "belittling and assuming bad faith" towards him was based on this comment of mine. Let me quote it in full: "Even though nobody will gimme credit, I *do* actually try to assume good faith to the extent that is possible. But yeah, here on Wikipedia, very often it very quickly becomes impossible. Visitors, shmizitorz." Where exactly does this comment "belittle" TTAC? Where does this comment assume bad faith? For that matter where does this comment even mention TTAC"????? It says
If you based the Iban on that comment then you either a) didn't read the freakin' comment, b) ... I have no idea. You seem to have taken TTAC's claim at face value, either because you were too lazy to actually fact check it or because you just wanted to impose a sanction. Either way. Not good. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC) @Spike WIlbury - I know how it works. And I'm appealing it. Nobody brought up a topic ban with TTAC (and if it wasn't even mentioned, it's sort of hard to even BEGIN talking about consensus). There is no basis for it. It came out of nowhere. If I can't bring that up, what exactly am I suppose to base my appeal on? Grovelling and whining? Volunteer Marek 17:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC) To be clear - I don't care about the IBAN with Lambden. Volunteer Marek 20:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC) That VM objects to TTAAC's characterisation of his comments so vehemently is evidence in favour of the IBAN, not against it." - that is the, um, silliest thing I've read on Wikipedia in awhile. Somebody makes a false accusation. The subject of that accusation objects. BOOM! IBAN! What kind of logic is that? Volunteer Marek 20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC) BTW, does this grave dancing on my talk page require a separate AE report or can it just be handled here? Volunteer Marek 20:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by GoldenRingeditI think the IBAN is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project and this is the standard required under WP:AC/DS. VM's protestations ring a little hollow when the complaint in question accused him of belittling and assuming bad faith of the complainant, and his appeal here indicates he feels victimised by TTAAC ("which should be a lesson to everyone who assumes good faith it seems - you do that at your own peril"). For the rest, the assumptions of bad faith and canvassing are so transparent that I don't think any more needs to be said. I don't regard informing TTAAC as a breach of the IBAN; it comes under the provision for "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" of WP:BANEX. GoldenRing (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor SPECIFICO)editI was surprised to see Marek banned from interaction with TheTimesAreAChanging. The nasty behavior was entirely one way, from TTAAC. I posted two diffs in the AE thread to illustrate Marek's good faith water-off-a-duck's-back responses to TTAAC:
Regardless of whether he might have expressed it correctly, I also feel that Marek has a point that Golden Ring was not the best fit to close this complaint. Yes, GR may have been allowed to close it. I don't know what the formal standard is. But GR and Marek have had a recent problem interaction, and GR might be viewed as "involved" with respect to Marek. I'm not talking about a formal definition of involved, just that it would have looked better to the community if one of the other Admins had closed this. Since we have many Admins who volunteer their efforts at AE, it was not necessary to risk the appearance of any question as to the close. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by TheTimesAreAChangingeditAs Volunteer Marek says above, the two of us generally get along just fine. He was disappointed that I filed the earlier AE report, and I was disappointed that he accused me of acting in bad faith, but you would have to go back nearly a year to find any truly uncivil interactions between the two of us. (I hope that GoldenRing was not influenced by SPECIFICO's diff-less aspersions referring to I can also give you numerous examples of Volunteer Marek and I interacting cordially despite disagreements:
In sum, James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek have derailed a number of talk pages with mutual accusations of stalking and harassment, but I was not involved in any of it—and taking my concerns to AE does not, in fact, render me involved. With regard to my earlier statement that "Volunteer Marek also belittled me and suggested that I was acting in bad faith for pointing out that his repeated DS violations are not appropriate, thus prompting me to file this report," a.) SPECIFICO started the relevant thread in order to cast yet more aspersions, suggesting that it is ludicrous to treat me as a good faith contributor, and I was understandably dismayed that Volunteer Marek did not push back against (and, indeed, seemed to implicitly accept) SPECIFICO's mean-spirited remarks; and b.) The bit in bold was intended more for Volunteer Marek's consumption than for administrative eyes. I knew that Volunteer Marek would likely be surprised by my filing the report in view of our generally productive exchanges, particularly when he cited me agreeing with him on the merits during his prior AE this October (he may even have anticipated that I would comment in his defense—I made no statement during that process precisely because it would not have been favorable to Volunteer Marek's cavalier approach to the "consensus required" restriction), and believed that I owed him some explanation. In full context, then, the evidence does not support GoldenRing's extrapolation that Volunteer Marek and I simply cannot get along. The IBAN should be rescinded.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by Gabriel symeedit
Statement by My very best wisheseditAs someone who interacted with VM and TheTimesAreAChanging on numerous occasions, I must tell: there is no any reason to impose the interaction ban between them. Moreover, I think there was no consensus among admins to use the "consensus required" sanction as a reason for the topic bans. That sounds funny: there was no consensus to use the "consensus required" sanction. But there is more irony here. By placing this editing restriction on a page a single admin imposes his will on the entire community. What consensus? Yes, Arbcom allows it. But it would be fair (per WP:Consensus) to never use this complex and controversial type of sanction if there was at least one another admin who considered this type of sanction as generally unhelpful. But we had several highly respected admins who expressed such position during the previous discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Volunteer MarekeditResult of the appeal by Volunteer Marekedit
Closure: There is clear consensus among reviewing uninvolved admins that the interaction ban of Volunteer Marek with respect to TheTimesAreAChanging should not have been made. That ban is accordingly lifted. The other sanctions imposed concurrently by GoldenRing are not being appealed here. Consequently, they remain in force until they are successfully appealed. Sandstein 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging
edit| Granted. Was implied in the last case, but not expressed. Any other sanction would not be affected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by TheTimesAreAChangingeditVolunteer Marek's three-month interaction ban with me has just been lifted, but the IBAN GoldenRing imposed on me with respect to that user remains in force, rendering it a one-way IBAN. In his original appeal, Volunteer Marek noted: Statement by GoldenRingeditStatement by Volunteer MarekeditI mean, yeah, of course this should be granted. Swiftly. Volunteer Marek 22:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheTimesAreAChangingeditResult of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChangingedit
|