Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72
Hammer of Habsburg
| Blocked 1 week for 1RR violation and warned with respect to ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Hammer of Habsburg
Discussion concerning Hammer of HabsburgStatement by Hammer of HabsburgComments by others about the request concerning Hammer of HabsburgResult concerning Hammer of Habsburg
Given two fairly recent blocks, I'm blocking for a week. T. Canens (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Marknutley
| Consensus was to endorse the block. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by MarknutleyI think this block is atrocious. There is no justification for a block based on my commenting on an ANI discussion. And most certainly not a two week block for what was essentially a mistake. I suspect those who supported a block did not even look at what i had written at ANI [7] Not even commenting on CC is it? The discussion was including edit events from these.
Is my comment really worthy of a two week block, especially as sideaways said he just wanted clarification? I withdrew voluntarily from the CC articles over 6 weeks [8] before the case even finished, and have not touched one since, does this count for naught? come on. mark (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
N.B. No editor who has been a protagonist in the CC fracas should comment here.--Scott Mac 18:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Marknutley
The CC dispute must end - entirely and completely. Those editors in dispute must stop disputing - entirely and completely. We can manage the CC topic without them, and we can deal with any problematic behaviour from any editor involved in that fracas without any comment from other editors involved in that fracas. Our patience is exhausted. Editors who have been causing the problems need to go totally out of their way to bodyswerve any discussion that's even remotely related. Editors failing to get this, or pushing anywhere near the boundary of it, take the consequences on their own heads. Zero-tolerance. Does Marknutley get this? If he does, then perhaps we can remove this block - but it is the last time for any lienancy.--Scott Mac 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This appeal is in the wrong place. Per WP:ARBCC remedy 1.2, sanctions may be appealed "to the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement)". I recommend that somebody move it there. Sandstein 20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Marknutley
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by William M. Connolley
| Appeal denied, no consensus to overturn the AE block. --WGFinley (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by William M. ConnolleyThe arbcomm sanctions do not apply to a user's own talk page, therefore this block is invalid Statement by BeeblebroxI didn't make anything up. The community and ArbCom have made it clear they want this topic ban interpreted as broadly as possible and that the liberal use of blocks is the preferred enforcement remedy. This kind of testing the waters is exactly what they were warned not to do just last week in the conversation at the ArbCom noticeboard. I was fully prepared to be attacked by WMC's army of fans and apologists over this, but I don't actually see any need for me to repeat myself any further as I have made my position abundantly clear already. I will not be reversing this block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by Tony SidawayI'll comment here in clarification because I've been quoted below for my opinion in this discussion, "What does topic banned mean?" At the time, just 12 days ago, I argued that the topic ban didn't forbid edits to user talk pages.[10] Having since then seen continued sniping, bickering and bad faith statements on arbitration pages and user talk pages [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], and even links to external discussions of climate change placed by topic banned editors on my own user talk page [16], I've changed my mind, and I've also made efforts to ascertain the opinion of the community and of the arbitrators. There seems to be near unanimity that a problem still exists and that no allowances should be given. My opinion is now completely opposed to permitting the discussion of climate change or any disputes whatever arising from the editing of the topic anywhere on Wikipedia by topic banned editors. It is the continued inappropriate conduct of the topic banned editors that swayed me, particular the efforts by several of those editors to continue their dispute using the medium of various discussions on the problem [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. This was a self-feeding fire and must be stamped out before it infects more of Wikipedia. If there is an article edit or comment to be made, some non-banned editor can make it--TS 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Comment by Merlinme
This seems to me to be moving away from whether this block was correct though. Why was WMC not warned? You say yourself that you started off thinking that edits to user talk pages were ok. If the ruling was clarified to exclude this, or consensus moved to exclude this, then WMC should have been told and warned, not instantly given a 2 week block. --Merlinme (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by SirFozzie(moved from down below, sorry about that) Honestly, the best thing in all ways is ALL the topic banned, on both sides WALK AWAY. No attempts to stay in the topic area via efforts On-Wiki, off-wiki, on-WR, email, IM, hell, I'd suggest barring smoke signals if I thought anyone would actually do it. What we're seeing is people who are here for the fight on Climate Change, who the Committee attempted to remove from the area, who the community of administrators are trying to remove from this area, trying desperately to remain in this topic area, NO MATTER THE COST OR THE TACTICS USED. That's not what the encyclopedia needs. That's not what the community wants. Walk away from it here on Wiki. SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
(de-indent) Count: I haven't seen the exact edits and to see if the user has been blocked. However, through his actions, it is not currently WMC's place to bring attention to this. He has been topic banned from the area. As it says above, a topic ban means you do not interact in that area. Period. End of story. If that was not abundantly clear before, it was made clear with the action taken against him. At least one administrator has stated during this appeal that they would be more inclined to unblocking WMC if he stated he understood the boundaries as had now been explained to him. WMC declined to give that statement. That pretty much states that he plans to continue to do so. SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Hans AdlerThis is another example of the Giano effect: Once a huge "target" sign has been placed on an editor, they attract bad blocks because every single admin has a de facto veto right against not blocking. A single editor who misreads the situation is enough to cause unnecessary drama. In this case Beeblebrox apparently doesn't understand that due to the formulation of the topic ban a prior formal warning was definitely required. Blocking WMC without proper discussion for something he has been doing for weeks without any formal warning looks like a very stupid action, but this kind of thing had to happen under the circumstances. The only question was which admin would fall into this particular trap. In legal systems there is a process for assigning a judge to a defendant, and this judge will then decide. A judge who acquits the defendant does so explicitly, and normally no other judge gets a chance to change the verdict. Wikipedia's system of having hundreds of judges who are free to pick any case they are interested in and take action if they think it appropriate (while there is no formal process for acquitting someone) is adequate for the vast majority of low-profile cases, but it does not scale to high-profile cases. Some ideas for making sure this kind of thing does not happen again:
PS: Has anyone who is familiar with Scibaby checked the contributions history of EngineerFromVega, the editor who filed the request that led to this block? I believe WMC's offending actions were pointing out Scibaby-like edits that nobody else has noticed. In this context the strangeness of EngineerFromVega's few edits outside the climate change area is remarkable. Hans Adler 11:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by dave souzaThis block is based on an unstated extension of the topic ban, going beyond the standard exceptions to limited bans which allows action on obvious vandalism. Thus, this notification of blatant vandalism has been made into an issue of the ban, so the ban itself disrupts normal maintenance of Wikipedia. The topic bans on the various editors are asymmetric, in that WMC has a track record of high quality contributions to this specific area, while other editors have been attracted by the toxic atmosphere largely created off-wiki by opponents of the scientific consensus, and some have appeared to have the specific aim of getting WMC removed from the topic area. For example, Cla68 in his closing comments (announcing his temporary withdrawal) said "My whole purpose for getting reinvolved in the CC articles around a year ago was to see the behavior of these editors, one in particular, corrected. This PD appears to do so, at least for six months." Having achieved his purpose, he can readily return to other topics where he has more expertise, though he has continued to show a combative response to discussions on this page. In contrast, the ban on WMC's content contributions is to the detriment of article quality, taken further when mere noting of vandalism on his own talk page in a manner previously allowed to topic banned editors is escalated into a block. Three topic-banned editors have been involved in questions arising from the vague definition in the Scope of topic bans, which refers specifically to articles and and article talk pages, then rather vaguely bars them "(3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles". They breached item (3) interpreted very broadly. In one case no action was taken, not even a warning, in the other two a block was imposed. In these cases it would have been better to give formal clarification before the block, but Enforcement by block doesn't require a warning, and I accept that the blocking admin imposed the block in good faith. However, the result is deeply discouraging to those aiming at improving article quality rather than aiming to remove editors who face vocal political opposition. The links on the user talk page were not disruptive, but indeed constructive, and involved none of the personal interaction which has been problematic in the past. As pointed out above, action on obvious vandalism would normally be acceptable: in this case, even suggesting that vandalistic edits be reviewed has been turned into a major issue: the block is over-reaction, and should be reconsidered. . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by Count blisI have already made it clear that I agree with the many editors who have argued that William's actions on his talk page were not a problem at all. Indeed, the whole fuss created about this is yet another episode of the CC conflict and this AE process has now been dragged into it. I call on ArbCom to pass a motion that makes it clear that the Remedy 3 editing restrictions don't apply to talk pages and that this will be reviewed in indiviidual cases if restricted editors are contributing to conflicts via their talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by William M. ConnolleyI agree with Beeblebrox that the community and the Arbs want a liberal use of blocks. However, in Roger Davies own words "All that is required before an administrator acts is a "cease and desist" message on the editor's talk page." Emphasis added. There is no gray area concerning whether talk pages are in scope or out of scope. Arbitrator Coren explicitly said they were out of scope. That doesn't mean an uninvolved admin can't block based upon a talk page comment, it simply means that a warning is required first. Actions clearly within the scope (such as MN's post) do not require such warning. The words are quite clear. And we are wasting too much time on this. If we follow the process as outlined by the arbs - block immediately for actions clearly in scope, warn then block for actions an involved admin feels are undesirable, we will be fine. WMC should be unblocked.--SPhilbrickT 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I made much the same point (as Sphilbrick) earlier today[28], before this case was filed, in the AE case against Cla68. I felt that case was premature because he hadn't been warned, and because the margins of the topic ban were hazy. I feel the situation is the same here, only more so because of the severity of the block and because his actions were neither disruption nor battlefield. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I point to what I wrote above and endorse Sphilbrick's comment. Yes, ArbCom has "topic banned", but they have also (maybe unwisely) defined what that means in this case. I fail to understand how someone can in good faith read this as including non-provocative, helpful comments on the users own talk page, especially not after the ArbCom clarification. Mind-reading what the community or what ArbCom want, on the other hand, is not a useful bases for any kind of process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's face it. The whole point of the arbcom case was to get WMC's head on a pike; all the other stuff was just window dressing. This was so blindingly obvious that the so-called "vandal version" of the decision, released before the arbs even got around to their first proposal, was nearly identical in substance to the final decision. The bottom line is that WMC is going to get kicked around for whatever real or imagined offense folks can come up with. If he says "got to work late today because there was a bad storm" someone will leap at the chance to block him for using the word "storm," which they will contend is climate-related "broadly construed." Since he's guilty no matter what there's no real incentive to reform. Why don't you just indef block him from the project and be done with it? Or is the goal to prolong the drama? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I read Coren's statement [29] as admitting that the current language of the relevant Arb remedy does not strictly address user talk pages. In that sense the language of the enacted remedy was more narrow than what is commonly understood by "topic ban". I also read the Arb statements (1, 2) as indicating that this technical loophole was unintentional, and if forced to do so they would amend the Arb remedies to fill the gap. Which from my point of view answers the issue, and user talk page posts relating to climate change are not okay. It appears to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions to address this, and so a full amendment by Arbcom is probably unnecessary (though it might be helpful, for clarity and to demonstrate consensus among Arbcom members). The only caveat I would add is that since there could have been plausible confusion about whether this behavior was technically okay or not okay, it might be reasonable to unblock WMC this once with the understanding that similar edits in the future will lead to blocks. In addition, others topic banned in this case should probably receive an explicit warning about the use of user talk pages if this is how we plan to interpret the issue going forward. Dragons flight (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Can those who says I'm mistaken point out the mistake?
I don't see any wiggle room. I believe the topic ban should have included user talk pages, I'm stunned that it did not, but as user talk pages were the subject of extensive discussion, it's not like it was an oversight (as, say templates might be). I'd be happy if some or several arbs chimed in and said, we intend talk pages to be included in the ban. Then going forward, they would be in the ban. However, the present request is for someone to explain how several arbs explicitly concurred with Coren, and none dissented, yet we've enact a block against someone who followed the rules.--SPhilbrickT 23:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Everyone, let's reboot our brains in safe mode, remove the ArbCom spyware, make appropriate changes to the system registry and then take fresh look. Only then will the following comments sink in. So, here we go: Edits on userspace are not part of Wikipedia processes. It doesn't matter one iota whether William posts a comment on his userspace, his personal blog, The Wikipedia Review, or any other cyber-public venue. Also think about the logic of blocking an editor who violates the topic to make sure he/she doesn't do it again. Does that logic apply here? Is William now constrained from posting links on his userspace? Even if he were to be blocked from editing his userpsace, nothing would stop him from posting links on his personal blog. Conversely, if William had done as Beeblebrox and some others demand, he could have posted on his blog a few months later how bad the ArbCom ruling is because "look at all these Scibaby edits that have accumulated during the last 3 months". That would have made him look bad, it would actually have amounted to a violation of WP:POINT by staying silent for so long. Count Iblis (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I thank User:FloNight for the link to a relevant page explicitly discussing whether user talk pages are in scope. Relevant excerpts:
Caveat - I did this in only a few minutes - I attempted to use ellipses honestly, but read the whole thing, and reach your own conclusion. My summary - many people explicitly saying talk pages are OK - the only major dissent is Beeblebrox. Note especially that Davies tells us that people gaming the rules (the specific example was category talk, but could be construed to include game playing on talk pages) will be dealt with harshly, but with DS, which requires a warning. That's all I'm saying, the clear consensus is that if an admin wants to prohibit talk page comments, they can, with a warning. I truly understand the frustration this community has with the CC issue, but read the FloNight linked page as if you didn't known about the whole issue, and tell me if you can come away clearly convinced that a talk page comments can earn a block without a warning.--SPhilbrickT 00:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
While that strong statement undoes a lot of what came earlier, but in my view, it muddies the waters, rather than adding clarity. Arguably, they did make provision for talk page discussions,
William has now made arrangements to comply with the don't ask don't tell rule regarding his scientific orientation by keeping CC discussions confined to a mailing list. Count Iblis (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Do I need to repeat these conversatons? I will so you know what I'm talking about. First this was listed above by Phil;
Then this one was:
I think I cut and pasted all that was put up there on this page. I would also like to add to this record that WMC using an alternate account called WMC had been editing other articles until the block was given to him as this shows. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by William M. Connolley
Update About 24 hours ago (well after the initial block) WMC made another contribution to the section of his talk page where he was notifying tpw about issues in articles in the CC topic. I removed the whole section, warned WMC to not return the section, or create a new area to discuss CC on his talk page. Additionally, I warned him that future edits to his talk page of this type would result in an extension of his block. Since then, there has been loads of discussion about the block and editing restriction (topic ban) on his talk page, but not further violation of the topic ban. My suggestion is for us to close this AE as resolved now as the request has been actioned and there is not consensus to overturn it among uninvolved admins. Then hopefully WMC will be able to focus on other topic areas on WP where he is welcome to edit. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Andranikpasha
| Blocked for one year. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Andranikpasha
Discussion concerning AndranikpashaStatement by AndranikpashaOn October 26, 2010 User Atabay (who is also under AA2 remedies, placed on civility supervision, supervised editing, and revert limitation [39]), without any discusissions and explanations on the talk added some dubious text to the article [40]. The he was the first being warned [41] for his incivil behaviour as after I started to discuss his misinterpretation of a souce (currently he seems to agree with my opinion by his last edit [42]) and chauvinistic remark on Armenian descent of naturalized American scolar Roland Suny [43], another Azerbaijani user who never was involved in our discussion deleted my <dubious> tag [44] with aggressive manner (after few hours our discusssions started). After some attempts to readd his misinterpretation, Atabay seems to aggreed on a version and this request was made late, it is added after the discussion seems to be ended and looks like an attempt of revenge, as Atabays misinterpretations were proven (see the talk [45][46]). I never pushed any POV, as all my addings are supported by numerous reliable sources[47]. And I made only 1 revert, it was this [48]. Andranikpasha (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning AndranikpashaStatement by TuscumbiaFirst off, I must correct Atabəy. The link he provided for A-A2 Arbitration Remedy is actually better described here where the admin actually places the Andranikpasha on permanent 1RR per week on all articles due to his long history of disruptive editing. Don't let him confuse you with statements that he only made one revert. He reverted here [49] and here (he just takes a step further by replacing his dubious with NPOV tag for the whole article). Before edit warring on March Days article, he reverts in the article Blue Mosque, Yerevan - [50], a day later he reverts in the article Hamidian massacres [51], clearly violating the 1RR per week for all articles rule, as mentioned above. Additionally, he edit-warred in 1977 Moscow bombings including making emotional reverts - [52] In addition to his disruptive editing, he makes a completely outrageous remarks in his source indicating author Thomas De Waal as pro-Azeri See here: pro Azeri author Thomas de Waal, Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war, p. 100. Since when are editors allowed to highlight their POV and personal bias in the source names? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by Quantum666Another example of disruptive edit [53]. --Quantum666 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Andranikpasha
I'm thinking about a year, now. It is obvious that the last 3-month block didn't do anything. T. Canens (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Jack Sparrow 3 (Croatian language)
| Blocked indef by Future Perfect as a non-AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jack Sparrow 3
Discussion concerning Jack Sparrow 3Statement by Jack Sparrow 3Comments by others about the request concerning Jack Sparrow 3Result concerning Jack Sparrow 3
|
Prunesqualer
| Blocked, and topic ban extended and expanded. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Prunesqualer
Discussion concerning PrunesqualerStatement by PrunesqualerComments by others about the request concerning PrunesqualerResult concerning Prunesqualer
|
Prunesqualer
| Talk page access removed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Prunesqualer
I assume one is not required. The editor is aware of the possible sanctions.
OR
Discussion concerning PrunesqualerGroovy. Thanks guys. My primary concern was the half comments which misrepresented what I said and that looks handled. Feel free to close it out. Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by PrunesqualerComments by others about the request concerning PrunesqualerResult concerning Prunesqualer
I think using 'vultures' once in an established metaphorical sense isn't that bad, so I'll remove talk page access, but won't extend the block. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Iksus2009
| Editor notified under AA. If improper edits continue, a topic ban may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Iksus2009
users based on their background violating WP:NPA and WP:BEP. " It is a sign of clear Iranian bias to hide this fact." "I see that Persians have overrun this page". Also threatens to disbar an admin who had warned him is a serious violation.
The user has obvisouly has come with a WP:BEP and WP:NPA approach. However, his 2009 comments were extremly xenphobic, which makes it impossible to work with in the article. The user should be topic banned from the article Nezami Ganjavi whose introduction has come through a many months worked concensus (which the user has been told in 2009 as well as the preamble of the article he is editing). His comments about "page being overran by Persians"[74] , "Iranian bias"[75] violates WP:BEP and WP:NPA. More seriously, threatening the admin who warned him about WP:NPA] with disbarment. With the addition of his severe WP:NPA, WP:BEP violats on the talk page, the user should be banned from the talkpage. Also a block for WP:NPA and threatening the admin who only warned of him WP:NPA with disbarment (which is an attempt at a psychological threat). Account could also be an SPA.
Discussion concerning Iksus2009I request a permanent ban. Here is part of the latest comments[77] after he got the warning. " So with this in mind, here is the promised political opinion: I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism, to talk some sense to them, to bring them up to date with the modern realities of the world (from being stuck in a time period three thousand years past),..." . And this too: " Since I am already going to be banned anyways (in an Iranian style censorship. Well, at least I will not be whipped ... I hope, or be issued a Fatwa against). ". This was just a portion of the latest comments. The user's acount is 1 years old and he has been warned multiple times today and last year. Do you really expect that such a user can be compromised with in the talkpage? Are other users supposed to forget all of his hatred and act like nothing happened and continue normal topics discussions that might arise? The user is asking to get banned as he states too and you predicted: "Ok, now you can go ahead and ban me. I plan not to use Wikipedia anyways. I think the Britannica subscription price is worth it, which I have realized thanks to this exchange. So thank you! As they say, you get what you pay for.", "I have no intent of wasting my time any more than I already have.".. etc. Well I think admins ca give him the oppurtunity of not wasting his time and the time of other users (for complaining to admins). It is really a waste of my time.
Just a reminder per discussions below: "Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "}}. I know admins have a lot on their plate, and they deal with so much nonsense everyday. However, they should act upon the previous warnings that were issued. Else violaters of the system might not take their warnings seriously. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Iksus2009Comments by others about the request concerning Iksus2009Result concerning Iksus2009
|
Rigger30
| Blocked, 24h. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Rigger30
I will admit to a 1RR violation myself, but please allow me to explain. Here I reverted the third edit he made, as it has BLP implications and it is also factually inaccurate. In the early 1970s Gerry Adams was not held at a prison, as it was not a prison at the time it was an internment camp. Internment was for those held without trial or charge, whereas prison obviously implies either convicted or on remand after being charged. As the article was on the main page at the time, I felt it was unacceptable to have such an error in the article especially with the possible BLP implications. You will note my second revert ignored their second edit. I believe only reverting the one edit considering the lack of accuracy, BLP implications and the article being on the main page at the time should not count against me, but will accept any decision. O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Rigger30Statement by Rigger30Comments by others about the request concerning Rigger30Result concerning Rigger30
|
Martintg
| No admin action taken. Martin has agreed to abstain from unblock discussions in the area of his ban. Other matters were mentioned in the comments that would need better quality data to investigate any further. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Request concerning Martintg
I would ask the arbitrators to look at their recent decision considering mark nutley who has a CC topic ban: "I really don't know how much clearer the message can be to the topic-banned users: Please go away. If the discussion is on-wiki and even tangentially related to climate change, and is not directly discussing you, then leave it alone".[85] Martintg was topic-banned from "Communist terrorism", asked for clarification and then abandoned it.[86] TFD (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Reply to Sandersaede, there was a request for clarification that decided this topic was part of Eastern Europe and Martintg raised then abandoned a request concerning whether it still applied. Martintg's definition of terrorism as including government actions allows for the inclusion of Soviet terror against other nationalities inside the former Soviet Union which were "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". TFD (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Reply to AGK, re: "Constitution of Estonia"From 1940 to 1990 the Soviet Union considered Estonia to be one of its republics, although the legality was disputed. Therefore the legitimate constitution during this period is a matter of dispute, which the article resolves by referring to the Third Constitution as de jure, although the Soviets considered the Soviet constitution to be de jure. TFD (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Statement by MartintgI thought I was talking about Justus Maximus' unblock request for a block he received for comments he made on ANI, where he implied some editors were Marxist apologists who promoted terrorism, which is clearly offensive. He did remove those comments but was blocked in any case. I've been discussing JM's unblock for several days on ANI[87],[88],[89],[90], on his talk page[91], on an admin's page[92] and nobody (let alone The Four Deuces who was also involved in that discussion too) had any issue in regard to my involvement until now. I thought talking about issues of WP:BITE and how we treat newbies is sufficiently abstracted from any underlying content, in this case whether or not Karl Marx promoted terrorism . I would have participated just the same as if the original issue was related to Right-wing terrorism or Apple pies. FWIW, the original topic ban "topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed" was narrowed to topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case) by motion, dropping "widely construed". Note that the Climate Change topic ban under which Mark Nutley was blocked incorporates the term "broadly construed". The importance of the presence of "broadly construed" in the remedy was higlighted in a clarification related to the original topic ban, most of the Arbitrators concurred with the viewpoint of Steve Smith when he stated: "But there is also a case that they are eastern Europe-related, in light of the "broadly construed" portion of the remedy". This "broadly construed" portion of my topic ban was removed when it was narrowed in September. I drafted a recent clarification request in good faith about whether the narrowed topic ban was still applicable to the article Communist terrorism[93], but soon abandoned it since it seemed to be a waste of the Committee's time (and mine) over something that I can easily avoid (and have avoided since) in deference to User:The Four Deuces (despite a couple of other editors welcoming my involvement[94][95]), since the issue would be moot anyway in a couple of months time as my topic ban will expire anyway. But construing my good faith discussion of a user's unblock request due to his block over comments on ANI in light of WP:BITE as a violation is stretching things a bit too far. So it is not clear to me how discussion of JM's unblock request, which was related to his block related to his use of phrases deemed offensive during a discussion on the ANI page, which in turn was due to his perception of some editors and his view of their conduct, which in turn was related to a discussion of whether or not Karl Marx (a German national, by the way) promoted terrorism in his 19th century writings, which in turn was related to Communist terrorism which is an article about terrorism in Western Europe, Asia and South America (and no mention of Eastern Europe) and its proported relationship to Marxist doctrine, is related to my topic ban on East European national, cultural or ethnic disputes. I was only trying to help diffuse the situation and help JM understand how things work on Wikipedia. He seems to be widely read on Marxist writings and seems to have great potential to contribute. However given the climate of the increasingly broad and elastic interpretation of topic bans, I'm quite prepared to strike all my comments on JM's talk page and take no further part in trying to assist. --Martin (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Response to AGK and othersMy edits of Constitution of Estonia are fully sourced [96] from Estonica, Estonia's reference encyclopaedia similar to Britannica. Text accurately reflects the content from Estonica[97]. There never has been any connection with the article Constitution of Estonia and ethnic, cultural and national disputes. Nobody objected to my edits until it appeared that the original AE report wasn't going to get the result desired by Petri Krohn[98] I must say this is the first time I've seen Bronze Night interpreted as a struggle over "opposing constitutional views", I thought it was about people protesting about the appropriateness of moving a war grave, but then I've only edited that article twice[99][100]. After scanning through the article Bronze Night, the only reference to the Constitution of Estonia is in the section Bronze Night#Proposed Law on Forbidden Structures, where the constitution is actually used in support of the minority to veto more extreme legislation in regard to the Bronze soldier monument. No mention in that article that the disturbance was a result of conflict between two "opposing constitutional views". Now Petri has said[101] he has just now created a redirect from Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia [102] to apparently bolster his case, which begs the question on why Constitution of the Estonian SSR hadn't existed as a redirect before this AE report if there truly was a dispute over "opposing constitutional views". My reaction to this is that constitutions are specific legal documents related to a specific legal state order. Constitution of Estonia discusses the evolution of a series of specific constitutional legal act(s) related to a specific state order of the Republic of Estonia. Our opinions of a republic's notion of itself, based upon a specific legal POVs and assumptions as presented in the text of the constitution and commentary from sources like Estonica, is irrelevant and cannot be subject to dispute over POV, only verifiability. Redirecting Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia makes no sense. Constitution of the Estonian SSR should be expanded to discuss the specific constitutional legal act(s) as they pertain to the Soviet system and in the mean time be redirected to either Constitution of the Soviet Union or Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure Petri Krohn's POV of "opposing constitutional views" is actually based upon any published source or is it likely he just made this up. I've done some digging around and all I could find is manifesto published by SAFKA here, apparently signed by a person named "Petri Krohn" which Petri has linked himself to here. Whether Offliner has some sort of affiliation with SAFKA too, who knows. Are Petri Krohn's and Offliner's disagreement with my good faith edits to Constitution of Estonia an issue of WP:ACTIVIST? That needs to be determined elsewhere. Given the way Petri Krohn and Offliner have piled on to this AE report, in conjunction with the creation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Martintg, there appears to be a larger issue than that what was originally reported. This AE report ought to be referred to the Arbitration committee, admins patrolling AE have done that in the past. The battleground is where you want it to be. I was minding my own business editing what I thought was uncontroversial topic based upon reliable sources and now this is be painted as wrong doing by two apparent activists. Afterall, the article isn't called Estonian constitutional dispute or something. If the admins here think my good faithed edits to Constitution of Estonia backed by a reliable source[103] is also covered by my topic ban, then I will no longer edit that article either. --Martin (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Response to Petri Krohn's continued agitationI don't know how long this report will remain open and be continued to be used as a platform for apparent WP:ACTIVIST WP:SOAPBOXING by Petri Krohn[104]. But his latest unsourced (and unsourcable under WP:RS) assertions are just plain factually incorrect, one only has to read the original text in wikisource[105] to see there is no ethnic element to the Constitution of Estonia, Article 9 states:
These rights that Article 9 refers to include Article 49:
and Article 50:
There are no issues with the constitution, that I am aware of, ethnicity does not play a part at all. There may be issues with regard to some laws passed by the parliament in the past, but as I have shown above, the constitution has been used to veto those laws. Edward Lucas is presumably referring to internet sites like those russophone sites run by SAFKA and their supporters. I've been thinking the other day about what I find so objectionable about Petri Krohn's SAFKA organisation, it is that they seek to turn an issue of the rule of law that applies equally to all into an ethnic issue through misrepresentation, agitation and soapboxing. To my mind that is incitement to ethnic hatred which has no place in Wikipedia. --Martin (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Statement by Petri Krohn I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Wikipedia with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters. I do not follow his edits or interfere with his editing and try not to edit articles in his limited scope of interest. Yet Martintg is exhibiting a pattern of following my edit history and editing the same or related pages, or coming to the defense of my opponents in disputes where I am a party. (The most innocent case of this is editing Operation Catherine after I added a link to it in two articles.) This has to stop! I will also be filing a related sock puppet investigation on him in a case where I believe he broke his topic ban by editing an article I had pointed him to. In the previous arbitration enforcement case against Martintg I posted a long comment explaining the dispute Martintg is involved in.
It is of relevance only for the record, as due to conflicting edits, I made my edit two minutes after Jehochman had issued a one week ban. I could have been more terse. A minimal topic ban that would keep Martintg out of the dispute could be worded as follows:
This week Martintg started rewriting the article on the Constitution of Estonia. (history) The article is now yet another POV-clone of the claimed state continuity of the Baltic states in exile, as it only reflects the legal fantasy on the unrecognized government-in-exile. Already his first edit falls under his topic ban on “disputes”, as it introduced the disputed claim that the Soviet Union "occupied" Estonia in 1940. Martintg's only other contribution to article space, after his last topic ban ended, is to the article on Mart Laar. (history) Laar is the former prime minister of Estonia a, but also a controversial revisionist historian, who's books have been... (Claimed BLP violation removed by Martintg, will restore with source – or, why should I care. If Martintg cannot even allow this statement to exist, then clearly Laar is part of a dispute, and he should not be editing the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)) – and a primary source for Martintg's disputed POV. Although the edits were innocent, I would consider the article to be under his topic ban. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC) P.S. – I have made request for a sock puppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martintg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Response to AGK and EdJohnstonOne side in the ethnic conflict in Estonia, including the right-wing nationalist parties, the former “Estonian Government in Exile” and most notably, former prime minister and historian Mart Laar will argue that the underground “National Committee” formed by Kaarel Liidak in 1944, and the government in exile declared by August Rei, in Oslo, Norway in 1953 represent a de jure continuation of the Republic of Estonia – as it existed before June 1940. They also argue that constitutional rule was only established in Estonia in 1992, when the government in exile ceased operations and handed “power” over to president Lennart Meri and then prime minister Mart Laar. According to this view Estionia was under military occupation from 1940 to 1991 or 1992. and any action taken by local Estonian authorities, including implementing its workforce-hungry immigration policy, were actions of occupation authorities and thus without legitimacy. This is the point-of-view the article on the constitution of Estonia – as created by Matrintg – exist to promote. This interpretation of history is relevant, as it forms the legal basis of the denaturalization (loss of citizenship) of the ethnically non-Estonian population carried out under Mart Laar's rule in 1992. At the time the share of Estonian speakers in Estonia was a little over 50%. The opposing view, shared by Estonia's Russophone minority as well as modern Russian historiography is that the non-violent anti-authoritarian revolution in Estonia in June 1940 (known as Juunipööre) preserved the legal continuity of the Estonian state, and thus the petition of the Riigikogu to join the Soviet Union on July 22 as the Estonian SSR was constitutional. This view also holds, that the renamed Republic of Estonia of 1990, under prime minister Edgar Savisaar, and the succeeding independent member state of the United Nations of 1991 – all the way to modern Estonia – represent a legal continuation of the Estonian SSR (and thus its Soviet constitution.) Some on this side would argue, that the rise to power of Mart Laar and the constitutional changes that followed were a coup d'etat, carried out to pursue a racist national policy. People holding these views will argue that Estonia practices an apartheid policy by disenfranchising and discriminating against its minorities. The conflict between these two opposing constitutional views reached a climax in April 2007, with violent civil disturbance. The events also brought in a large number of new editors to Wikipedia, initially to edit war over the article Bronze Soldier, with some of them continuing in disputes that eventually resulted in the EEML arbcom case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. – I have redirected Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia. However, I cannot see how the article could accurately reflect the needs of this redirect with Martintg anywhere near the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Update – Apart from the historical dispute of the continuity of the Constitution of Estonia and its reflection on present-day ethnic violence, there is the question if the undisputed post-1992 constitution is in fact a tool of oppression used by an apartheid government. I am not going to provide reliable sources as I will only show that a dispute exists. Here is one that came up from the on-line forum on Pravda with an English translation of Russian sources. UN report- Estonia is a racist, apartheid state – Quote: UNITED NATIONS again reminds about its apprehension those that in article 48 of constitutions of Estonia the participation in the political party is permitted only to the citizens of the country. The underlying claim seems to be that Estonia is a racist, apartheid state and the 1992 constitution of Estonia is instrumental in creating this system of apartheid. There is thus no need to go into the history to show that the constitution is part of an ethnic dispute in Eastern Europe. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead section of the article Constitution of Estonia should in fact contain text on the following lines.
I will not be providing any sources, as I have no intention of editing the article. A quick Google search in English provides some interesting results, including this opinion by Edward Lucas: eSStonia. I am not endorsing anything that Lucas is saying, but he is making a strong argument that a ethnic dispute exists – and that, any dispute about Estonia, be it about the constitution or whatever, will follow ethnic lines. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Response to Biophys – You are in fact arguing, that Martintg should be allowed to edit the Bronze Soldier, as it is about a statue, but not the Bronze Nights as it about an ethnic dispute. I cannot agree with you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Comment by CollectThis appears to be "topic ban extension shopping" at best. The comments did not address Eastern Europe as a topic, and the extension of Digwuren has reached the level of putting a size 20 foot into a sixe 9 shoe. The nature of each editor's personal biases is irrelevant - there is no case to be made for stretching Digwuren even further. Note: I am banned from editing the London Victory Parade article which I have never even read, as a result of the spandex topic bans. Collect (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Statement by OfflinerA few weeks ago Martintg was blocked for a week for a massive violation of his topic ban. Additionally, former arbitrator FloNight urged Martintg to step back from pov contributions in the Eastern European topic area.[106] Based on the current AE report, and especially this edit one has to question whether Martintg has learned anything from his latest block. The edit inserts text when the Soviet Union occupied Estonia, which clearly is a POV contribution about the topic of Occupation of the Baltic states, one of the main EE disputes and battlegrounds. The edit is similar to what Martintg was already blocked for. It seems that—contrary to ArbCom's demands—Martintg has failed to disengange from the battleground, and is continuing to violate his topic ban. Offliner (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning MartintgIn my opinion, this is too broad understanding of the topic ban. Although User:Justus Maximus edited only two articles, both of which had a relation to Communism, he is a newbie, so it would be premature to speak about him as about an anti-Communist SPA. In his posts Martin has been focused only on the way User:Justus Maximus was being treated, not on the content of his edits. He carefully avoided any content disputes. In my opinion, it would be hardly correct to speak about violation of the topic ban. In any event, even if it is the case, this violation is rather tangential, so a warning would be quite sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Martintg is not topic-banned from articles about Eastern Europe, see here. I guess that is the reason why TFD was unable to link the appropriate ArbCom decision, as required for enforcement. In any case, I hope that this time a deeply involved administrator will not abuse his administrative rights and quickly enforce a highly dubious extremely harsh block without support from other administrators, like it happened before (why does he even have admin right after such major violation is beyond my understanding). --Sander Säde 08:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Could we stop with this nonsense now? There is nothing controversial in articles about Mart Laar and Constitution of Estonia - this can easily be seen from the fact that there are not even unreliable sources claiming any controversies. This is just an attempt to silence or drive Martin away from Wikipedia. Martin has agreed to stay away from further attempts to defuse issues peacefully, I recommend an official ArbCom warning for both TFD and Petri Krohn (perhaps an interaction ban - or ban from ArbCom and AN/I pages?) for repeated attempts to misuse arbitration enforcement to resolve personal and content issues. --Sander Säde 21:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Rsp to AGK - no, there is nothing controversial about Mart Laar and Constitution of Estonia, which can clearly be seen from lack of any kind of sources in Offliner's and Petri's claims, not to mention, solid, peer-reviewed sources in major scientific journals. The claim that Mart Laar's book was banned in Germany is simply an untruth. As for Martintg's previous block, it was a clear-cut case of administrative abuse. At the time when the only non-involved administrator expressed worries about quality of evidence against Martin and suggested him to stop editing those articles or he might get a warning, an admin deeply involved in WP:EEML case (who also was against partial lifting of the Martin's topic ban) blocked Martin in what must be a record time in closing arbitration enforcement case. And since it was Martin's first offense, a standard procedure would have been a warning, especially considering the weak evidence. Second offense would get 12 or 24h ban. But the admin blocked Martin immediately for a week. Like I've said before, I do not know why his administrative rights were not immediately removed after such blatant misuse.
With reference to Petri Krohn's "I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Wikipedia with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters," Petri made it a point to stalk me and level accusations of bad faith at Sandstein's talk and Shell Kinney's talk—where I was pursuing options for putting conflict in the past—culminating in Petri leveling blatantly false allegations of outing attempting to get me blocked, followed by his attempts to cover up his own self-outing on-Wiki edits. Diffs have been provided prior. PЄTЄRS
Result concerning Martintg
|
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
| Most recent IP blocked. This is not the place to request "high-level contacts" from WMF. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
The IP's listed in the most recent sockpuppet investigation have been making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against me. Due to the articles which the IP's have edited, their obsession with tagging an IP in Canada as being me (though the sockmaster knows full well I live in Colorado), and the geolocation corresponding with the sockmaster's recently self-reported location, these are ban-evading sockpuppets of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), and should be blocked.
Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon MerkeyStatement by Jeffrey Vernon MerkeyComments by others about the request concerning Jeffrey Vernon MerkeyResult concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
Most recent IP blocked. If you want "high-level" contact from WMF you are at the wrong page. T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
Oclupak
| Oclupak is banned indefinitely from the topic of the September 11 attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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 Oclupak
Discussion concerning OclupakStatement by OclupakI have nothing to add to what I already said. It will all come down to this: if the administrators who will pass judgement on this incident are of the same clique as Tarage, MONGO and Acroterion, they will blindly follow their suggestion and ban me from all 9/11-related articles. If, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Wikipedia in disgust. The result is the vandalism we are witnessing right now which is apparently the only way available to express a dissenting view to this extremely biased article. If the responsible administrators do not find a reasonable and equitable solution to this situation, what can they expect if not even more vandalism in the future? I'm sure IP 174.89.59.40 would have had something worthwhile to contribute to the 9/11 article and that his acts of vandalism are the result of being blocked systematically with weasel arguments at every attempt before he resorted to this. Oclupak (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning OclupakIf, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Wikipedia in disgust. Editor seems to fail to realize that wikipedia is not here for him to spread the truth, but to report what mainstream, scientific concensus. 9/11 conspiracy theories have been universally debunked and are fringe. Soxwon (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Oclupak
Since the editor seems unlikely to follow Wikipedia policies concerning conspiracy theories, especially 9/11, I recommend that he be topic banned from articles and talk pages concerning the September 11 attacks, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban would be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Gilabrand
| Gilabrand restricted to 1RR until the end of January |
|---|
| 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 Gilabrand
I think the self-rv was enough and request that this be considered withdrawn. nableezy - 07:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GilabrandStatement by GilabrandNableezy has again succeeded in throwing a wrench into the works. After the tags were reverted by other editors, I copyedited the article to remove all sources of dispute. After this cleanup, I removed the tags believing that contentious statements on both sides were no longer there and the tags were no longer necessary. Instead, Shuki reinserted a poorly worded POV section that I deleted, and Nableezy popped an artery because he wanted all the SYNTH and OR put back so that he could fight some more. He then added not two, but three tags, for spite. I reverted them with an edit summary explaining my actions. It may have been impolite, I agree, but nothing compared to the rude, threatening and vulgar comments that Nableezy spouts non-stop, as he snoops around for opportunities to wreak havoc in this project. Just seeing his name on a page is enough to scare people away. I am sorry for leaving that edit summary. I am sorry I edited the page. I am sorry for being so naive as to think that I could stop the fighting on a page where Nableezy's name appears. I restored the tags and the way is now clear for Nableezy to continue doing whatever it is he does. As I said, it's a free world.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning GilabrandComment by Shuki This is a extremely lame and quite frivolous. Frankly, I questioned one of the edits myself, but thank God I'll AGF Gilabrand anyday given her experience in copyediting articles to better English then most of us and NPOV. Gilabrand was just being WP:BOLD. Big deal. Nableezy has been warned about about bringing frivolous reports to AE. --Shuki (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Comment by NickCT Fairly unabashed WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Not really all that surprising given the editors history. nableezy has a point with the whole "commenting on talk page" thing. If you want to WP:BATTLEGROUND at least try to make some excuse on the article's talk page. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Comment by Supreme Deliciousness: It seems as the lifting and shortening of Gilabrands 3 month block and six month topic ban, did not help her behaviour: [129] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Comment by AgadaUrbanit: How it seems when it's not? I think we should leave Gila alone. There is a consensus for her edit. She made a single edit on the discussed page, took part in discussion and had an intellectual decency to self revert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Gilabrand
Gilabrand has backed away from the dispute, which obviates a need for action at this time. However the sarcastic tone of comments at Talk:Psagot is not a good sign. An editor who would be operating under a topic ban if it had not been lifted needs to be very careful about tendentious editing, and Gilabrand has not been careful enough here. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
(←) Very well. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, until 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert, excepting reverts of obvious (as in, obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject) vandalism, as defined in WP:VAND. T. Canens (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
- Nableezy withdrew his complaint. Why are you continuing this discussion??????--Geewhiz (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I missed legality revert which was made without discussion on talk page. This is a disruptive behavior. I guess admins are fair here, Gila. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nableezy withdrew his complaint. Why are you continuing this discussion??????--Geewhiz (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy
| No admin action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Nableezy
Something is not working here.
Discussion concerning NableezyStatement by NableezyThe first "revert" listed is not a revert, it is an edit. Could NMMNG please explain what version of the page I reverted to? Shuki initially made an edit to that page. I modified, not removed or reverted, that edit so that it properly reflected the source cited. There is not a single version of that page that resembles my rewrite of Shuki's edit. This is one of the reasons that reports at AN3 have to show what version of the page the edit reverted to. No such version exists here and no definition of the word "revert" applies to my initial edit. nableezy - 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Its nice having fans, it really is. As much as I would like to respond to some of the mindless droning below, I would instead like to focus on the topics that matters here. If I made 2 reverts I should be blocked, if I did not I shouldnt. There is a restriction on the number of reverts I may make, I acknowledge that and I have been scrupulous in abiding by it. I would like EdJohnston to clarify his reasons for calling the first edit a revert. My edit included a portion of the phrase he says I removed. Is it his position that the changing of the words "intentionally vandalized" to "destroyed", for the first time, constitutes a revert? nableezy - 03:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Sandstein, I would like to ask a question. If there were a 0RR, would there be no changes allowed to any text? That once material is added it cannot be modified in any way? nableezy - 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC) If it is decided that my first edit was a revert then fine, I should be sanctioned. But to define that first edit as a revert opens up the definition of the term way past what has been used at AN3 and AE in the past, and if that is the definition used here it is the definition I will expect admins to enforce for every future AE or AN3 request I make. But can yall get to the point and make a decision already? Either that or restrict the ability of my many fans from filling the below section with the babbling that largely characterizes it? I can ignore it for only so long before a response to some of the more asinine comments will be necessary. nableezy - 16:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Phil, if pointless edit warring over tags from editors who've in the past have edited far more constructively is a reference to me, allow me to explain. I have just about given up trying to actually deal with the content. Any correction to the inaccurate or biased material that fills the articles in the topic area made by me is summarily reverted by a number of users. So I place a tag and discuss the issues, vainly hoping to either convince the other party and have them make the corrections or have a third party evaluate the discussion and do the same. Apparently I cant even do that anymore as even tags placed are summarily removed by POV-pushing accounts that demand that not only their biased view be the only one included but further demand that there cannot even be mention of the fact that their biased view is the only one included. nableezy - 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy
is mildly outrageous. A clear violation of wp:admin. Looie -- let me be clear ... You are not allowed to threaten editors that you will topic-ban them if Nableezy is sanctioned here. That is beyond the pale. A shocking threat from a sysop. It is a form of wheel warring; though you are not threatening to reverse the sanction, you are threatening to take an opposite (and more than equal) action in the face of the sanction being applied. It is clearly a threatened abuse of admin tools. If the editors are not subject to topic-ban today, they will not become so simply because Nableezy is sanctioned. If another editor decides to bring the issue of your threat here up at AN/I or elsewhere, kindly let me know, as I would like to contribute to such a discussion. I would also note that this area is now one in which Looie has indicated he is involved, in that he has flagged for us his strong feelings about it, which he indicated will lead to him taking admin action against other editors if this editor is sanctioned. Involvement is generally construed very broadly, to include disputes on topics, regardless of the age or outcome of the dispute. It is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, as he has flagged himself as being here, that he pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Nableezy
I accept Nableezy's characterisation of the first edit as not being a revert. Taken literally every tweak would be a revert. In addition - though this has little bearing on whether 1RR has been breached - the edit appears to have been completely justified. I agree with Timotheus Canens above that this AE request should be decided on the no-breach ground rather than for the reasons suggested by Looie. Right or wrong as they may be, they don't justify a 1RR breach and seem to have provoked unnecessary distractions in the sections above.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
|