Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive132
Hgilbert[edit]
| Alexbrn, Hgilbert warned; Binksternet reminded. Gatoclass (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2013 (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 Hgilbert[edit]
After receiving the warning on 11 March, Hgilbert replied that he thought the ArbCom determination of 2006 had been superseded by a new one (a motion passed on 30 January 2013: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Modified_by_motion). As far as I can tell, the conflict-of-interest determination remains in place with regard to editors. The findings about Hgilbert also remain in place. The amendment looks like it replaces only one section of the 2006 ArbCom case, changing "article probation" to "standard discretionary sanctions". I think that Hgilbert is in violation of COI and the 2006 finding naming him specifically, and has been for some weeks now. After I warned him, Hgilbert did not revert the two edits I pointed out as being in violation. This unwillingness to follow the 2006 finding is typical of his behavior. For instance, on 28 November 2012, Alexbrn warned Hgilbert about COI [1], which Hgilbert removed from his talk page [2] but answered at the article talk page: [3]. There, Hgilbert argued against the 2006 finding, saying that he was "no more or less conflicted than an employee of the public school system would be in editing an article on public education." Because this has been a long-running problem, I propose that Hgilbert be topic-banned from Waldorf education article space, broadly construed, but not banned from talk pages, which are not the locus of the problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hgilbert[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Hgilbert[edit]I'm happy to have this looked at. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_conflict_of_interest_at_Waldorf_education the claim was made that I have made massive prejudicial changes since early February, when Alexbrn last edited the article. We could start with this diff of all the changes between Alexbrn's last contribution on Feb. 3rd, and the present state of the article as of March 11th. What massive removals of negative material and additions of positive material have been made over this time frame? (Note that many of the mostly minor changes that have been made were made by other editors.) Also: Note that there was also a review of the original arbitration. Also: if arbitrators examine Talk:Waldorf education, I think they'll see harmonious discussion on a range of issues, and a readiness to compromise. In response to the concrete diffs above (from Binksternet):
In response to IRWolfie's diffs:
In response to A13ean:
More generally: I have been striving to bring a neutral point of view in a situation that has been historically, and continues to be, highly polarized. There are a number of editors who seem primarily interested in bringing negative critiques into the article, and others who primarily interested in positive views. There are virtually no neutral voices. I have been trying to keep to the RS policy as the path forward. As a result, a number of questions have been brought to the RS noticeboard recently; Looking at the talk page, it seems clear that the mood is generally of fruitful discussion. I believe I consistently seek a positive solution and am willing to use consensus and compromise, respecting all points of view. hgilbert (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The two images (of Lemuria and the human heart) were added by User:Alexbrn, following a persistent pattern of POI-pushing on the critics' side.
In defense of the removal of COI tagging--which I grant is not normally a good idea:
Nevertheless, I clearly should have requested others to remove it rather than removing it myself. I apologize. hgilbert (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Due to the above rulings and comments by admins, and the complete lack of dissent to the removal of the COI tag when I raised this, I understood that the removal was both in line with the current understanding of the article sanctions and undisputed. I'm shocked that users who had a chance to question the suggested removal on the talk page, and did not, are raising this as an issue here. (Having said this, I still recognize that someone else should have been the one to take the tag off.) hgilbert (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The text of the discretionary sanctions states: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." I believe I have adhered to the purpose of Wikipedia, consistently followed consensus processes (look at the talk page for confirmation), and applied the RS policy at a high standard. Again, I ask: examine the diff over the relevant period, and the discussions on the talk page over this time (or before): what in this constitutes any contravention whatsoever of the discretionary sanctions? hgilbert (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Statement by IRWolfie-[edit]
@Hgilbert, showing a diff over an extended period is meaningless. If I had shown, for example [16] and said that people should spot the problem in the text, it would ignore the fact that someone went 3RR in that same period. A single Diff grouping actions from many editors won't show anything here if the other editors have been dealing with the problems you have caused, we have to look at your edits, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by Alexbrn[edit]More diffs showing long-term POV pushing. Hgilbert's edits are a constant lapping tide, continually eroding the article's neutrality:
Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by Nil Einne[edit]This is mostly an aside to the case and I pointed it out at WP:ANI but it seems it's not getting across so I'll mention it again. Our COI policy does not forbid people with a COI from making controversial edits. Rather it strongly discourages people with a COI from making edits (for a number of reasons), particularly those who can be regarded as paid avocates, but says making uncontroversial edits may be okay. This was basically what the arbcom case said as well. When we say 'strongly discourage' we mean it, we strongly discourage it but we don't forbid it. This isn't like a political case where someone says 'strongly discourage/encourage' but what they actual mean is 'do or don't do this or else'. This is an important distinction because as I also remarked in the ANI, the thing to concentrate on why the edits were bad or controversial, not whether or not the editor has a COI. Concentrating on the COI misses the point because someone is not going to be blocked simply because they were editing when they had a COI, even if the edits were controversial and many question whether the COI should even come in to the block (perhaps the length of the block only). As Hgilbert mentioned, this has been reaffirmed in other cases. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by Jellypear[edit]I have attempted to condense the following points raised previously as a courtesy to editors and administrators. In the approximately two months that I have been following the Waldorf education page, Binksternet has been involved in trying to apply sanctions to hgilbert twice already. It seems the preferred method of dealing with hgilbert on the part of some editors is not to deal with his edits in a timely manner but to collect a list of grievances and see what sticks. I view the wide-ranging nature of the discussion here (over an indefinite period of time, a range of issues and over multiple pages) as part of a continued attempt to get hgilbert banned from editing in this area. One would think asking for sanctions is a "last resort" kind of measure and that we would see clear evidence of editors trying to work out specific problems with hgilbert themselves before asking for sanctions. I think part of the issue is that some editors seem to believe that hgilbert is subject to unique COI restrictions. Binksternet and other editors who don’t claim real life participation in PLANS - the other organization specifically named in the Arbcom decision – seem to feel that if they find hgilbert’s edits to be controversial he is violating the Arbcom decision. In other words, the COI only works one way and all disagreements are presumably grounded in him being "tainted" by COI. I agree with Nil Einne’s views on this. COI can exist in many ways and so conversation should concentrate on why edits are bad and not the possible motivations of editors. In the month leading up to the request, there was little discussion in talk, no issues taken out to noticeboards, and only two reverts of hgilbert’s edits. The two reverts were once by me [[17]] and once by Binksternet [[18]]. Hgilbert accepted both of these reversions without discussion or conflict. This stands in contrast to the month prior, wherein multiple n/or and RS issues had to be discussed and referred out and some edit warring occurred. As messy and difficult as that process was, it did work and no editors were referred here for their behavior. Up until the filing here I thought things were working (more or less) smoothly given the lack of discussion and reversions. However, now the same WP:SYNTH, WP:PERTINENCE and WP:RS issues that had to be referred to noticeboards are being brought up again as evidence of hgilbert’s individual bias without that proper context being included. [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] Unfortunately, these reliable source issues are ongoing. Binksternet feels that the pseudoscience page categorization is warranted by presenting papers self-published by two advocacy organizations and/or by making a synthetic argument in which he even admits that the reliable sources do not make the explicit claim that Waldorf education is pseudoscience. [[22]]. Of course, these are questions that ought to be discussed on the basis of what the reliable sources say rather than being brought here. It is Binksternet who has actually disrupted the project's progress by not letting this work itself out through normal channels. All in all, the period involving the diffs presented by Binksternet, shows the opposite of someone "repeatedly or seriously [failing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The project was working as designed---at least as measured by the lack of disputes, controversies, reversions, edit warring and major problems in the diffs binksternet provided. All that being said, hgilbert’s removal of his own COI tag was wrong, even if other editors had ample opportunity to object before and after it happened. The lack of commentary was not a sufficient basis for action. There should have been some affirmation that it was time for it to be taken off. Thank you. Jellypear (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by a13ean[edit]Hgilbert seems like a pretty nice guy, and over the past eight years and (at the time of writing) exactly 10k edits, has made many positive contributions to wikipedia. However, he has also continually and consistently pushed a POV at pages related to the works of Rudolph Steiner, which he almost exclusively edits. Not all the complaints brought here have merit; the heart and Lemuria images in particular shouldn't have been in the article (although there's other images in the article with even less context). Similarly not everyone here has clean hands with regard to editing in this area, and anyone is of course welcome to investigate my conduct in this area. However, Hgilbert in particular has continued to inappropriately push a POV despite repeated warnings. I previously laid out my concerns here and include my selection of diffs below for reference. HGilbert's response at that time can be seen here.
Of particular concern to me is misrepresentation and cherry-picking of positive material from sources, especially foreign-language and difficult to access academic sources; compare for example the article in Die Welt linked above to what it was used to source. Removing tags, misleading edit summaries, and canvassing ([29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]) are also a continued concern as noted above and by others. I am sure he could contribute positively to wikipedia in other areas, but I feel that his edits to these controversial areas have not, in net, helped build a better encyclopedia. Statement by other editor[edit]Result concerning Hgilbert[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I haven't yet made my way through all the evidence, but I might make a couple of initial observations. Firstly, topics concerning pseudoscience are problematic IMO not only because there are advocates on one side of the fence who try to promote their favoured theories, but also because there are sceptics on the other side who actively try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for discrediting the same. Both approaches violate core policy and are potentially sanctionable, and a preliminary look at the evidence suggests a degree of problematic editing on both sides in this particular article, though I am yet to form an opinion as to whether any of it is sufficiently serious to warrant sanctions. Secondly, while Hgilbert was found to have a COI at the original case, there is a difference between COI and paid advocacy, and no-one has accused Hgilbert of the latter. AFAIK there is no compunction on editors with a mere COI to discuss changes to articles prior to making them, so Binksternet's calls for sanctions based on that criterion alone don't appear to be actionable. I expect to have more to say about the particular diffs a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
@Hgilbert: You would have to point me to the case in which "an arbitration" found your COI was not relevant before I could reconsider the above recommendation. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in getting back to this, I have had a busy week with little time for Wikipedia. Tonight I went back through the supplied diffs above alleging misconduct by Hgilbert, and while many of them are old and many others concern what I would probably characterize as legitimate content disputes, I nonetheless found a number of diffs that are of concern. In brief, they are as follows:
These diffs mostly cover a period of the last three months, and indicate to me a degree of problematic editing in the topic area, at the very least a carelessness in citing sources that is not appropriate for someone previously cited in an Arbcom case for precisely this kind of misconduct. These edits may well result from an excess of enthusiasm for the topic on Hgilbert's part rather than an intention to mislead, but that is why we have a policy on COI. Then there is the apparent canvassing, which is infrequent but does indicate a persistent difficulty in abiding by the relevant policy. The tag teaming invitation is totally inappropriate and cynical (witness the edit summary), but is a rather old diff. Added to the above is the removal of the COI tag I mentioned above. On the other hand, the original Arbcom case is pretty old now and Hgilbert has avoided sanctions for the last six years. Neither has he had a warning in that time, although a recent AN/I thread might be considered a reminder to exercise caution. Nor, it must be said, has any evidence been presented that Hgilbert has attempted to edit war over the above misstatements. In summary, I'm not sure what to do here. I should add that the conduct of some other editors may also require scrutiny, but I haven't found the time to do that yet and probably won't be able to do so until Tuesday at the earliest. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment John. This request has been open for quite a while now and I really don't want to spend any more time on it or keep it open any longer than necessary. I took another look through the article history tonight and I think I have probably seen enough at this point to make some recommendations. In addition to the diffs relating to Hgilbert above, I found a number of diffs from Alexbrn that are of concern. I did previously mention his addition of images containing prejudicial content of questionable relevance and in probable violation of WP:UNDUE, here and here; he later edit warred to retain the images in the article[54][55] in spite of an apparent lack of consensus for the inclusion of at least one of the images on the article talk page.[56] As with the images, the addition of content likely to lead a reader to a prejudicial view of Waldorf education seems to be a hallmark of Alexbrn's approach to this page.[57][58] Some edits that are of particular concern, however, are a number which added opinions as statements of fact in plain violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:YESPOV; [59] [60][61]; the same edits also look like examples of WP:CHERRY (see original sources: [62][63]). Alexbrn is clearly aware of the YESPOV policy because he himself cited it in reverting someone else's edits.[64] With regard to Binksternet, he has made only a handful of edits to the article, but did support on the article talk page the return of a questionable image added by Alexbrn.[65] Binksternet also repeatedly added some arguably UNDUE content to the lead.[66][67] To summarize then: for Alexbrn, given that he has not previously been cited for misconduct in the topic area, I propose a formal warning. For Binksternet, probably nothing more than a reminder to edit according to policy would be necessary at this point. That leaves Hgilbert, and I am still unsure about the best course of action there. While Hgilbert's misstatements of sources are problematic, none of the diffs are all that recent, and the other issues might be described as relatively minor. Regardless, I can't help but feel reluctant to topic ban an editor who has managed to avoid sanctions for six years. Additionally, given that the conduct on the other side of the fence has hardly been exemplary, a topic ban might be seen to be rewarding inappropriate conduct there. For these reasons I am leaning toward a warning for Hgilbert as well. The alternative would probably be a one month topic ban. Some input on this would therefore be welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Doncram[edit]
| Doncram is warned not to approach discussions confrontatively, not to exhibit signs of ownership, not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith. The editors who are in disputes with Doncram are reminded that these expectations apply to them also. Sandstein 07:54, 4 April 2013 (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 Doncram[edit]
Discussion concerning Doncram[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Doncram[edit]I've received notice of this discussion of edits on a disambiguation page and see what has been said. I'll just say: I have reason to be a bit "paranoid", if that means thinking that people are following and might be pushing/testing in order to raise contention, such as by opening an Administrative Enforcement proceeding. And, as I said at the linked page, i am honestly puzzled by how to deal with an anonymous editor who started by restoring what I considered a bad edit, and seems to be possibly very experienced in Wikipedia. And, that editor was "weirded out" by the odd behavior of other editors there, too, not just by my questions. Seems resolved by the editor being weirded out and dropping the possibility of discussing disambiguation policy and practice more thoroughly, which i offered to do. I am open to having a big discussion in an RFC, about disambiguation policy and practices regarding place lists that include NRHP-listed places, and I urge participants here to consider if that would be useful. I don't think that revisiting disambiguation page policies is a great use of many editors time, but I would prefer to engage in that rather have a bunch of separate scattered discussions. My comment is later than, and I have read all comments through, Sandstein's 3rd comment at 10:14, 31 March 2013 and the later comment by The Devil's Advocate at 17:25, and I will consider all that has been said here. Thanks. --doncram 21:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by Orlady[edit]I'm disappointed to see the talk-page exchange (now grown much longer: [68]) flagged by Nyttend. Doncram's statements are an example of the kind of behavior toward other contributors that has been problematic in the past. The initial 3 paragraphs of accusations against the IP user and Nyttend are expressions of paranoia (the assumption that anyone who reverts his changes or questions his edits is someone he has identified as having a personal animus against him) and article ownership. In his later post asserting that he is an authority and suggesting that the IP should pursue mediation if he disagrees with Doncram's authority -- and by posting 10 paragraphs (a veritable wall of words -- and all about an inconsequential disambiguation page!) in slightly more than 5 hours, Doncram was (in effect, if not conscious intent) telling the IP to get out of his way and stay away. The parting words of the IP ("..This is getting way too weird. ...I'm not touching this page again") are a fine summation of the effect of Doncram's behavior on the IP -- and why this behavior is a problem. I wish Doncram could be made to understand that people like Nyttend and me aren't conspiring against him. I don't hold out hope of convincing him that we aren't out to get him, but he does need to recognize that this behavior toward other users is intimidation that will not be tolerated. --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Elkman[edit]It's too bad the arbitration didn't give Doncram the article-locking capability that he's apparently wanted. By the way, when he says he welcomes constructive input on his articles, he really means it's OK for other people to edit his articles only if they say something he agrees with. That's why I reverted the IP edits to the O'Connor House article, because sometimes an office building or a glassware factory can be confused with a house. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC) By the way, can I get a ruling on whether it was OK for me to add a link to the National Register nomination for Durham School (Durham, Arkansas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? It could be argued that I was violating WP:POINT to support a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 21#Category:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture in the United States. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
TDA: Maybe you can tell me exactly which one of my contributions is a violation of policy, and bring it up here. Then you could get me blocked for a time, or perhaps banned. (I'm sure you and your friends at W-------ocracy would entirely love to see that happen.) To be honest, I don't know what sort of things I might say that might upset Doncram. If I mention that the start date of a building is often after the start date of the organization that built it, do I have to walk on eggshells when saying so, because Doncram might get upset? Is it a matter of arbitration that adding a National Register nomination form link to an article might make Doncram upset? Sometimes I can't figure that sort of stuff out on my own. I was really hoping that Arbcom would provide an exact answer on when it's OK or not OK for me to edit articles that Doncram has ownership of. Regardless, I think I get your point that I absolutely must not say anything that disturbs Doncram. Meanwhile, I'm assuming it's still perfectly OK with you if Doncram insults my work, implies that I do inaccurate and insufficient work, and asserts that I don't operate with quality and integrity. I can be quite certain that you don't have any qualms about insulting me, personally, judging from this message. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by Nyttend[edit]Adding a second statement, since Sandstein asks for clarification from me. First off, the request is for a block; I didn't know that there were any options here other than "block" or "no sanction". Go with Orlady's and Elkman's diffs and comments, plus note that he accuses me of doing the editing, without basis (and as noted by Orlady, he's driven the IP off), and here characterises an attempt to get a community-approved process put into practise as being "railroaded" through without notification to him — this despite his non-involvement in anything related to the community approval. In the diff that Orlady calls "asserting that he is an authority...", Doncram even says "You probably do not see all of this, you don't see yourself as a rogue editor causing problems, but to me you seem somewhat like a series of previous editors who have arrived and taken interest in dab pages...". In other words, "You don't think of yourself as causing problems, but I know better, and you look like a sock in disguise" — an accusation of sockpuppetry without evidence. Finally, please look at the entirety of Talk:O'Connor House — not to read it, but simply glancing over the comments to see how long they are. Doncram's frequently clogged things up with TLDR statements (and objections when people tell him that they're too long), even doing this at the arbitration request. None of the things mentioned are sanctionable by themselves, just like none of his actions before the case were by themselves sanctionable, but all of them put together are problematic. These actions are some of what the arbitration ruling was supposed to stop; since he's acting the same way as beforehand, we need to use the arbitration ruling. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]I do not believe there is anything of concern here. Nowhere do I see an indication that Doncram's conduct "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum." This is just seizing on trivialities and technicalities to get Doncram sanctioned for no apparently constructive purpose. These editors (Nyttend, Orlady, and Elkman) should just leave Doncram well enough alone. If they don't need to interact with him they shouldn't. I don't think any of them should be able to go to some page Doncram created or edited, make some edit they would have every reason to believe will lead to some amount of tension with Doncram, and then use any resulting tension as cause for getting him sanctioned.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Mathsci[edit]In the edit summary to a disambiguation page[69], Doncram accused an anonymous IP, whose edits he twice reverted, of being a logged-off editor subject to an interaction ban with him. The only such editor is SarekOfVulcan. On the talk page, however, Doncram suggested in a long paragraph that the IP was Nyttend, who had edited the page a few days beforehand.[70] Even when told this was not the case by Nyttend and the IP, Doncram continued using the talk page for making general allegations concerning Nyttend.[71][72] This was uncollegial editing and a violation of the remedy of general editor probation. Of those commenting here, Nyttend, Orlady and Elkman are experienced editors in the NRHP area. Although all three were named parties in the recently closed Doncram case, none of them were mentioned in the final decision of the arbitration committee. In particular, none of these editors is subject to any kind of interaction ban. General editor probabtion applies to all articles Doncram edits. These are almost exclusively short stubs, lists and disambiguation pages. Any edit to this kind of page could be described as trivial. However, the conduct on the talk page, with unjustified bad faith accusations of sockpuppetry, was out of all proportion. The arbcom case contained numerous examples of bad faith accusations of an extreme kind, verging on paranoia. This is no different. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Keithbob[edit]I agree with the assessment by Gatoclass and Sandstein. Doncram's main offense here is his repeated focus on the editor(s) instead of on the content, as well as a lack of collaborative spirit and ownership. I don't believe the behavioral issues rise to the level yet where strong action is needed and a series of gradual restrictions is a good idea. However, if Doncram keeps going on the current path he/she will eventually be banned from WP and rightly so. However, I am hoping that a series of increasingly severe sanctions will be a wake up call to amend his/her behavior and eliminate the current situation whereby their productive edits are negated or even overshadowed by their misbehavior. Doncram would also be wise to note that not all Admins will be as patient as Sandstein and Gatoclass, especially as the situation progresses and if he/she wants to continue on WP the time to shape up is now. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Pigsonthewing[edit]
Hasn't he already been 'advised' to that effect? More than once? Note also his comments at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RileyBot 9, made after his statement above (1; 2; 3; 4). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Doncram[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Nyttend, this request is a bit too broad and unspecific for my taste (although other colleagues might see this differently). Could you please submit (a) only diffs, not links to whole discussion threads; (b) explain with respect to each diff how exactly you think "Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum", and (c) tell us what administrative actions you propose we take? Sandstein 21:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Elkman, sorry: because your conduct is not covered by arbitration remedies, its assessment is, I believe, outside the scope of this noticeboard. Sandstein 21:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Dasixiaoriben[edit]
| The request is moot. Dasixiaoriben has been indefinitely blocked for reasons unrelated to arbitration enforcement. Sandstein 19:45, 4 April 2013 (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 Dasixiaoriben[edit]
The user has been claiming that a new edition of the cited source does not contain the material currently cited. That is demonstrably false. In the last edit, the user changes what has come to be known as the Lydda Death March. to The event has come to be known as the 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle and has also been referred to as the Lydda Death March when the cited source says 'On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to come 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'. The user has edit-warred, misrepresented sources, and lied about other sources. He has also been edit-warring on the talk page of the article, repeatedly blanking or modifying another user's comments (eg [73], [74], [75]). I have a hard time believing that this is not a reincarnation of the past collection of sockpuppets of a banned user that has plagued that page, but even without that being taken into consideration he or she is violating the 1RR and lying about sources.
Discussion concerning Dasixiaoriben[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dasixiaoriben[edit]First, my English is not polished. I make many efforts to ensure my edits to articles are grammatically correct. When I put on the talk page I dont make sure as much. But for this to be called me a vandal or disruption is wrong. I have improved the article. I think Nableezy says I violate 1rr by saying that ANY edit of the site is a revert, but this isn't true. I made an edit, it was reverted, so I went to the talk page. When I say what he said (no other user contested the content) I am called a 1rr violater. I am reading about Wikipedia policy. I tried to make edits that make concensus. You can see by above, he is making me intot he devil when I am working to make a better encyclopedia. No edit I make to an article is bad grammar, I make hard to ensure the article has good grammar. Also, I have read many Wikipedia policy. I am sure I not know all, but I have the good faith. I think Nableezy's problem is our cultural difference. He is American and I am Chinese. If administrator think I not know enough about scholarship (Western scholarship?) to make edits, than I accept. But, what I think is Nableezy is politically minded, not for Wikipedia.Dasixiaoriben (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]The editor doesn't have a 'limited command of English'. They are writing in a way that they imagine resembles the way a Chinese person with a limited command of English would write, because it serves their purpose to do so, presumably for stimulation rather than deception given that it is inept and inconsistent. Doing whatever serves their purpose, irrespective of rules and norms, has been this person's prime concern for over 2 years. They'll either be blocked as a Lutrinae sock at some point or like their Luke 19 Verse 27 sock they will be blocked for disruption. Either way, it's inevitable that they will be blocked eventually and more time will have been wasted because of this person inability to control their behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Result concerning Dasixiaoriben[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I've previously offered the opinion that WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is not enforceable in this kind of situation, because it has not been imposed by Committee vote and is therefore not a binding ArbCom remedy; and if it is considered a discretionary sanction then Dasixiaoriben has not received the specific type of warning required by WP:AC/DS (not even in an edit notice). As such, the most we could do under AE authority would be to issue that warning. But in view of the "cow pie" type of vandalism engaged in by this very new account (which does give some credence to the suspicion of socking), combined with the edit-warring and their apparently limited command of English, I'm not sure whether we shouldn't just indef-block the account under normal administrator authority for disruptive editing and not being a net benefit to Wikipedia. – Just a note concerning "source misrepresentation": In my view this should be reserved to mean making false statements about a source's contents in an article, rather than (as here, allegedly) in a discussion. Sandstein 16:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
Galassi[edit]
| Galassi is indefinitely topic-banned from Ukraine. Sandstein 11:46, 7 April 2013 (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 Galassi[edit]
Clarification: This user is already under personal editing restriction from October 2011 as stated here and logged here. According to this restriction, he is placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.
And so on, and so on. Every single diff was a violation of his editing restriction because: (a) all of them are Ukraine-related, (b) he never started discussions at talk pages of these articles prior to revert as he suppose to do per restriction; (c) none of these reverts is simply a vandalism fixing, as clear from his own edit summaries ("POV", sourcing, etc.). In essence, Galassi simply decided to ignore his restriction.
March 17 Warning by admin about edit warring in Rus' people - related to Ukraine October 18 2012 Edit warring warning by two admins in Little Russia - this is Ukraine
He apparently also edit war in ARBPIA area. His problem is actually not the Ukraine-related topics, but a tendency to quickly revert edits by other contributors without talking. No, he does not follow WP:BRD cycle. I run into this problem while editing articles that are not on Ukrainian subjects, but fell in EE area. He made this and this edits. This is a pretty strong statement (first diff) that "Although the case was officially declared as "completely fabricated" and all victims rehabilitated by Russian authorities in 1992 (ref) [from previous version], the later research has shown that there was in fact a conspiracy, and Gumilev did take part in it (another ref) [his addition]. He tells "in fact". How come? This claim simply contradicts most RS. Hence I reverted both changes per WP:BRD and started discussion at talk pages: here and here. Galassi responded only by telling this in one of the talk pages, and then immediately reverted here (his edit summary: "not what sources say..") and here (edit summary "per recent reliable research"). This is the same problem as with Ukrainian subjects. But more important, as became clear from our later discussions ("POV" here and on his talk page), he did not even read any of the sources he refer to in his reverts. I did not want to submit this request and therefore talked with Galassi [88] to ask if he understands that reverting others without talking and without even checking the sources is not a good idea, and that editing restrictions must be respected, but without any success.
@Volunteer Marek. As I already said above, the problem of Galassi is not Ukrainian subjects, but rather his tendency to quickly revert edits by other contributors not only without talking, but sometimes even without looking at sources. And he starts edit warring (rather than BRD cycle) after making humiliating comments like this or no comments at all. That is why FPS made such unusual sanction. And when it comes to discussions, Galassi is not responsive. I asked him four times if he read a source, but he did not respond. For example, if he said me on his talk page that he understands the problem with his editing style, will improve it, and self-revert (self-reverting is simply a test showing that someone is ready to compromise), then I would never report him here. Therefore, I think the most sensible approach would be to extend this existing sanction by FPS to all EE subjects, rather than making the Ukrainian topic ban.
Discussion concerning Galassi[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Galassi[edit]User User:My very best wishes and are involved not an edit war but in a content dispute, in which he relies on a single dated source. None of my edits were controversial (Ukraine related or otherwise). My topic bans are Ukrainians and the Battle of Konotop and my 6month restrictions have long lapsed. In the case of Nikolay Gumilev's execution: I am translating the corresponding section from ru-wiki which is thoroughly sourced, as I stated in the relevant discussion. User:My very best wishes's POV tendencies are evident also in his edits on the Yakov Agranov article, where he squarely lays blame for the Stalin's era repressions on Agranov, which to me sounds rather antisemitic, and I simply toned down the unencyclopedic tone of the article. In the case of Ilya Ehrenburg article, again, User:My very best wishes is intent on showing a "bloodthirsty Jew" by manipulating quotes and taking them out of context.--Galassi (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]From Galassi's comment above, it's my impression that he thought the revert restriction was related only to the articles Ukrainians and Battle of Konotop, not anything to do with Ukraine, or for that matter, any topic what so ever (which the wording of the restriction seems to suggest if interpreted broadly). Add on top of that that most of his edits since that restriction have been non controversial, with only an occasional revert here or there, and basically nothing has happened since October 2011 to make him think otherwise. I would definitely advise against a topic ban on Ukrainian topics in general. Even if there's a violation here it seems like a idiosyncratic lapse two years after the sanction was imposed so he might have simply forgotten about it (yes, the edit warring's problematic but it looks like just somebody getting caught up in the heat of the situation - short term block for that is the usual remedy). Additionally, while it may not be obvious for a user who's devoted to a particular topic area an indefinite topic ban is essentially equivalent to a site ban. Way way too harsh. I think even My very best wishes would agree that that's going over the top.Volunteer Marek 22:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Additional comments: As far as I can tell Galassi hasn't been brought to WP:AE since December 2010, and in particular, not since the sanction was put in place. So I'm assuming this is the first violation of the sanction (after two years) of significance. As a result I don't think an *indefinite* topic ban from Ukraine-related topics is appropriate. Some kind of sanction, maybe. But the way it usually works is that the first offense results in a short term block or a limited time topic ban, and the sanctions are only escalated with subsequent infringements. Basically, immediately jumping to an indefinite topic ban is way out of proportion here.Volunteer Marek 07:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Estlandia (Miacek)[edit]Diffs brought up by My very best wishes clearly reveal that Galassi violated the restrictions. My very best wishes is also right when he states that Galassi is too quick to push the revert button. Instead of discussing with his opponents (like My very best wishes attempted to do), he simply chose to revert. I also resent the fact that Galassi is once again using the 'antisemitism accusation' ([93]) as a killer phrase when having a dispute. The accusation he presented on his comment here (″is intent on showing a "bloodthirsty Jew" by manipulating quotes and taking them out of context.″) runs contrary to our rules. Despite this, Galassi is a generally constructive contributor, he should just (1) drop the accusations of antisemitic (or Russophile) bias (2) stop edit warring and seek consensus instead. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]The only real issue I see that he has occasionally violated the "explain first" aspect of a complicated year-and-a-half old restriction. In the first five reverts noted above Galassi is reverting an IP editor who is making disruptive, nonsensical changes to an article. Although not vandalism per se, I think we should give a little consideration to the nature of those edits. The 1RR in ARBPIA actually exempts reverts of IP editors from such restrictions and for good reason. IP editors can and do make appropriate changes, but then you have instances like above where the IP adds some tendentiously-worded gobbledygook and is persistent in edit-warring in their nonsense. We shouldn't thump an editor for keeping that type of content out. Outside of those edits you basically have some occasional technical violations from March. These are far from justifying an indefinite topic ban. As for Sandstein's talk about rollback, there is nothing untoward in Galassi's use of Twinkle. That tool is not the same as the rollback tool for a variety of reasons and is thus not subject to the same restrictions as the rollback tool. Anyone can get Twinkle by enabling it in their account settings so it isn't necessary for an admin to determine someone is a trusted editor before they can use Twinkle, and it allows for options that do not involve vandalism. It is not appropriate to suggest that Galassi should be barred from using Twinkle and not allowed to get rollback rights on the basis of the edits above.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Galassi[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I've asked the admin who imposed the restriction to comment, but to me, this looks like a clear violation of the editing restriction, which is a binding discretionary sanction. The statement by Galassi does not address the restriction or its violation at all, but only the content disputes in the context of which the violation occurred, but these content issues are irrelevant for the purpose of this request.In addition, the reverts cited as evidence are problematic in and of itself: The series of 3 April 2013 violates WP:3RR. Several inaccurately characterize the reverted edit as vandalism ([94], [95]), or were made without an explanation in the edit summary ([96], [97], [98]), and one was made with the misleading summary "restoration of sourced content", when in fact it re-added unsourced content, including content tagged with "citation needed|date=May 2011". This constitutes disruptive editing. Because these edits were made to articles related to Ukraine, which was also the scope of the original restriction, I am of the opinion that an appropriate reaction to this violation would be to ban Galassi indefinitely from editing anything related to Ukraine. Additionally, because in some of these reverts Galassi used an automated rollback tool (Twinkle) to rollback edits that were not vandalism, which violates the rollback guideline, they should be indefinitely prohibited from using Twinkle or another rollback tool, or from requesting rollback permission. Sandstein 12:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rumiton[edit]
| It is unclear whether there is (sufficient) consensus to grant this appeal. According to the procedures, any party may make a request for clarification to the Arbitration Committee, or seize the Committee directly with a new appeal. Sandstein 14:50, 18 April 2013 (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).
Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Rumiton’s indefinite ban from all Prem Rawat related articles.
Here (scroll to bottom.)
1. Indefinite bans without evidence of wrongdoing are against the Wikipedia ethos and seem to set a dangerous precedent. 2. I am a Guild Member, with over 10,000 edits to 1300 pages in 6 years. I have played a major role in bringing articles (Sinking of the RMS Titanic, German battleship Bismarck, Ernst Lindemann and Attack on Sydney Harbour) to Featured Article status, helped put out fires at Jesus Army, and fought a long and mostly losing battle to keep Sathya Sai Baba honest. Admittedly, none of these was as contentious as the Prem Rawat pages, where a battleground mentality has proved resistant to change, but I believe I have been a moderating influence there also. See [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], 3. As a result of a Decision Amendment Request, this article has now been brought under Standard Discretionary Sanctions. There are eight SDS criteria, [110] this action clearly fails:
4. Blade’s comment, ‘‘I honestly hate to have to do this, but I think that the only way to stop the endless deadlock on the article is to go nuclear.’’ [111] is controversial. Rather than an “endless deadlock”, the article was steadily improving. A flurry of minor and discussed edits had recently been made, some of which I politely objected to. [112] Most of the other objections seemed focused on denigrating the subject and other editors, culminating in the outing of an editor and the blocking of the outer. [113] 5. Re article neutrality, I believe the article has improved. Littleolive oil (uninvolved) wrote in Rainer P’s appeal: ’’I...now...sense that Rawat is controversial, has detractors and supporters, and I have a sense of what his tenets are. I no longer feel I am being manipulated to see Rawat in any particular way. The slant when I came in was pejorative.’’ [114] 6. Blanket banning has not helped this article. Arguably this article has gone backwards since November. 7. While I admire Prem Rawat’s perspectives and perseverance, I have never held any official position in any of his organisations and have certainly never been paid to edit. I have no COI. I believe The Blade of the Northern Lights has made a mistake in applying this sanction to me, and I respectfully request that it be lifted.
Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights[edit]OK, it took me a while to refresh my memory of all this, so here goes. First off, here is when I lifted the ban in August; I thought that Rumiton had done a considerable amount of good, neutral editing in a very tough article (2012 Assam violence was a gigantic mess and getting hit with all kinds of unhelpful garbage, and I commend him for the work he put in there). I thought it demonstrated his ability to keep neutral in a hard area, and figured it wouldn't hurt to allow him another chance at Prem Rawat. This is the statement I made on the matter in mid-December after I imposed the bans, when ArbCom decided to switch over to standard DS without vacating the sanctions I imposed. Since that time, my stance has not changed. As I alluded to, there's no one diff which can sum up what I was seeing, but it's the overall pattern which was the problem. I extensively talked this over with User:Steven Zhang (who I will notify now that I've mentioned him), who did a huge amount of mediation in the topic area, and he saw exactly what I did. Immediately after I imposed the bans several respected editors- including Jimbo personally- stepped in to undo several edits Rumiton had either done or supported; some of this can be seen at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 50#Massive revert of content, and the rest can be seen in the article history from that time. With regard to Rumiton's statement above, my view essentially echoes IRWolfie-. To the extent that this appeal is directed at me, I decline it, and to the extent it's directed at others I encourage others to decline it as well. If the ban was lifted I would have the same view I expressed in December about how monopolized the article was before my intervention, and the statement above does not allay those concerns. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Littleolive oil[edit]This ban should be investigated based on two issues, one on whether appropriate Wikipedia processes were or were not followed and two as a subsection of that what indications are there that the talk page processes on Prem Rawat were failing and a ban should be implemented. I came to the Prem Rawat article in August 2012 [116] because of this comment [117] on Jimbo Wales' talk page. I was an uninvolved editor with no knowledge of Prem Rawat or his organization. I idealistically hoped to help foster appropriate processes on the talk page and as someone uninvolved to quiet the incivility I found on the page. Simply, the talk page processes began to work and were on going and productive, (which I don't take credit for, but my intent was to help with this process). There was little or no edit warring although Pat W tended to degrade the process with incivility. In this atmosphere where editors had improved in their relations and progress was being made, Blade of the Northern Lights made a surprising and extreme move banning 4 editors, without diffs that illustrated problematic behaviour. Given the ongoing improvement in the article environment, the ban is puzzling to say the least. Not only where there no diffs, there were no diffs showing individual editor misbehaviour and nothing that I saw then indicated Rumiton should be removed from the article. Each editor on editing this article is an individual and while Wikipedia processes allow a single admin to ban or block based on discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia processes also indicate editors can expect to be told why they have been banned. I know that the Prem Rawat article is highly contentious and has been the subject of several arbitration. Unfortunately, the progress that was being made in term of collaboration was abruptly ended with this ban.
Statement by Rumiton[edit]@Sandstein. I know there is a lot of stuff to follow in this case, or cases. Here is where Blade's first ban on me was lifted,
1. Briefly, what do you think are the best aspects of the Prem Rawat article as it currently stands?
2. Briefly, and without going into excessive detail or becoming confrontational, what do you think are the worst aspects of the article as it currently stands?
3. How do you feel the core Wikipedia content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP) should guide the content of the Prem Rawat article and related articles? In particular, to what extent do you believe the BLP policy may limit our ability to write a fair, balanced, and neutral article here?
4. How should the Wikipedia community handle situations where various people have widely differing views on what the Prem Rawat article should contain and how it should be written? Do you believe it is possible for editors working on this article to reach a balanced consensus that is neither a whitewash nor an attack piece? To what extent (if any) do you believe the logjams can be resolved only by banning certain people (possibly you, possibly others, but don't name names here) from working on the article at all?
5. To what extent (if any) do you feel you are willing to accept content in the Prem Rawat article with which you are not personally comfortable?
6. Do you believe you are able (and willing) to write in a way that fairly, accurately, and neutrally presents views regarding Prem Rawat with which you personally disagree?
@Steven Zhang. Steve, your mediation efforts were appreciated and I am sure would have born more fruit were it not for the participation of one particular editor. Looking at the 2008 discussion of Cagan as an example, 153 posts were made by editor Will Beback, about twice as many as those from all other editors combined. At the time Will was still presenting as a neutral administrator, but time has shown him to have been an implacable foe of this subject and a number of similar subjects. There was no possibility of reaching an agreement with Will that did not involve total surrender to his POV, and I feel it is unfair to hold our past difficulties against me now, especially as a number of contesting editors on both sides of the fence no longer edit Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, it looks like I initially posted this in the wrong section. My mistake. Thanks for shifting it.) Rumiton (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC) @Mastcell. May I ask if you actually looked at my edits? I have mainly been accused of supporting tendentious editing, but not one diff supporting this has been shown. On the contrary, I believe my editing shows a pattern of trying to ameliorate extreme views on both sides. Re my banning history, perhaps I should have appealed my previous topic bans first (I think they were similarly flimsy) but I was told this appeal would be taken on its merits. This is indeed a difficult area to edit in, but the reasons for that lie in the history of the subject. As a teenager, Prem Rawat was largely jeered at by the lightweight press of the 70's, but taken much more seriously by academic sources. Since the 80's, much of his coverage has been in in-house, (tertiary education, health care and penal institutions etc) or foreign language, sources. It is a hard situation, but I don't think you have been fair in saying I "essentially admit I am unable to neutrally present views with which I disagree". I have said that nobody has been able to fairly represent all the available sources, but I think my strategy of wide consultation is the best. If permitted to edit again, I would use RfC, 3d Opinions, and other noticeboards more fully, and this would be a benefit to the article. No doubt I would be watched closely to make sure that I did. If an appeal against a topic banning that cannot be justified by evidence is dismissed because the banning admin and one mediator still thought it was justified, then is there any point to having an appeal process in place? Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Steven Zhang[edit]Hello. My experience with the Prem Rawat articles spans back to 2008, where I have served as a mediator a few times over the years. Like all long-running disputes, this is a difficult one to resolve, and while there has progress over the years it has predominantly slow. Over the years, various involved editors have been topic or site banned, and the editors that have been involved for many years on the article has whittled down. Now, I'm not an admin and I'm not going to tell y'all how to do your job, but my assessment of the situation is this is an intractable dispute that no amount of dispute resolution can resolve. For disputes to be resolved, it is required that all parties have a desire to work together and move forward, and be open to compromise. From my experience, this does not exist, which leaves the article (which is a BLP) unstable, and prone to NPOV and edit warring issues. I believe that The Blade has taken a precautionary approach in this situation, noting previous issues with editing that took place in the past. Rumiton had been topic banned three times from Prem Rawat in the past, for a period of one week, one year by ArbCom, and then indefinitely by The Blade (though this was lifted in September for 2 months). I agree with the reasoning of The Blade - in the past Rumiton and Momento have supported each other in the edits they made, even when these were in breach of policy. As pointed out, this continued at the time shortly preceding the topic ban, and I agree with his assessment that if Momento was topic banned, it would have been very likely to be picked up in some way by Rumiton. This isn't a sure thing of course, but based on the history of the article this seemed very likely, and thus a topic ban being a reasonable measure. It is my opinion that the topic ban should not be lifted - of course it is not my decision, but I have a strong feeling that the article will become unstable if topic bans start to be lifted. I'd encourage the uninvolved adminsistrators to review the past dispute resolution attempts for Prem Rawat (below) and understand how intricate this dispute is before deciding how to act. I acknowledge that it is not the role of AE administrators to resolve content disputes, but your actions may make it easier or harder for us to do so, and it's a tough enough job as it is. Please think carefully. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Some of the DR attempts include - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat all the way to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 6, the MedCab case I took (with the proposals for changes and associated discussions - one page alone amounted to 500k) Statement by Momento[edit]There is only one issue here and Rumiton has identified it, if vaguely, in his first point. As clearly expressed in ArbCom's "Burden of proof and personal attacks", "the onus is on the sanctioning editor to provide the evidence to prove his claim. (And) failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence". [121] BotNL offered no evidence at all. BotNL needs to provide "serious evidence""citing supporting diffs where appropriate" of Rumiton's "battleground behaviour over the last several months" prior to his banning. Irrespective of the evidence, or lack of it, a member of a minority "religion/group" like Rumiton will never win a Wikipedia popularity contest and the only way this sanction will be overturned is "with the written authorization of the Committee".Momento (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by another editor[edit]Statement by uninvolved IRWolfie-[edit]Firstly I will note that significant consensus is required for an overturn: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions. I will also note that I have never edited an article about Prem Rawat as far as I am aware. Now a point by point look at the appeal:
In summary, no substantive reason to do anything. Rather a lot of erroneous points and arguments have been thrown about. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
@Richwales: Restoring a comment which was a violation of an editors topic ban seems an extremely unusual step. Doesn't that essentially reward violating the topic ban? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Keithbob[edit]I saw the note from Rumiton on Littleolive oil's talk page and thought I'd wander over. I've never edited the PR page but I have 19 edits to the talk page as a consequence of two RfC's on that page back in 2010 and 2011. I've been watching the goings on there, off and on, since then and I'm interested in this mass topic ban. There were no diffs given in Blade's initial post explaining Rumiton's topic ban here And when it was brought up at ArbRequestsEnforcement only one diff was provided and that was for an edit made by Momento not by Rumiton Each editor is an individual person and deserves to be treated as such. I look forward to the presentation of evidence in the specific case of Rumiton.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Jayen466[edit]Appeal should be granted per Sandstein below. (I used to edit the topic area, but it's been more than a year that I've set foot there.) Andreas JN466 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Discussion concerning Rumiton[edit]Result of the appeal by Rumiton[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
|
Ebrahimi-amir[edit]
| Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs) is banned from everything related to the topics of Armenia or Azerbaijan for six months. Sandstein 14:35, 13 April 2013 (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 Ebrahimi-amir[edit]
Violation of terms for which he was unbanned[edit]
Rest of old comments on falsifying ethnic maps[edit]The rest of my old comments on why the map is self-made and ethno-nationalist can be seen here: [137]. I suggested administrators look at this as well as the two are connected. In a nut-shell: User creates baseless non WP:RS ethno-nationalist maps and inserts them in Wikipedia, and then reverts other users without engaging discussion. I also suggest administrators look at his userpage [138]. Despite the fact that there are WP:RS maps, the user reverts other users and inserts his own nationalistic made maps without discussions (something he was warned before on his last block to stop)--Xodabande14 (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC) The remainder of this statement has been removed by an administrator for exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above by a lot. Sandstein 14:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Discussion concerning Ebrahimi-amir[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ebrahimi-amir[edit]The red color in the map does not mean that other people do not live there. you can see all talk about the maps in here.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Thim map was drawn based on "Geography and population of Turkish people in Iran" Alireza Sarrafi, Journal "Dilmaj", No. 2, 2004, and http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=File:Azerbaijani_people_in_Middel_East.jpg this map was drawn based on several sources that list in map page--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC) It seems that this case is due to a personal dispute. Here you can read about these activities.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Where did you realize that Alireza Sarrafi is a nationalist? Do you have a valid source WP:RS for this statement? Or the personal opinion do you say this?WP:ORIGINAL "He is from the same ethnic group and nationalistic, so it should not be used in Wikipedia" The author belongs to a nation. Are all writers are the nationalists? Map drawn by Alireza Sarrafi corresponded with Ahmad Kasravi's writings. Do Kasravi was an Azeri nationalist?
Source: THE TURKISH LANGUAGE IN IRAN By Ahmed KASRAVI,latimeria: Prof. Dr. Evan Siegal, Journal of Azerbaijani Studies, 1998, Vol. 1, No 2, [6] , Khazar University Press , ISSN 1027-387 --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The remainder of this statement has been removed by an administrator for exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above by a lot. Sandstein 14:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Dougweller[edit]There's a bit of confusion here about the discussion at Commons:File talk:Turkic people in Iran.jpg. I translated a comment by now-inactive (here at least) User:SLFAW which the editor hadn't signed, and I didn't sign it for him or format it so that it was clear it was a separate comment and I was only translating it. Then another editor, ماني replied saying the map was exaggerated. The comment " احمق باباي جناب عالي " was aimed at that editor. The only editors who have posted and are still active are myself and Ebrahimi-amir. I am not an expert in the history or geography of the area but will take a look at the Wikipedia issues later. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Dbachmann[edit]I was asked to comment, but I see admins are already taking good care of this. My comment is this: we cannot ban an editor just for inserting an unreferenced map, but if an editor had already been banned for their nationalism-fuelled disruption and they pledged to stop this, and then they go ahead and re-insert unreferenced maps motivated by a nationalistic agenda, I would strongly agree that permabanning such an editor for good is doing everybody (the project, all active admins, all involved editors, and not least the offending editor himself) a favour. I don't care if an editor is a nationalist as long as they are willing and able to follow WP:RS and build whatever case they want based on honest representation of quotable sources. If they cannot or will not do this, we, as a project, simply are not interested in their participation. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Result concerning Ebrahimi-amir[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The comments accompanying the request are excessively long. I've removed them because they are not useful in this form. Xodabande14 may resubmit new comments within the constraints of 500 words and 20 diffs indicated above. Please recall that AE requests should in principle be limited to a list of dated recent diffs and a short explanation why each diff violates which policy or guideline or other rule of conduct. Additional comments should be limited to very briefly outlining relevant context, such as previous sanctions, but not contain allegations of misconduct apart from those which are the subject of the AE request itself.
User:Ebrahimi-amir's usage of File:Azerbaijani people in Middel East.jpg is obvious tendentious editing, in my opinion. His map shows no Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. He gets extra credit for misspelling both words of 'Middle East.' This map looks like cartoonish POV-pushing, especially when contrasted with a respectable academic map such as commons:File:Iran ethnoreligious distribution 2004.jpg. I would recommend that Ebrahimi-Amir be topic banned from AA for at least six months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC) |
