Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 440: | Line 440: | ||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
||
*If this is a request to enforce the existing interaction ban, it doesn't seem to be an AE matter. If this is a request for a broader interaction ban to be imposed under AE authority/discretionary sanctions, then please specify the relevant arbitration case and provide diffs demonstrating that an interaction ban is needed. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 15:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:28, 3 May 2012
Iadrian yu
| Withdrawn. I missed a crucial diff. There is no point in continuing it on my part as submitter.--Nmate (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2012 (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 Iadrian yu
When I noticed that User:Bzg1920 is a self-confessed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi [2]->[3], I got to erase his contributions to the project. Then said banned user brazenly complained about me at at the Edit warring & 3RR board where he also confirmed that he is a sockpuppet,viz,"He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users"->08:13, 20 April 2012. Then said banned user came up with WP:DIGWUREN there that I am placed under->
11:25, 20 April 2012 11:28, 20 April 2012. I reverted it-> 11:29, 20 April 2012. The banned user restored it-> 11:31, 20 April 2012. I reverted it again-> 11:34, 20 April 2012. The banned user restored it again-> 11:36, 20 April 2012 Then I reverted it yet again-> 11:43, 20 April 2012 Afterwards Iadrian yu involved himself in the case-> 11:57, 20 April 2012, and he also came up with WP:DIGWUREN that I am placed under->12:04, 20 April 2012 and arbitration enforcment there ->12:33, 20 April 2012 Additionally, he wanted to bait me into an edit-war by restoring the banned user's comment-> 12:10, 20 April 2012, knowning that reverting a banned user does not fall under WP:3RR but, if I should revert his reverting, that would already constitute an edit war. It is possibly meat puppeting and violations of numerous principles of editing on Wikipedia including WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE on Iadrian yu's part.
This is not some exceptional slip: I do not remember when was the last time I have encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipedia until recently ,as I do not edit articles he does ,and still he has been on a continuous campaign to try to eliminate me from Wikipedia. At the aforementioned 3RR report, Iadrian yu appeared out of the blue to make an attempt to hoodwink the reviewer administrator saying that the fact that I reverted an obvious and self-confessed sockpuppet was because of my battleground behaviour to get me blocked.
Discussion concerning Iadrian yuStatement by Iadrian yuWhat user Nmate is doing now is block shopping - as he calls it himself. His manners on Wikipedia are far from collegiality relationship. If we take in consideration only this last incident we can notice that his approach is far from friendly and acting against the permission of another editor(7 times in a row after I decided to join the discussion) when he manipulated his comments (what is supposedly the base for this report). Note that the report about edit warring was filed by another editor ( not me ). I only joined the discussion after user Nmate manipulated other people`s comments after 7 times, I am sorry if this user can`t tolerate me or other editors but that is not the base for this kind of reports against me or anybody else. Also the warning issued here [6] - again at the Nmate-s request , after talking to the administrator it was obvious that it was far less need than in other cases [7]. I received this warning when Nmate accused me without any evidence based on his personal opinion. I really dislike this approach when user Nmate accuses me that I am blockshoping in places when I am mentioned - and I simply responded with my personal opinion and evidence for my claims. I said [8] - since it is archived I don`t know how to take diffs from it so I will paste the comments here. Response to Nmate`s accusationsTo respond user`s Nmates accusation that are used for this report:
Please check your previous 2 comments (Has this anything to do with you? and In your dream, Iadrian yu, go elsewhere.) when I responded like this, and this is not an personal attack or anything any report can be based on. I was reminding you that on almost every comment you violate the AGF ( assume good faith ). What Nmate calls "previous attempts at block shopping:" are not supported by any evidence or even a suggestion of an evidence. My every comment is substantiated with evidence(diffs) for my claims also the last "case" was October 4, 2011 - 8 months ago! And I participated there because my name was mentioned several times in bad faith by user Nmate and unfounded accusations[15]. After defending myself against unfounded accusations with evidence I am block-shooping???? It is very strange that Nmate accuses me of WP:CIVIL when I never insulted him or attacked him personally while he does that on almost every occasion. First Nmate-`s friendly comment: will report you to the Arbitration Comitee if I have time, Samofi. - After manipulating other users comments with no reasonable evidence that he should ( all based on a presumption(at the time) that one user is a sock puppet) After I joined the discussion further friendly comments like after I did`t responded in a manner Nmate did:
Other evidence of a friendly editing by Nmate or manipulating other people`s comments: Having in mind his recent block history [21], recent (and continuable) personal attacks and edit warring it is clear that the lack of good faith against everybody who doesn`t support his POV is a major problem involving this editor. After taking a look at this user contributions[22] I have a feeling that his main activity is block-shopping against other users and sporadicly make one or 2 fair edits once in a while. Could have written the same report if I was folowing the battleground mentalityNote that the administrator said Result: No action against Nmate; checkuser confirms that these were valid removals of a banned user's edits. Reporter blocked for long-standing pattern of breaches of a topic ban. All editors involved are admonished to avoid battleground attitude and avoid acting in an enabling role for long-term sockpuppeters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC) conclusion for us other editors - to avoid battleground mentality. After everything Nmate said I could have written the same report as this one here, but I did`t because the admin here said what he said. ConclusionHis aggressive approach is somewhat a normal situation - this are the examples from our last conversation only(not to mention others) and all this with constant WP:BATTLEGROUND(noticed by other users also) mentality when I joined the discussion after he repeatedly manipulated other people`s comments without their permission therefore I will avoid any further implication in this "pay-back" (since this is not the first attempt for Nmate to ban me under this restrictions(block shopping) [23]) report on his behalf. I hope that this demonstrates what is really the problem here. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC) I am very curious why did this user waited for 8 days to file this report???? Adrian (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Note: I am on a holiday from tomorrow(4 days) therefore I ask for understanding if I don`t participate in this discussion during that time. Adrian (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Iadrian yuResult concerning Iadrian yu
|
Matt Lewis
| Matt Lewis and Van Speijk are warned of the Troubles discretionary sanctions. No other action. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Matt Lewis
Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Principles:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions may also apply (Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Standard_discretionary_sanctions).
After a break of several months, Matt Lewis returned to WIkipedia, first contributing to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and then moving onto making sustained and aggressive comments against Irish editors across User talk:Canterbury Tail, Talk:Northern Ireland, User:Matt Lewis, Talk:Ireland and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. The thrust of the posts are that Irish editors ("nationalists") on Wikipedia are engaged in a semi-organised but deliberate scheme to undermine the (real-world) United Kingdom and to bring about its end through their contributions to Wikipedia. He thus feels strongly that it is incumbent upon those who oppose this to defend the national sovereignty of the United Kingdom from this threat. In a number of comments, I am singled out a particular ringleader of sorts in this conspiracy. An example (one of the more lucid):
My concern is at the sustained, aggressive and particularly sectarian nature of his posts. They have been in-coming for a week now without rest. Sometimes, they contain suggestions for improvements to articles, sometimes they are simply rants. To date, reaction from other editors has been relatively calm and patient. However, I don't know how long that patience can last. Aside from the content of his posts, I am afraid that Matt's comments will spill over and incite the more hot-blooded editors and lead to the running pitch battles we have seen in the past. Some examples:
Matt has been asked by one of the calmer editors to tone down his comments:
Other's have been more direct in giving their opinion on his posts. Examples:
Discussion concerning Matt LewisStatement by Matt LewisFirstly, RA (Sony Youth to Grahamzilch, an undisclosed IP editor for a long period, then Rannpháirtí anaithnid, or 'RA') is not uninvolved here. It is simply not possible for him to be more involved. This has always been his primary editing area (often sole editing area), and he has always held a different position to mine. Unfortunately we have always disagreed on matters. I thought it was agreed at his Rfa that if he became an admin he'd leave this kind of area-measure to other people? In reality he seems to have stepped-up in terms of being effectively (from his position) involved. I would certainly be 'happier' if someone else had started this. Actually (with perhaps a tiny bit of embarrassment) I'm happy for people to read my comments and judge accordingly - but please read them. The quotes of my comments above are selected snippets, people really need to read in full to judge properly. One thing I've never done (and can never do) is be bullied over holding a valid position, in whatever way that bullying may take place. I do not personally consider the UK/IRE nationality area to be a 'no go area', or one that's been correctly sealed-shut by credible 'compromises' (always compromises). I may appear rude at times but please bear in mind who I'm speaking to, or about. I am honestly never 'trolling' - I always have at least one strong point (typically a number of points) with a connected solution in mind. I am never 'tendentious' (ie in the sense of being 'biased') - although I admit I am a typical British citizen, who happens to also be Welshman from Wales (the large majority of us are happily British - though you wouldn't think it reading Wikipedia talk pages sometimes). Only on Wikipedia am I ever called or labelled a "Unionist"! The only thing I would apologise about is the trouble GoodDay has got into, as (mentors aside) I should have warned him myself, instead of eventually engaging with him on my talk. The two below were clearly ready to get him into trouble - and GD you've really got to stay away. GoodDay certainly did not "provoke" me in any way into losing my temper a little at times - other's have done that (and myself I admit - I come back into Wikipedia, see this stuff at the top of my 1,000 plus watch-list, and just get fed up with the regressive changes to hours of positive work). As far as I am concerned the angry conversation at IMOS has run its course - and I'm sure it's the same for everyone else who participated in it. It's clearly all RFC/Vpump stuff, and this request for enforcement has come a little after the event regarding that. The various issues between RA and myself are clearly personal, and have gone on for years - it's hard to be objective, but I was strongly against him being made an admin (I still can't see the reason that he was, other than that Wikipedia clearly needs them right now). We just don't see eye-to-eye in anything I'm afraid, and I have been upset with the way he's continued pushing so hard for various positions on Wikipedia since he got the 'bit'. Like others, I spent a huge amount of hours bringing stability to the UK "country" matter when RA was almost a lone voice against - gradually he has turned it around by virtue of never giving up (his mantra being "consensus can change" - and he's right). And such is life. Many people like myself have off-line lives to deal with of course, and I wasn't around when the huge amount work by so-many people was simply de-linked away at NI. Again, I can't see the policy behind it - despite what some say. Sources I have being shown in these areas do not weigh up. For example the Government No.10 website has been revamped (and they do from time to time, esp as govs change) - and "four countries of the UK" no longer appears on the home page. According to the same-olds who removed term from Northern Ireland, the No.10 website-change means the government has revised its position! As much as anything, it's all WP:Point. Sovereignty is the only thing that can settle these matters. The protection of various positions in this area (on all sides) really is something to behold. 'Area banning' me (as seems to be the idea reading Domer's and K-Hackney's comments - which have appeared below before I have even had a chance to write this) would imo remove one of the few people who has stood shoulder to shoulder with a (in real-world terms) relatively small group of people who have protected the same position on UK/IRE for years and years. I do not believe the various 'compromises' to be policy-based, and wish (as I always have) that the UK, the Republic of Ireland, and the island of Ireland can be totally freed from the shackles of compromise and special exception on Wikipedia. I genuinely believe that proper adherence to the hierarchy of policies (COMMONAME has it's place for example - and it's not at the very top), and a new guideline paragraph or two, can solve every single issue that the Troubles covers. I honestly do. Before we know it we'll have the Scottish referendum on our hands - it will benefit Wikipedia hugely to sort this out beforehand. That is not a "conspiracy theory" - as we all know in the UK, it's just a plain fact. Wikipedia simply cannot allow the evenly-Weighting of nationalist vision with incumbent reality. Would a 'topic ban' stop me from starting a UK MOS (freeing Northern Ireland from the hugely-restricting and supposedly-unpolitical Ireland IMOS)? I doubt it. I'm planning to do it, and it will be very useful in large number of areas outside of Irish matters. No vote on it first imo, allowing people who have already said they don't want it to line up again - I'll just do it, like with the various task forces I've set up in the past -- where Domer and Hackney did everything they could to stop me, claiming they would be 'anti consensus'. But what actually is consensus here? Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be an 'upstairs in the pub' numbers game in matters that are ultimately this important. My language is sometimes strong - but the fact that countless admin and editors have said that they "simply do not got there" proves that it's a difficult area to navigate and get a fair point across. It's not because they are weak in any way - it's because they've got better things to do be disagreed with whatever they say. I'm not going to be held to blame for any 'bad atmosphere' (now or whenever) - I wasn't part of 99% of its life (unlike others here, who have been around for pretty-much all of it) and was not part of the TROUBLES ruling at all. In the past I've given God-knows how many hours of my time trying to be constructive, while others have simply repeated the same lines again and again. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Matt LewisComment by One Night In HackneyIn addition to the diffs above, when replying to me Matt Lewis says "How about you stop making it your life's aim to abuse Wikipedia? This is not any "subject" - the UK is a sovereign state constantly under nationalistic pressures in these areas" (which is disagreed with by plenty of people at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision#Proposed Finding of Fact 2 for the record, and I'm sure the 1 FA, 4 GAa and countless DYKs all in the Troubles area speak for themselves about my "life's aim". Matt Lewis's conduct is just pure battleground, anyone who disagrees with him is part of some imaginary Irish nationalist conspiracy. I see no benefit in allowing his further participation in the topic area. 2 lines of K303 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by Domer48I've attempted to put a break on the escalating abuse by reminding editors that these discussions are subject to active arbitration remedies and discretionary sanctions. As has been pointed to above, there is a clear battleground mentality coupled with a level of abuse of editors which is way above the norm. While the subject articles have been quite for awhile now (due to the blocking of a number of sock abusing editors) there is always the potential for a flare up. This editor could be just the catalyst that is needed. --Domer48'fenian' 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC) @Shrike The editor is aware of the Troubles Arbcom and has commented on it.--Domer48'fenian' 17:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by ΤασουλαThere is no excuse for User:Matt Lewis behavior and conduct...none what-so-ever. He's been warned plenty of times so there is no excuse and I feel the community has lost pateince. I've been observing what's been unfolding and it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed. If i were a new editor, thsi would certainly off-putting but that might be because I'm a little sensitive? Haha. I don't care what the Derry article is called, or how the new lede for NI is layed out (tough i admit I like it and don't see any POV-issues with it) but the conduct...urhhhhhg yuck, even to an uninvolved editor such as myself. (Ps, sorry fpr any spelling mistakes I'm on a tablet PC ;c) --Τασουλα (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by ShrikeWithout making any comments about the user behavior he should have been warned about discretionary sanctions according to WP:AC/DS before applying sanctions to him.He of course could be blocked for incivility but that should not be AE block.--Shrike (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by Van SpeijkI don't condone Matt's use of invective and his targeting of certain editors such as RA who, whatever else might be said of him, has always struck me as a fairly reasonable person (even though I don't agree with many of his views). However, uninvolved editors should be aware of a couple of background and underlying issues. Firstly, this complaint stems from Matt's comments at Northern Ireland. This article is about British sovereign territory but it is, by and large, "controlled" by editors whose allegiance is to the Irish Republic and so ensure its primary perspective is that of Ireland rather than the UK; this is a significant problem for Wikipedia. Secondly, regarding Derry/Londonderry, we have the quite scandalous situation that in this matter Wikipedia is in direct violation of its own core principle of WP:NPOV. Both terms can and are used in the wider world, but Wikipedia (or more precisely, its dominant editors in this matter) force a single usage for the city (Derry) and also for the county (Londonderry). This means that Wikipedia is pushing the POV that for the city, Derry is right. Few, if any, exceptions are permitted, and we have the situation of certain editors regularly trawling the entire project replacing any instances that don't adhere to this POV. It is against this deplorable background that Matt's frustration and anger has surfaced; and it's entirely understandable that it has. I urge caution in setting any sanctions here. Van Speijk (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment by bjmullanHaving read both the comments by Matt and the only editor to support him I can only see editors with an us (and we are right) and them battlefield mentality. Wikipedia and Irish article in particular needs editors like that like I need a hole in my head. In recent days I have accused Matt of soap-boxing , battleground mentality and personal attacked on other editors. In addition to this he seems to think he has some sort of magic bullet called sovereignty which will solve all problems relating to NI articles. This is borne out by his statement: "and a new guideline paragraph or two, can solve every single issue that the Troubles covers". And by the way he honestly believes this! Perhaps Matt in your defence you could reveal this paragraph? Bjmullan (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved UsersResult concerning Matt Lewis
|
Soosim
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Soosim
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Soosim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Disruptive behaviour on the NGO Monitor article.
- 11:46 22 April 2012 Reverted edit on grounds not consistent with the talk page discussion.
- 07:13, 29 April 2012 Moved material after having repeatedly failed to give grounds for doing so on the talk page.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
On the 20th of April I started a discussion on the talk page [30] in order to explore the issues surrounding a possible insertion of a piece of information about NGOM's funding. I suggested the insertion of a sentence and, on the 22nd, after discussing some objections, Soosim told me to go ahead with the edit 'with the qualifiers' [31]. I added in the sentence in the first diff above, including some additional contextual material thinking this was what Soosim wanted with his reference to 'qualifiers'. This edit was rapidly reverted on the grounds that 'jafi funding is already dealt with in this section'. This was somewhat frustrating given that this issue had not been raised as an objection on the talk page and was not really substantive with regard to the information I was trying to include.
In the ensuing discussion over the next five days Soosim made a number of suggestions that the information be included but at a different point in the article. However, he did not raise any actual arguments against my suggested placing. There is, as far as I can see, only one place in the article where the question of the relation of NGOM's funding to government arises and that is the point at which NGOM's own statement, denying that they receive funding from any government, is reported. This seems to me to be the correct place to deal with any other related claims about funding and government from other sources and moving the information I wanted to insert to anywhere else in the article removes the significance of that information. now, that is a content dispute and who is right or wrong on that is not really the issue here. The point is that, having been repeatedly invited to provide some policy or source grounds for me not making the edit, Soosim failed to do so. The closest he came was to say that the edit would be 'NPOV or UNDUE or whatever' [32]. I replied that he would need to be more precise than that and if he was unable to explain how my edit would be problematic I would have to assume that there was no real problem [33]. I waited two days for a response and when none came despite Soosim continuing to edit other pages, I made the change I had suggested. Two days later, without raising the issue on the talk page, Soosim moved my insertion to another paragraph where it is now essentially meaningless as it is separated from its context.
Having edited this page collaboratively with Soosim in the past, I'm happy to assume good faith but I would like to ask that he be warned that this behaviour is disruptive of the editing process. I would also note that it is more than a little frustrating when an editor seeks to prevent an edit but then doesn't keep an eye on the talk page and leaves the discussion hanging for days at a time; this makes editing feel like one is swimming through treacle (the discussion on this issue has already spanned 10 days now). After my last edit on the 22nd I waited for Soosim's response for three days (during which he continued to edit other pages) and eventually had to go to his talk page to remind him that there was a discussion going on. I then waited two days for a response to my comments on the 25th before actually making the edit. I have had similar difficulties in the past (see the activities and reception section at the top of the talk page) where live issues are just abandoned in the middle of a discussion and it is very difficult to move forward with the actual business of editing in such a context.
- @Shrike
- +972 wasn't really used for a statement of fact so much as a connection. JAFI is described as 'quasi-governmental' by just about all reliable sources I can find (BBC, Guardian, NYT, JPOST, Forward etc). What the +972 article does is use that widely accepted language in relation to NGOM's funding. Regardless of +972, it would be true to say that one of NGOM's major donors is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body but to make this point in the context of NGOM's funding would be OR or synthesis if no source puts the two points together. +972 does bring the two points together but none of the facts of the matter are contentious. The quasi-governmental tag is widely accepted and the fact that JAFI is a major donor is stated by NGOM. So it's not quite right to say +972 is being relied on to establish a fact and nor is it correct to say that the fact in question is being stated in Wikipedia's voice. It is explicitly attributed to the writer at +972 (who is a professional journalist writing as a journalist). In any case, this is a discussion I would certainly be happy to have and was one that I flagged up in my initial post. But it's not really relevant to the case at hand (as far as I can see). BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Soosim
- I think that if you are going to stand in the way of edits then you have an obligation to keep up with the discussions you have chosen to engage in. How long do you think it is reasonable for me to wait for your response each time? 3 days? 4? A week? You still haven't replied to some of my questions I asked on the NGOM talk page in January. I actively want to take your view into account but if you won't give it in a timely manner it makes collaboration very difficult. On the substantive issue, you still haven't explained why you object to the placement of the material where I have suggested. POV? If so, how? UNDUE? If so, why? You can't just say 'POV, UNDUE or whatever'; you have to have an actual, specific reason. In establishing consensus it is arguments that count and not numbers. As far as I can see you have provided no arguments on this point. In addition, you chose to make your edit without even rejoining the discussion on the talkpage and addressing the issues I had raised. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Malik
- I did wonder whether it might come under that category but the issue for me is not the actual content dispute we are having. That can be resolved on the talk page. The problem is an editor ignoring the talk page discussions when making his edits, which I thought would fall under the rubric of actions disruptive of the editing process. I know it's not a particularly dramatic issue like a lot of those that end up here and nor is it based on rancor or hostility. However, I don't think that the lack of drama makes it any less relevant. Talk pages are for discussion. Repeatedly making contentious edits whilst there is a discussion going on and making the edits in such a way as to ignore the issues under discussion really gets in the way of editing. I'm now in a position where the temptation is just to revert Soosim but I would rather find another way round the problem than engaging in edit warring. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Cailil
- I think part of the problem may be that I have chosen to assume good faith in my presentation of the problem, so it doesn't come across as a big deal. A presentation of the same issues on the assumption of bad faith (the assumption that underlies almost all cases that come here) would look rather different and would, perhaps, be taken more seriously. Let me be clear: this is not a content dispute. I am not asking anyone to come down on any side of the content issue. Rather, the point is that an editor is making changes for which there is no consensus whilst ignoring discussions ongoing on the talk page; providing as his reasons for objecting to an edit that it would be 'POV or UNDUE or whatever' (!), and holding up the editing process by objecting to changes but then failing to properly engage with the process for discussing his objections. Is it really ok to prevent an edit simply by stating that it would be 'POV or UNDUE or whatever', which amounts to saying 'there is something wrong with it' but not saying what? Is it really ok to make changes that do not have consensus and that ignore the talk page discussions? Now, I could dress all this up in a more controversialised way and suggest that these are various obstructionist tactics being used to make editing very difficult in cases that clash with Soosim's POV. I could note that Soosim himself introduced the statement that NGOM receives no government funding and suggest that the motivation for this inclusion is so as to emphasise their independence and neutrality. I could suggest that he doesn't want the facts about their quasi-governmental source of funding placed next to that claim because that would ruin its effect. And I could point out that Soosim's attempts to keep the two pieces of data separate have not been consistent but have grasped at straws and that he has ended up enforcing his own position by simply making edits that bear little or no relation to the talk page discussion and that are certainly not based on consensus. Now, whether presented from the perspective of an assumption of good faith or bad faith, the underlying behaviour seems problematic, even if the first presentation looks less dramatic. It certainly seems to be in significant breach of the 'normal editing process' that is protected by the arbcom ruling (at least according to the remedies here [34]; I have been unable to find the new version of the text). The point is that whether these actions are done in good faith or bad faith they have the same deleterious effect on editing in that such 'tactics', if allowed, provide a powerful obstacle to collaborative and consensual editing because they completely undermine collaboration and ignore consensus.
- @Ed - Fair enough. The consensus seems to be that this is actually a content dispute and I apologise for wasting everyone's time by coming to the wrong forum. I still have a problem in that I can't see what the dispute actually is, though. Having looked through the talk page would you be able to identify for me the grounds on which my edits were changed? This isn't meant to be a gotcha question - I just didn't think that it was acceptable to revert in this way, twice, against the objections of an editor, without the reason being based on policy or reliability concerns (my problem may stem from simply being wrong on this issue? is it actually ok to do this?) and I can't see any such justification being offered for the change. If you can see what it is, please let me know as I would like to avoid spending yet more days struggling with shadows when I try to get the content side of things resolved with an RfC. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Soosim
Statement by Soosim
BHB - sorry if i didn't look at the exact page you wanted me to during the 3-4 days i was editing other articles. i have over 400 articles on my watchlist and i really don't keep up with them all. now, specifically about what you write about. the key is in your sentence saying that you think there is only one place for that info to go in the article. and, obviously, i think there is another place (4 sentences ahead, in the same section). i gave reasons as to why it fits better there. you, obviously, disagree. so, why not ask other editors for opinions? i am sure that the active topic area editors like malik and sean and others will have a comment to make if you ask them. and, as usual, in my five years of editing wikipedia, i go along with the masses. sure, i like to stand up for what i believe in, but i do agree with consensus (as you very well know). therefore, not sure what more to say here on this type of 'enforcement' page. Soosim (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Soosim
- I find that using low quality sources like 972mag.com that BHB is introduced in to the article[36] is troublesome .Except that it define itself as a "+972 is a blog-based web magazine" so it WP:SPS this source have clear agenda --Shrike (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Granted, I'm not familiar with the article, but I don't see the violation of any ARBPIA sanction or remedy here. It looks like a content dispute. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Soosim
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- This looks like an over-escalation of a content issue, which needs ordinary dispute resolution rather than Arbcom Enforcement. I have to say I take a dim view of requests like this, however I'm willing to AGF in this instance that this particular request is a mistake and thus I recommend closing with no action--Cailil talk 10:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any need for enforcement here. The discussion at Talk:NGO Monitor is hard to follow; it is not easy to get clear on what the respective positions are. If a dispute is important enough to be brought to AE then surely a WP:Request for comment is worth doing. The usage of the +972 article as a source might be submitted to WP:RSN for an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Nishidani
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 08:26, 2 May 2012 Removed "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations..." along with other sourced material
- 11:11, 2 May 2012 Removed "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations..."
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
He was party in original case and he was banned as the result of it.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- In addition to violating 1rr, whether deliberate or unintentional, Nishidani was advised to revert his last edit by myself, ZScarpia, AnkhMorpork, and Ed Johnston who advised "unless you see a BLP violation against a named person or an obvious falsification of sources it seems like you should revert your own edit pending discussion." Nishidani has declined these requests, despite acknowledging his violation several times:12 He is an experienced editor that has previous blocks for edit-warring on I-P topics.His indefinite I-P ban was lifted by Arbitration committee in July 2011[37]
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Nishidani
Statement by Nishidani
Shrike is quite correct. It's no excuse that I didn't realize at the time that my two edits constituted an IR infraction. On a point of honour, I have refused the proferred option to revert the second edit because I don't want to spoil my record: I've never consciously introduced false or misleading material into wikipedia articles. No one who has discussed this on Ed Johnson or my page has challenged my view that the second edit removed a patent piece of fabricated material, but all suggest that I should restore it pro forma to show that I will abide by the rules. In the impasse between personal honour and obedience to a martinet reading of wikipedia culture, I prefer the first, and I respect the right of a plaintiff to get me suspended or banned. All you need determine is the severity of my violation, and the length of the sentence, then. I would ask that all editors, now that Shrike has had his day in court, leave it to the appropriate arbitrators to determine the sanction that is due, without wasting their time in a boring thread of defence or attack to mitigate or exaggerate the natural penalty. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Morpork. Really?
Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area. A family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity, although militants were firing rockets at Israel a little more than a mile away.
- The NYTs distinction between the Samouni testimony (backed by the Goldstone report) that Hamas was not active in their immediate vicinity and the apparent editorial clause, 'militants were firing rockets at Israel' over a mile away were conflated and muddled to make out that in the area where the Samouni were killed, Hamas were 'firing rockets' into Israel. It stands out like dogs' balls, probably those of Blind Freddy and his mutt. Both Shrike and yourself admit Luke's edit was poor. The gravamen of your charge is that this is irrelevant. Fine, but don't now try to justify the poor edit I fixed according to sources. It was a lead sentence, and couldn't conserve the source's complete remarks. I've argued this exhaustively twice. If you follow my remarks to Luke's edits as he stalked me, you will find many examples showing that he makes wildly skewed inferences from what I write and has a poor command of English. He's not on trial here, so defending his edit is not appropriate, esp. since his WP:SYNTH was and remains, construed against the source, indefensible. All that need be done here is pass sentence on my infraction of a rule, okay?Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Nishidani
As the editor who made the changes Nishidani reverted, I don't find his actions disruptive. I would say that AGF allows for the 1RR violation to slide. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- The revert was not a simple removal of a "patent piece of fabricated material". The statement "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations in the vicinity" was sourced to this NYT article which states:
- "Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area. A family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity, although militants were firing rockets at Israel a little more than a mile away."
- Your revert reduced the source to "A Samouni family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity." You selectively presented content and you removed the Samouni family's acknowledgment that, "Hamas militants operated in the area" and the reference to "militants were firing rockets at Israel a little more than a mile away".
- The previous edit may have been lacking, but not with the flagrant conspicuity with which you have characterised it. I am not assesing the relative merits of the two edits; instead I am stating that the previous edit was not what Ed Johnston described as an "obvious falsification of sources", or what you state was a "patent piece of fabricated material". Your edit asserted a distinct POV amidst a content dispute that you were requested to revert but chose not to.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Nishidani
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Delicious carbuncle
Request concerning Delicious carbuncle
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Interaction ban between Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
This edit on a user talk page repeats exactly the same subject matter as the topic of the discussion that led to the interaction ban between DC and myself. To summarise: DC has taken it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante "policing" my edits. He has stalked me on and off-wiki for nearly two years, even going so far as to create a "monitoring" thread about me on Wikipedia Review. This has led to repeated clashes on-wiki. An interaction ban was established in late March this year to enforce a complete disengagement between us. Under the terms of the ban, we are prohibited from "discussing each other, or interacting" at any venue. A narrow exemption is given for appealing the ban on the user talk page of User:ErrantX or to the Arbcom (see below under "Diffs of notifications").
DC has blatantly flouted the IBAN by continuing his vigilante behaviour on a matter which is not remotely related to an appeal of the ban. This is especially egregious as (1) he has previously been blocked for breaching the ban [39] and (2) as noted here, "editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me ... aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia", which arbitrator User:SirFozzie has endorsed and asked to be enforced. [40] It's obvious from this incident that DC has not ceased stalking my edits and taking it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante - precisely the type of behaviour that necessitated the IBAN in the first place. This is an absolutely unambiguous violation of a clearly worded interaction ban. With two violations in only six weeks, it's clear that he has no intention of stopping this behaviour and the only thing that is going to put an end to this once and for all is a substantial block for him. Total disengagement has to mean just that, otherwise this IBAN is meaningless. Prioryman (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [41] Imposition of the IBAN under the following terms: "Please do not comment on, or otherwise interact with him, at any venue. If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban), or to Arbcom."
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Comments by others about the request concerning Delicious carbuncle
Within a very strict reading of the IBAN my talk page is theoretically exempt. I deleted the comment because it seemed that escalating the issue would merely lead to renewed dramaz; the intent of the IBAN being to stop these two clashing. Realistically what is going to happen here? No one is going to be indeffed over an semi-voluntary IBAN, and the stirring of bad blood risks undermining the ban altogether.
With that said it is annoying to see Delicious Carbuncle still keeping his eye (as it were) on Prioryman, and the intention was for them both to stop that behaviour. Although, he was referring specifically to the fact that I was supposed to be chasing up the matter of Prioryman's past sanctions with Arbcom, as part of the IBAN agreement. Something that get put by the wayside.
Nevertheless he should have prompted me about that in private, not public. For the record; I sent him an email to that effect yesterday.
My thoughts? Arbcom could formalise/rubber-stamp the interaction ban and clarify (or at least collate) Prioryman's currently active sanctions under other accounts. This would hep resolve matters for good. --Errant (chat!) 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The sanctions under other accounts are either already "collated" or currently under appeal, so that issue is moot. Regardless, your wording was very clear, that DC may only comment to the limit of appealing the ban. After DC was blocked for his previous violation of the ban, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise told him: "I would want to come away from this with one unmistakable clarification: if ErrantX spoke of his page being "exempt" from the interaction ban, that does not mean his page is a place on which you are simply free to continue your fights. The consensus on AN was for a full interaction ban, not an interaction ban with loopholes."
- DC is treating it as an interaction ban with loopholes. That is totally unacceptable, and I am not going to accept this being swept under the carpet. As for him continuing to "police" my edits, he should not be doing that at all, on-wiki or in private. He should not have "prompted you in private" - he should have left it alone completely. That is what a total disengagement means, and you are not doing anyone any favours by facilitating continued interventions against me, in blatant violation of a ban that you yourself placed. Once and for all - what is the point of an IBAN if you are going to allow him to continue targeting me? Prioryman (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The first step to an interaction ban is the ability to ignore the other person. Which is what you could have done. I've had my fill of "OMG DRAMAZ" (one reason I mostly ignored DC's comment) for the month, so I'll let some other admin inherit this headache. If they want to impost a block on DC for violating the IBAN that is fine by me. --Errant (chat!) 12:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The reason I'm not ignoring it is that doing so gives DC carte blanche to continue targeting me via your user talk page, email or whatever. I want him to stop. As I've said repeatedly, total disengagement is needed. That was the clear message from the community and from his last block. I'm not asking for him to be indeffed but since a 48 hour block last time seems to have been no deterrent, something stronger is needed this time, given the egregious and repeated nature of the violation. Prioryman (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Delicious carbuncle
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- If this is a request to enforce the existing interaction ban, it doesn't seem to be an AE matter. If this is a request for a broader interaction ban to be imposed under AE authority/discretionary sanctions, then please specify the relevant arbitration case and provide diffs demonstrating that an interaction ban is needed. T. Canens (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)