Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive133
KillerChihuahua
[edit]| No action warranted in response to the complaint. -- MastCell Talk 04:57, 14 April 2013 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 KillerChihuahua[edit]
Discussion concerning KillerChihuahua[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 KillerChihuahua[edit]I reverted to a version by BlackHades, which changed little as intervening edits were mostly back-and-forth. When one restores an earlier version and there were intervening good edits, one restores those changes, and that's what I did, noting this in edit summaries; including edits by BH and TDA. I removed content tagged as uncited since 2011; rephrased a sentence ("studies argue" I changed to "authors of studies argue" since studies cannot argue); I made a MoS fix and a dablink fix. Regarding the edit back in Feb, that was a different situation and edit, with considerable discussion on the talk page, and although my attempt to end an edit war over the lead by going back to an earlier longstanding version had strong support on the talk page at that time, it was promptly reverted by BlackHades[2] and no one has edit warred to keep it. It is bizarre to me that I'm accused of edit warring, as I restored BlackHades' version and not my old version which TDA inexplicably refers to. Am I now accused of being BlackHades' meatpuppet? Is TDA "exhausted" by two edits he didn't like, one of which was reverted by BlackHades in Feb, and one of which I explain above? Regarding Akuri's claims, if he has tried to discuss "these matters" with me at all I'd be appreciative of a diff, unless he's referring to his post on the article talk page at 22:43 11 April. Ditto for the rest of his accusations, as I have no recollection of any such behavior as he describes. KillerChihuahua 16:54, 12 April 2013â
Statement by aprock[edit]This is a curious request for enforcement. As evidence of edit waring The Devil's Advocate presents two diffs separated by months. The most recent diff is from just over an hour prior to the request for enforcement. The Devil's Advocate has neither raised the issue on the article talk page, nor on KillerChihuahua's talk page. The edit from February coincides with very active participation by KillerChihuahua on the article talk page. The request seems premature at best. aprock (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The suggestion that a single series of consecutive edits should be brought to AE by The Devil's Advocate because he doesn't have the will to edit collaboratively is nothing less than disruptive. I suggest that The Devil's Advocate be formally warned that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions and reminded to pursue usual avenues of dispute resolution in lieu of immediately turning to AE at the first sign of edits that he does not agree with. aprock (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Akuri[edit]I have been trying to resolve these issues on the talk page, and I also tried to in February when I was editing as an IP before I had an account. Although I've tried to resolve the dispute, I agree with The Devil's Advocate that taking this to AE is necessary. It's impossible to collaborate with someone who doesn't try to justify their reverts on the talk page, even when reverting more than a month's worth of edits. When KillerChihuahua has explained what she thought was wrong with the content she removed, which isn't always, she hasn't been willing to try to fix any of the problems she raised with it. So it's been up to editors like The Devil's Advocate, BlackHades and myself to try to rewrite the content in a way that could satisfy her. Then there would be another round of mass reverts or deletions, and the discussion would restart from the beginning. KillerChihuahua's editing forces the discussion into an endless cycle where we have to discuss the same content again and again, which makes it impossible to move forward with improving the article, even for people like me and BlackHades who are still trying to. Akuri (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Mathsci[edit]The Devil's Advocate does not appear to have discussed matters with KillerChihuahua (either on her talk page or on the article talk page) before rushing here with jumped-up claims. As Aprock comments, TDA has misused this noticeboard. As far as KillerChihuahua is concerned, TDA could be nursing a grudge, since he was dismissive when she gave him an official warning about calling Sandstein an "officious little jerk". [6]
Statement by Atethnekos[edit]I'm not entirely sure what this enforcement request is supposed to accomplish.
Opinion by MONGO[edit]I think The Devil's Advocate is nearing the point of exhausting the patience of the community. I strongly suspect that The Devil's Advocate is a ban evader. That's my opinion.--MONGO 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Opinion by Beyond My Ken[edit]Further to what MONGO writes above, if TDA is not himself a ban evader, he is certainly a major enabler of ban evaders. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by BlackHades[edit]KillerChihuahua's edits have been extremely problematic and disruptive. She has been making huge reverts without discussion and removing hundreds of edits by countless editors time and time again. Once to a version from over 2 months ago [14], another time to a version from over 2 years ago [15], and another time reverting 20 edits to improve the lead by several different editors that worked together here. [16] Constantly reverting countless improvements by countless editors that have worked together to improve the article. She appears to be very heavily opinionated on the topic of Race and Intelligence, which of itself is not a problem or issue but becomes one when she starts practicing WP:Truth by deleting and reverting properly cited text that goes against her POV. Such as constantly deleting the lead that mentions the existence of average racial IQ differences here and here and here and here. Despite the fact that the text in question adheres to WP:LEAD and has always been a part of the lead of this article for several years without any disputes. While the cause of average racial IQ differences certainly remains in dispute among researchers in the field today, the mere existence of average IQ differences between races is universally acknowledged by all researchers across the board. I have mentioned this fact to KillerChihuahua, which is also acknowledged by all other editors of the article except for KillerChihuahua, who stated that the existence of average IQ differences between races is "not universally accepted (except by certain racists and race supremacist groups)." [17] She is certainly entitled to her own opinion. But when her opinion conflicts with the universal consensus of the field, as well as the universal consensus among editors of the article, but she decides to force her POV anyways by removing accurate text that adheres to guidelines through deletions and mass reverts it is extremely problematic. Her latest mass revert appears to be for the permanent removal of the section "Brain Size". Which she stated "There is no "fixing" a section which has no RS which are about the article. You cannot "fix" synth and OR by simply saying you're-adding it." [18]. This is despite the fact that one of the sources is Hunt & Carlson which is widely considered to be a reliable secondary source by nearly all other editors. Her statement seems to indicate she will not allow the section "Brain Size" to exist under any circumstances regardless of what changes any other editors make. As her personal opinion is that there is "no RS which are about the article". Despite the fact that many published peer reviewed studies in major mainstream journals does exist on the specific topic, as well as numerous secondary sources, and despite other editors that completely disagree with her and acknowledge the existence of these many reliable sources. She will not allow this section to exist under any circumstances. In regards to Mathsci's accusation of WP:TAG TEAM. This is downright comical. Mathsci has a very long history of attacking and accusing any and every editor from Race and Intelligence that doesn't edit the article from his strict POV including falsely accusing both me and Akuri of sockpuppetry here.[19]. BlackHades (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Tom Harrison[edit]I've been reading through the article and talk page, and it seems to me exaggerated to say KC undid over 100 edits. This diff more accurately shows KC's change. I really don't understand the basis of TDA's complaint. It doesn't look to me like KC disrupted the article, or the talk page, where discussion is proceeding. Tom Harrison Talk 18:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]If Akuri, commenting above, isn't a sock of a banned user, I'll stuff jalapeno cheetos up my nose, take pictures and post them on Commons.Volunteer Marek 20:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC) @ Sir Fozzie R&I is, and likely forever will be a very contentious area. - Please. That's about as a clear cut admission that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, including WP:AE, which is part of it, is a total failure as one could ask for. R&I isn't Sarah Palin. It's not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's not Polish-German quabbles over Gdanzig or Copernicus. It's not Scientology. It's not the Armenian Genocide. I could agree if your statement referred to these. But this is actually a much narrowly defined topic area which really *shouldn't* be controversial. I've seen and joyfully (and less so) participated in LOTS of contentious areas on Wikipedia. At most what you get in them is something like a total of 5 or 6 committed editors over a span of three or four years. Counting numbers on both sides. But somehow this area manages to attract this many new accounts within a space of months, ad nauseam. And as soon as one account gets banned a few more pop up. So spare us the excuses and the hand washing. The only reason why this topic area is a continuous problem is because of the persistent, long ongoing sock puppetry and meat puppetry which - as anyone who's paid attention for at least some time knows - is coordinated by a small group of individuals who manage to generate many more user accounts than their existential, spiritual and physical presence can justify. And it's the same shit over and over again. Yes, this provokes an "equal and opposite reaction" in folks like Mathsci who get a bit obsessed with hunting down all these sock puppets and meat puppets. But the problem is that there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done about all the sock/meat puppetry. Frankly, from now on, anyone who brings up an WP:AE request or tries to agitate for another R&I case (which of course, would address the great "wrongs" of the past R&I cases, which unfairly banned some user which the filer is not actually familiar with but feels the need to speak up for anyway) should automatically get their ass checkusered. Any SPA that gets obsessive about the topic area needs to be checkusered. Any new, especially SP accounts should be required to establish a strong consensus on the talk page before being allowed to make changes to these articles (i.e. reverting them would be exempt from the 3RR rule). Most of the pages in the topic area need to be put on permanent semi-protection. And what you really need to come up with is a way which will cause these people to get simply BORED with this crap and leave on their own. There's nothing intrinsic about this topic which would cause it to be "forever... very contentious". Wikipedia DR just fucked it up along the way.Volunteer Marek 02:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]<-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> Result concerning KillerChihuahua[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The allegations that have been made here include allegations of disruptive editing and/or POV-pushing by an administrator (The Devil's Advocate, Akuri, BlackHades), allegations of making a disruptive AE request (Aprock, Mathsci), allegations of disruptive editing by tag-teaming including single-purpose accounts and sock-/meatpuppetry (Mathsci), and allegations of ban evasion or enabling thereof (MONGO, Beyond My Ken). While at least some of these statements raise serious concerns, the evidence is by far not clear enough for me to be able to determine what, if any, action is needed. That would require a much more in-depth analysis than is reasonably possible here. This request reflects the sort of complicated multiparty dispute about alleged longterm misconduct by veteran editors that individual AE administrators are not well-equipped to sort out on their own (maybe that's why nobody has commented here so far). I therefore propose that we refer the request to the Arbitration Committee with the recommendation that they determine whether the allegations are substantial enough to warrant opening an arbitration case. Sandstein 08:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this complaint is of sufficient importance to justify a two-month deliberation by Arbcom. If memory serves, there have been quite a large volume of complaints to Arbcom and also here at this noticeboard about race and intelligence. The reason for this is presumably that those who are attached to this issue are unusually persistent. What's been brought here this time looks like a plain content dispute, and there is no hint that Killerchihuahua was intending to carry out her admin role at Race and intelligence. If all we have to go on is what's submitted in this complaint, I would advise the editors to go back to the talk page and open a WP:Request for comment. If the same data were presented at the 3RR noticeboard it would probably be closed with (at most) some article protection. There is no case for blocking or sanctioning anyone. In his comment above Sandstein lists a number of the allegations mentioned in this thread, but you need to make allowances for the high level of rhetoric that is common in anything about WP:ARBR&I. We shouldn't allow our own time or that of Arbcom to be wasted. If this business turns out to be intractable we can impose permanent full protection at Race and intelligence and only allow edits to be made through talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Widescreen
[edit]| Widescreen is warned about the availability of discretionary sanctions in the pseudoscience topic area. Sandstein 20:07, 14 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 Widescreen[edit]
Editor keeps flogging a dead horse about his objections to WP:FRINGE and the existence of List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience here; [20] it appeared to start here: [21]. Despite being told that List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience wasn't the place to complain about the fringe guidelines the editor has persisted with spurious arguments which bring up no specific objection to any particular content (note that the editor appears to have been blocked from the German wikipedia), and his occasional tagging of the article [22][23][24]. The editor appears to be against the existence of the article and has repeatedly argued that it should not exist, but has not taken it to AfD despite being asked to do so if they object to it. Can this editor be given an official warning about discretionary sanctions in this topic area?
Not an exhaustive list, but here are some examples:
Discussion concerning Widescreen[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 Widescreen[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Widescreen[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request has merit. Edit-warring about the inclusion of a POV tag in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is disruptive, especially considering that no cogent explanation of what is supposed to be the "point of view" promoted through this list has been made on the talk page. As others have observed, if Widescreen is of the view that this list is as such non-neutral, they should nominate it for deletion, rather than using the talk page as a WP:SOAPbox for their views, which is also disruptive (although I note that others can help to not prolong an unproductive discussion by not replying to any soapboxing). I'm issuing the requested warning. Sandstein 20:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by astronomer28
[edit]| Topic ban appeal declined--Cailil talk 20:04, 15 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.
User Talk: astronomer28#Topic_ban, logged at WP:ARBEE
Statement by astronomer28[edit]1) I have not engaged in edit-warring since my warnings (my most recent revision on April 8, 2013 reverted to a previous version one paragraph that was changed without consensus and another that was in dispute; I've certainly not made any more changes than other users). I will not engage in edit-warring in the future. Statement by Fut.Perf.[edit]Statement by Piotrus[edit]As a long term editor from WP:POLAND, I'll say we don't need this kind of "help" in Copernicus. If that editor wants to be useful, there are plenty of Polish topics in need of improvement that do not involve controversial issues like those covered by the topic ban. Let him/her first prove they can work on uncontroversial issues before stepping into this mess again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by astronomer28[edit]Result of the appeal by astronomer28[edit]
|
Cptnono
[edit]| Cptnono banned for six months from the I/P area; Biosketch banned for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Cptnono[edit]
I can't find his being formally notified of the case, but he's been sanctioned multiple times and has brought multiple complaints here, so obviously aware.
The edit summary of the last edit should suffice for the cause of this request. I feel like I might be gaming he system by waiting 24hrs. Yes, yes you are gaming [t]he system by waiting 24hrs. The information on the Golan's status had previously been in the body, and was removed by another user. I added it elsewhere, Cptnono reverts without comment on the talk page. He is reverted and waits for 24 hours and 6 whole minutes to revert again. That after the prior revert had taken place 28 hours and 3 minutes after he his prior revert.
Bump. nableezy - 14:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Cptnono[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 Cptnono[edit]The second diff was not intentionally waiting 24 hours (coincidence). Admittedly, the third was. That is fairly minor and it should be noted that Nableezy said he was not going to engage in discussionâ even though I opened an RfC while Supreme Deliciousness completely ignored the talk page altogether. This is a knee-jerk AE request with very little meat. I also did use the talk page (forgive the typos my keyboard is gummy on this machine) but: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARujm_el-Hiri&diff=549631456&oldid=549460921 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri&diff=prev&oldid=549255671 detailed edit summaries +an RfC request I took a break from editing and played by the rules. I don't celebrate division on my user page by listing every AE discussion I have been part of and assumed we could grow past our turbulent history. I am not going to start throwing accusations around and providing diffs for why I believe both Nableezy and SD should be topic banned because that is how these AEs get out of hand. But if any admin feels that I deserve to be sanctioned then I would appreciate 24 hours for a proper response. I also do not think Tim should be allowed to act in this case due to my previous (and still unresolved) comments regarding potential bias. â [26]Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC) It should be (reluctantly) noted that I was sanctioned by Apologies for getting you and AGK confused. I think I am basically getting at: If you think I crossed a line with the third diff then give me a warning or even a minor sanction. I feel that Nableezy intentionally goaded me then there was some slight tag teaming. I might be overreacting and over-analyzing it. But that third diff (the only one that I see as a problem) was very minor. I tried to do right by using the talk page instead of running to AE. I don't want to circumvent punishment (since any sanction would be barely addressing "disruption") on a technicality.Cptnono (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I am torn right now. I was too busy to log in the last couple days and was happy to see that I was not blocked since I did make that single revert that may have crossed the line. From a quick scan of the thoughts from some comments: NO, the ongoing semantics over "if" "in" "of" Israel have absolutely no bearing on this case. We can (and probably should) open an RfC on it but right now we should be discussing if I crossed a line. The first and second reverts are not a problem. The third (and only problematic one) was me making a revert when the editors refused to use the talk page. Go ahead and levy an appropriate sanction for that single edit. It was not multiple edits and ongoing content disputes are not within the scope of this request. Also, can we be open about what this is? I admittedly made a revert that could raise eyebrows but we all know this AE continues a battlefield mentality. You guys are counting diffs between Nab, SD, and BS. That is not needed. This is an article about archaeology! Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cptnono[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I agree that this conduct would normally be sanctionable as gaming the system to edit-war. But even if an editor is already aware of the case or has previously been sanctioned, this does not change the fact that a warning as described in WP:AC/DS#Warnings is still a formal requirement for imposing sanctions (see my view at WP:ARCA#Statement by Sandstein, issue 2). In addition, I'm of the view that WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is unenforceable at least if the editor at issue has not received an individual warning about it (see my view at WP:ARCA#Statement by Sandstein, issue 1). In that ARCA thread, T. Canens notes (correctly, in my view) that this requirement can be satisfied with a warning in an editnotice. However, the article at issue, Rujm el-Hiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), has no such editnotice. I'm therefore of the view that we can do nothing here but issue the required warning to Cptnono. Sandstein 08:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Apostle12
[edit]| Not actionable. Sandstein 10:58, 24 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 Apostle12[edit]
I logged in after two weeks away simply to slap a refimprove tag on a medical article that does not comply with MEDRS. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist. I am going back to my wikibreak now. FOR REAL THIS TIME, DAMMIT.
[50] I couldnt find a template for this, so I just wrote the thing out.
Discussion concerning Apostle12[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 Apostle12[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Apostle12[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I don't see how these edits fall within the scope of the WP:ARBR&I sanctions, that is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". The edits at issue are about the Black Panther Party and their activist Huey P. Newton, which means that they are broadly about American race politics, but not also about human abilities and behaviour. If this is not explained, I intend to close this request with no action. Sandstein 09:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Tarc
[edit]| Not actionable. Sandstein 08:32, 25 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 Tarc[edit]
List of Wikipedia controversies includes a section on a significant issue involving Scientology under List of Wikipedia controversies#2008. It is therefore within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, of which I am a long-standing member. I added the project's banner to the article's talk page in recognition of this. The WikiProject Guide is very clear that "a WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project". In addition, and this is bolded in the original for emphasis, "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." Likewise, again bolded in the original, "No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article". This is unambiguous and long-standing practice. However, John lilburne removed the project banner without explanation or comment earlier today [51]. I subsequently posted an explanation to the talk page about why the article fell within the scope of the WikiProject and warned against removing the project banner [52]. Immediately afterwards, Tarc removed it again, falsely stating that the article "has nothing to do with Scientology", even though it has an entire section about it. [53] Tarc also hatted a section that I posted explaining the arbitration sanctions in place concerning that WikiProject, with the message "Fabrications will not be given the time of day" [54]. John lilburne subsequently posted "reverted again. No go and bitch about it somewhere. One editor does not make a WikiProject." [55] Neither Tarc nor John lilburne are members of WikiProject Scientology. The WikiProject Guide gives WikiProject members full discretion to tag articles of relevance to their WikiProjects, and explicitly prohibits non-project members from removing project banners or from prohibiting editors from showing their interest in an article. Tarc and John lilburne's incivil, aggressive and bullying response to my explanation is also highly inappropriate. Scientology-related articles are under discretionary sanctions authorised by the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#1 June 2012 amendment. I am therefore bringing this here for resolution as Tarc's conduct is wilfully not in accordance with the expected standards of behaviour, and therefore is in violation of the sanctions. For the record, I give John lilburne a pass as I had not spelled out the reasons and guidelines at the time of his removal of the project banner and, assuming good faith, he may not have been aware of the rules regarding defining project scopes. Tarc gets no such pass as he acted in the full knowledge that his actions were in explicit breach of the rules. In bringing this here, I'm not seeking to have anyone blocked, but would like to confirm the long-standing principle that WikiProjects have authority to define which articles are within their scope and to obtain a clear instruction that Tarc and other non-project members should not attempt to deny this authority to WikiProject Scientology. Prioryman (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Tarc[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 Tarc[edit]Poppycock. The Prioryman vs. Wikipediocracy spat is well-known to regulars here by now, I assume. He tried and failed to get the article deleted, tried and failed to get that AfD overturned at DRV, then tag-bombed the article itself, most of which were either addressed quickly or reverted as not relevant. Attention should also be drawn to Template:Did you know nominations/List of Wikipedia controversies, where Prioryman is attempting to squash a DYK entry for the article, where IMO is quite clear to all that given his animosity with the article creator and contributors, he should step aside as a DYK reviewer. As for the Scientology matter, it seems that Prioryman is attempting to put extra snares and roadblocks in the way of editors with whom he has past disagreements. What better way to accomplish that than try to put the article, on the flimsiest of flimsy connections, under the auspices of Arb discretionary sanctions? Remember, the article only contains the following passage;
Not every single article in the project that makes a simple, factual statement about the Scientology Arb case needs fall under its WikiProject, nor be subject discretionary sanctions therein. This filing is frivolous. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Update: this is indeed a serious problem, but the problematic actions clearly lie on Prioryman's actions. Tagging the article with the Scientology banner seems to automatically bring with it the big block-lettered "this article is now subject to discretionary sanctions" warning at the top of the talk page. That is plainly disruptive and unacceptable. Adding an article to a project is one thing, but when that addition brings along the unwanted baggage of an Arb case, then IMO it is a problem. Random users of a wikiproject don't get to decide when and where to extend Arbitration sanctions. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC) @AQFK, no, I have never been involved in any Scientology-related dispute at any time, so no topic-ban. I find the topic area to be rather uninteresting, honestly. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC) @Thryduulf, I am getting a bit tired of wikiprojects and their tags being considered some sort of hallowed and untouchable territory. I reject that insipid "trout" nonsense (god, if there was ever a wiki'ism I hated more...) and I reject any notion that I am compelled to discuss such a thing with a wiki-project. I have quite clearly explained the reasons for the removal; Template:WikiProject Scientology has the Arb restrictions hard-coded into it. Having that beast sitting at the top of the article talk page would have a chilling effect on those who wish to edit the article, even though it may at most (and I even debate this aspect of it) apply to a single 3-sentence entry in the article. Tarc (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved IRWolfie-[edit]The article is within scope for that project, so I don't see why people are removing the wikiproject template. That said, using discretionary sanctions for a dispute which appears to have it's roots in issues that are not related to the initial arbitration appears seems like inappropriate usage; the reason the sanctions are here is because of POV pushing around Scientology topics. An edit war about adding/removing a wikiproject that appears to be, coincidentally, Scientology related should be handled elsewhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Alanyst[edit]This doesn't seem to be a dispute regarding the Scientology topic itself. On the surface it's a conflict over the applicability of a Wikiproject label to an article. On a deeper level it's part of the years-long animosity that I've observed between Prioryman and various critics/adversaries of his, most of whom seem to have connections to criticism sites like WR and Wikipediocracy, and more specifically is a continuation of the recent dispute between Prioryman and his adversaries regarding the creation and maintenance of the List of Wikipedia controversies article in question. To me, this has every appearance of gamesmanship and score-settling rather than a sincere concern about disruption to the encyclopedia's coverage of the Scientology topic. It would be nice if Prioryman and his adversaries all quit nursing their mutual grudges; such things don't end well. alanyst 19:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Darkness Shines[edit]Prioryman is citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide asthough it were policy, it is not. It is just a guideline. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Comment by A Question for Knowledge[edit]Wait, is Tarc topic-banned from Scientology? If so, they clearly violated their topic ban. If not, I am perplexed at what the violation is or what this request is trying to achieve. We don't sanction editors for disagreeing or for a minor edit war. PrioryMan: you should attempt to resolve this the way we try to resolve all content disputes: by following the dispute resolution process. Try working it out on the talk page. If that fails, open an RfC. If that doesn't work try the Dispute resolution noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]In my opinion, you do have basis for invoking WP:ARBSCI and the discretionary sanctions . . . against Prioryman. This is a ridiculous attempt to game the discretionary sanctions and AE for a personal vendetta. As Prioryman has invoked "conflict of interest" in an attempt to get rid of this article, the notification on the talk page appears to be an attempt to wikilawyer an instruction that's meant to stop Scientology editing and target it at editing by anyone from Wikipediocracy. He has also threatened editors with being brought here if they disagree with him about the WikiProject tag. Prioryman has a problematic history editing in this area from when he was editing as ChrisO as can be seen from looking at the arbitration case page and he is obviously well aware of the sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf[edit]
All that said, I think it's about time that there was some dispute resolution (probably an RfC) regarding the List of Wikipedia Controversies and the interactions between editors (including, but not limited to Prioryman and Tarc) regarding it; and (possibly separately) about the behaviour of editors regarding sites like Wikipediocracy to determine what is acceptable here and what is not. Otherwise this will end up at Arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I'm not differently abled enough to comprehend how removal of a project banner relates to discretionary sanctions on POV-driven single purpose creators of Scientology content. This strikes me as a third chapter of POINTY disruption which follows the filer's nomination of the List of Wikipedia controversies piece for deletion at AfD (snowed close Keep) and the filer's appeal of this decision to Deletion Review (decision unchanged, no consensus). I suggest that a boomerang thumping of the filer might be in order here if this sort of disruption does not cease. Carrite (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]This is exactly what I already said here [56]. If some Scientology related hi-jinks begin to occur on that article then yeah, sure, bring to WP:AE. But so far this is just trying to scare editors away with the banner of "if you edit this article you will be subject to, OMG! DISCRETIONARY sanctions!". It's like trying to put a "Beware of the Dog" sign on someone else's, not yours, property when the person involved doesn't even like dogs (they like cats!), never mind them owning one.Volunteer Marek 02:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by WhatamIdoing[edit]This has also been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Dispute over adding WikiProject template to article talk page, where the response was the usual: one group of editors (those at a page) does not get to order around another group of editors (those who want to use the many bots that depend on WikiProject banners). Tagging an article is not some sort of land grab. Despite the panicked assertions above, tagging a page does not change the scope of the ArbCom case. Tagging a page is primarily a method of getting the article into proper categories so that various bots can provide information about the article to the project. Here's a partial list of what breaks when you remove this particular tag from an article:
As you can see, the banners aren't advertising for the projects: they are fundamental infrastructure that multiple bots and toolserver tools depend on. Removing a tag has a strongly negative effect on the practical ability of the project participants to actually support the article, because without the tag, they can't get timely notification of issues. By the way, we most frequently see this complaint with WP:WikiProject LGBT studies. It's usually asserted to be a BLP violation to say that an article is within the scope, or it's an insult to the memory of some gay icon, or something like that. With the geography-oriented WikiProjects, it's usually a complaint that having the banner for a national WikiProject harms the advertising value for a moribund city-based WikiProject. I believe that this is the first complaint for the Scientology group. We have over the last few years had multiple lengthy RFCs on the issue, and the result has been the same every single time: some editor's distaste for a particular banner is not a sufficient reason to prevent the group from using these bots to get information about any article that interests the participants. That's why the Guide is so direct about it: once people know what the tags do (other than take up space at the top of the talk page), nobody wants to interfere with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Tarc[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. In my view, this request is not actionable, and borders on the frivolous. To begin with, per WP:AC/DS#Warnings, any sanction would require a prior warning, of which no evidence is supplied. On the merits, I consider that whether a project tag should appear on a talk page is a content dispute, not a conduct issue, and therefore outside the scope of arbitration or its enforcement. Even if the tag's removal were to be considered a conduct dispute, I am of the view that the argument that members of a WikiProject have the exclusive authority to decide whether a talk page should carry the corresponding project tag is mistaken. It conflicts directly with WP:OWN, a policy: "No one 'owns' an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you can not prevent them from doing so." Any interpretation of a guideline that purports to convey such authority is therefore, in my opinion, inadmissible. It would also have little practical meaning, as anybody may join a WikiProject at any time and thereby gain the purported authority to add or remove tags. Sandstein 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
OTOH it seems appropriate to tag the article as falling under the Scientology wikiproject in order to have extra eyes on that particular (if small) section, due to the peculiar history of Scientology-related topic on WP that led to the ARBCOM case in the first place. --SB_Johnny | talkâ 01:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Bobrayner
[edit]| Evlekis blocked 2 weeks, indef topic banned, placed on 1RR; Bobrayner warned; FkpCascais advised. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 29 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 Bobrayner[edit]
Just over two weeks ago, I completed an AN/I grievance against the user with this edit. The full scale of this editor's disruptive behaviour is explained there though I didn't realise that AN/I was both the wrong place and the manner was inappropriate. To synopsise, we have had two peaceful weeks with no issues on ARBMAC subjects whilst Bobrayner was absent. No sooner did he return than he immediately embarked on a rampage to make gross POV-pushing and policy-contravening reverts/fresh edits and all hiding behind the irrelevant and stale "sources" argument. The most notable change involves naming conventions on Kosovan subjects. The user is aware that we observe historical accuracy for providing names of settlements according to how they were known at the time in question and this is consistent with the language of the contemporary state. The user is also aware of WP:AT yet has chosen to take every opportunity he could find to switch English language names of towns for their controversial Albanian translation - controversial because Kosovo's status is subject to dispute and all good faith editors tread very carefully to use neutral wording which acknowlegdes the situation and neither leans one way or the other. The user dismisses this as "synthesis" and "wiesel wording" and proceeds to stylise the article 100% in the direction of Kosovan independence, Albanian as language having monopoly over WP:AT and common English; furthermore the user is known for edit-warring[68] and he adds lies to articles, namely anything to do with the Kosovo War in which he outright denies that the belligerent against whom the Albanian KLA waged war was the Military of Serbia and Montenegro, known as the Army of Yugoslavia which comprised two republics - Bobrayner prefers "Serb military", "Armed Forces of Serbia"[69] and anything denigrating the Serbian nation despite them not having had an independent army - only police and paramilitary units. He justifies this depredation with a template summary, "let's stick to what the sources say" despite having been shown that publications are selective simplifications which use "Serb" over "Yugoslav" and he has been given examples where this is so on matters where it is known Yugoslav is correct and Serb is wrong (eg. MiloĹĄeviÄ wrongly labelled Serb president in reliable source when position was held by MilutinoviÄ; MiloĹĄeviÄ was actually Yugoslav president at time of publication). In addition, a full explanation was spelt out black and white fresh from a source which he was using[70], the text explained the full Yugoslav/Serb scenario. On top of that, the rest of the WP community to edit on the Balkans observe a consensus which favours precision over press-style simplification thus dismissing the idea that "sources" trump facts.
Sandstein, you must forgive me for never having filled out an AE request and not knowing the exact procedures. Concerning remedy I don't know what to put because I was merely hoping to see Bobrayner receive a topic ban. To ensure this does not turn into Dramafest, please note the following which will not contain citations unless requested. For every accusation made against my revisions on matters of AT, English usage over Albanian, Yugoslav troops over Serbian, alleged stalking, I can justify each edit one by one. Where I was named in the summary for sections I did not concoct stands correct: I was simply reverting a batch of consecutive edits in which I spotted about 90% of information was false/contrived to mislead. To that end, what remained showed no signs of vandalism so I felt I should clear the section. I even provided the revisions where those points were first inserted on Rayner's talk. Be that as it may, I did later correct that section though none of this has stopped Bobrayner edit-warring to restore his own version. Quite where User:Neutral Fair Guy is supposed to come into this I don't know, what we do know about him however is that he has not only made 53 edits, but thousands as it is confirmed who he is, User:Sinbad Barron. Rayner alo fails to realise that the Sinbad Barron franchise makes edits PRO-Bobrayner, not against. Rayner in turn has never reverted a Sinbad account, or had words with him. And if User:Keithstanton is another incarnation (it's 50/50), Rayner has even endorsed that editor's revisions by reverting to them. Exceeding revert restrictions is one thing, self-reverting is another. Besides, he did the same thing at List of massacres in the Kosovo War. For the time I made an unlogged edit, I was warned. I deny any such editing after that time and if anybody believes I have been responsible for the edit-warring at Cinema of Kosovo, I invite that admin to carry out a CU. Having read Joy's remarks, the second time BOOMERANG has been mentioned, I have come to the conclusion that there is a protection racket here. I stand by my edits 100%, and mentioning this to WhiteWriter is a far cry from canvassing. If you name editors in these talks there is even a requirement to alert them, not the same thing as sending out messages to allies when you are proposing AfD or a page move. Concerning "stalking", naturally when you clock half a dozen nonconstructive edits by a user it is reasonable to follow up and see what he has been doing elsewhere. Several of Rayner's edits since his break are in tact, each one that isn't concern removals of large sourced chucks, some of the time it was not even Rayner's first attempt at doing so and it had been more seasoned editors reverting him originally. On the subject of stalking, I am very interested as to how Rayner managed to find Hiking in Kosovo, Climate of Kosovo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislava Pak StankoviÄ. If the admins involved wish to turn the table on my account and turn me into the accused party. I have no fears. By the same token, I have no expectation that Rayner will be sanctioned here so I might just have to drop this case. But before I do I'll say one thing, it is striking that editors such as User:Keithstanton and others get banned from editing when making Rayner-esque edits. He survives without a blotch. Editors who go overboard in producing pro-Serbian NPOV violations receive topic bans. Curiously, the fact that this is all dismissed as a mere "content dispute" with Rayner continuing battleground editing contrary to consensus and with opposition from a host of good editors (none of whom I have alrted to this talk), the very fact that this has gone on for over six months speaks for itself. Evlekis (ĐвНокиŃ) (argue) 13:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC) PS for Edjohnson. I have to be honest, I am on 1RR, a sanction by which I am debilitated. Nothing for which I raised this talk concerns violations on an actual 1RR article. Just thought you should know. Evlekis (ĐвНокиŃ) (argue) 13:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Issue to be taken into account[edit]As regards Sandstein's proposal evidently influenced by his interpretation of the evidence submitted, I feel I should mention that I have kept this as short as possible with the basis for the talk being what he has done since his return from a two-week absence. Rayner's disruption, battleground editing and gross POV pushing goes back six months on these issues alone and he has made many enemies, not just this one. To this end it is only right that before a decision be reached, specific misgivings must be addressed and this time, I will be giving citations.
Stalking[edit]
Asides Climate of Kosovo which I dated 8 April, please observe these examples:
next came Climate of Kosovo listed above
1hr 5mins, nine articles - achieved either by scanning down the contributions by Evlekis or by astronomical coincidence. 84.74.30.129[edit]If I am supposed to have edited from this account, I'd be world famous for the time it took me to hop so quickly from Britain where I live to Switzerland where the IP is based[76]. Whilst we are on the subject, I am rather curious about this pattern: This account has a special interest in AlbaniaâYugoslav border incident, as does indeed this account which I suspect is the same person. All of the edits to that page are consistent with this from Rayner, plus [77]. Rita Ora[edit]Rather than cherry-picking, try reading the whole section to place this matter is perspective. "Pig ignorant" is a cliche in which pig is an intensifier and the partnering remark "biased towards her nation's mindset" is my response to an editor who comments that the woman's personality is clear from her statements. It was initially taken as an attack on the editor in question but was eventually cleared up and I assured the relevant persons that I would not make comments in that fashion again ad such I haven't. Rayner's accusation that this is me allegedly denying genocide is neither here nor there, however, for the record, in 1990 when it was reported that Ora's parents came to Britian, there was not a single gunshot fired yet in that province. Serbian Army[edit]
Comments from Joy[edit]
Finally[edit]I have breached 1RR four times. The first time I admit was on purpose logged out, a known case, for which I was warned and have not done it again. The second, third and fourth occasions were different. Each time it was in error: two very different revisions I submitted on KoriĹĄa bombing and it was not brought to my attention until it was too late. Rayner had reverted nine minutes after I had taken out "Serb" a second time. It was one obscure feature I genuinely missed. For the other two, I self-reverted and was only caught out because of the distortion of UTC and my local time. That said, on neither occasion did I "game the system" by re-reverting after time, such as right now[82]. To this end, I contend that since I too base my edits on sourced information, facts, consensus, and have proven unequivocally that I can operate within 1RR; with evidence that I am not editing from other machines logged out, I am in no greater need of a block, a topic ban or any other "more comprehensive" sanction than the antagonist and subject of this discussion, Bobrayner. If any other apologists for Rayner would like to present further cases of his "innocence", please produce them so I may refute them one by one. Evlekis (ĐвНокиŃ) (argue) 02:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 24/04/13: brief message for Joy before I sumbit evidence of neutral edits[edit]I'd like to draw your attention to two things. If I were wrong about WP:AT forming an overriding basis on how we present names of settlements then I accept that. As such, I have made changes to the Demographics of Kosovo municipality list which I hope will in some way be accepted as a compromise and a step towards resolution. As it took me a few edits to complete, have a look at the end result, a new table with names given in every known variation - article title remains first, but I have placed Albanian before Serbian in the list and we can say that A comes before S in the alphabet to justify it. Of course this is one of many places that such measures may help. If the community is happy with it, I'll do the same on all related articles I find. If users are unhappy and believe that only the name per Albanian source should be reported, I believe it only right that they explain themselves. Also, you mention that that I did not respond to Rayner's comment on Talk:Hiking in Kosovo. The fact is that I have spoken about this with him time and time again, and not just me, other users too have had words with him on this subject. Naming on the Hiking in Kosovo pages is nothing we haven't seen in many places before. As for discussion, I have addressed Rayner here, here and here. Also if you care to inspect Talk:Climate of Kosovo, you'll see that it is more or less exactly what Talk:Hiking in Kosovo is except I am the one to have launched a discussion to which Rayner had not replied at the time of me writing this. Basically, I am exhausted with the same old rhetoric, going round and round in circles. That's why I opted not to satisfy Rayner on Talk:Hiking in Kosovo. Furthermore, it may be of interest to you that there are two other reason I felt I never needed to communicate in that space: firstly, my name was not mentioned, secondly, at the time of this edit, the revision stood as Rayner left it whereas I have not set foot on that page since before then. The second thing is trivial but needs clearing up. No part of my grievance mentions Republika Srpska and the edit-warring there. You managed to locate it easily because Rayner's list of disruptive incidents is as long as your arm. Those involving me constitute a mere fraction. Now putting aside his first bold blanking edit, this contribution preceded this talk page edit so the suggestion that he used discussion first and even reverted after remains a misjudgement. I am now going to spend the next hour or so locating pages which prove I have edited neutrally and where it may not immediately seem to be the case, I shall explain why and how the neutrality of the contribution is unequivocal. Evlekis (ĐвНокиŃ) (argue) 18:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Proof of good faith editing pursuant to Sandstein's instruction at Talk:Evlekis[edit]Kosovo's declaration of independence is a highly controversial subject and forms part of the wider Serbian-Albanian conflict. So well documented is this that it has spawned many articles: KosovoâSerbia relations, Republic of Kosovo, International Recognition of Kosovo, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence, the list is endless. As editors, we have a requirement to edit very carefully in this sensitive area and any contributions which hint at Kosovan independence status with no regard for its wealth of opposition, or which allege Kosovo remains a de jure provice of Serbia is evidently tendentious. However, there is a third position, a neutral position, and when this neutral factor takes over and one side is left battling that neutral factor, the absence of a genuine lobby arguing an opposing case can very easily project the objective editor to be representing the opposing arguments. To this end, I contend that editing on Kosovo-related subjects can be very difficult when something has to go one way or the other. The way around it can be to produce extremely long passages, but atleast they represent every angle. For other cases where the Kosovan region needs to be listed, there is Template:Kosovo-note which I have helped take form. Note however that extra words given to explain the Kosovo situation can often be dismissed as "weasel words" by editors reverting them when restoring their one-sided versions, just as the consensus-based template and other notifications may be dismissed by those same editors as "disclaimers" in summaries when pushing their POV revisions. I declare my position is neither on the side of Serbian integrity nor on Kosovan sovereignty as the following examples illustrate:
This is a brief list per Sandstein's request. If more is required, or if any other edit I have made needs answers, please inform me and I shall explain them. Evlekis (ĐвНокиŃ) (argue) 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Bobrayner[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 Bobrayner[edit]I have, for some time, been trying to bring our articles on Balkan topics closer in line with what sources say. Unfortunately, Evlekis disagrees very strongly with the wording used by sources on a wide variety of Balkan topics, and this has led to something of a feud; the endless reverts make my progress much slower. This AE filing appears to be another attempt at revenge. I'll try to address each of Evlekis' diffs:
Meanwhile:
How much longer must the encyclopĂŚdia suffer this campaign of civil pov-pushing, repeated evasion of editing restrictions, canvassing, bullying, abuse of sources, and so on? Can we get a boomerang here - in which case I'll add a wider range of evidence - or is a fresh AE request needed? bobrayner (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that viewing things in terms of "the other side" is part of our problem in the Balkans, not part of the solution. Nonetheless, here are some examples where my edits went the "other way".
I've tried to provide a variety of diffs (fixing different problems, different articles, different namespaces &c) but didn't do an exhaustive search and I'm still wary of TLDR; if you want more/different examples or different details, just ask, and I can put together another pile of diffs in the next couple of days.
In other news... Evlekis' crusade is still ongoing, alas.
[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[136]
[137]
[138]
[139]
[140]
[141]
[142]
[143]
[144]
[145]
[146]
[147]
[148]
[149]
[150]
[151]
[152]
[153]
[154]
[155]
[156]
[157]
[158]
[159]
[160]
[161]
[162]
[163]
[164]
[165]
[166]
[167]
[168]
[169]
[170]
[171]
[172]
[173]
[174]
[175]
[176]
[177]
[178]
[179]
[180]
[181]
[182]
[183]
[184]
[185]
[186]
[187]
[188]
[189]
[190]
[191]
[192]
[193]
Statement by Joy[edit]I'm usually an uninvolved admin WRT Kosovo topics, because I usually don't deal a lot with this part of WP:ARBMAC area. But just in case, I'll write this in a separate section because I've dealt with both editors at length in related areas. Evlekis, are you trying to test WP:BOOMERANG here? Most of what you've linked to are simple content disputes, in which you're advocating moot points. That, in and of itself, isn't necessarily disruptive. Filing this request, however, is. What's particularly troubling is that you failed to heed much of the advice people gave you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792. The request is cca 1100 words AFAICT, and it's still using phrasing that is just as non-neutral as before. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
What? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean by that; I know the basic facts in that Kosovo is officially bilingual, and I recall a series of edit wars on the E80 article regarding Äeneral JankoviÄ vs. Hani i Elezit or something like that. It was ridiculous because both names are largely unknown to English readers. I'm guessing we have some sort of a consensus based on reliable sources on which name is appropriate to use where. I fail to see a problem in reporting an Albanian-language census in Albanian-language names if the latter are equal in status to the Serbian-language names. If there is a consensus that only Serbian-language Kosovo toponyms are acceptable on the English Wikipedia, I'd have to see that discussion first to believe that. I never came across it at WP:NCGN or similar.
[204] is not a revert. It's an initial edit, a bold edit. The next edit was a revert of that, and then came the talk and the edit warring. If you seriously think that people here are going to take your word over that, rather than simply reading that page history to observe that simple fact, I'm lost for words. Overall, Evlekis, you've demonstrated well enough by now that you're here for the major talking points of Serbian nationalism: blind opposition to the Kosovo Albanians and blind support of Republika Srpska, and the English Wikipedia is here as simply a tool to promote those causes; whoever obstructs that promotion is somehow out to get you. Further discussion on that topic seems redundant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a discussion at Talk:Timeline of Kosovo history about historical names of Äakovica. How is this an overarching discussion about modern-day municipality lists? Also, I even found your overview of sources immediately lacking: most of the Turkish names were used by Turkish authors, discussing the Ottoman context, while most of the Serbian names were used by a variety of authors discussing the Montenegrin context. If you just take a hint from that simple pattern, you'd find zero reason to edit war about 2011 census names.
OK, the timestamp on this is 20:04, and on this it's 20:09. Yes, that is the wrong order - if the audience is entirely so trigger-happy that they can't wait five minutes. Which it may actually be expected to be on a divisive issue, but, once again, that list is not an inherently divisive issue. It only became a problem because of the rest of this kind of behavior. It is a clear violation of the spirit and letter of ARBMAC and perpetuating the argument that there's no blame at your end for it is just further proof of that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
WhiteWriter, kindly back that up with some facts. Which of those disputed articles did I involve myself in? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by WhiteWriter[edit]This user was already warned numerous times by several users. We shows complete lack of talk page decorum, and after will to cooperate in ANY possible way. Punishing one, and not other one in this would lead to complete instability and further POV violations, as user showed constant attitude toward non neutral and tendentious editing regarding Kosovo subject, in common violation of WP:AT. Despite INVOLVED user Joy attempt to minimise this obvious long lasting violations. If you do nothing now about Bob, you will point out that any kind of almost DE editing may be allowed, under specific circumstantial. Please, Sandstein, and Gatoclass, act neutral, react on both of them! User was already warned numerous times before, and nothing changed. For this kind us dispute two participant were needed, and not only one. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Result concerning Bobrayner[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Before we can process this, you must link to the remedy that is to be enforced, the notification of Bobrayner, and any warning of Bobrayner per WP:AC/DS#Warnings. Sandstein 05:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
After examining the evidence, Evlekis's complaint (limited to the numbered list) appears for the most part unfounded or stale. The reported edits generally reflect content disputes, which this board cannot adjudicate; the arbitration (and arbitration enforcement process) addresses only conduct issues. In "our articles will reflect...", "our" clearly means "Wikipedia's". The Serbian Army edits by Bobrayner are edit-warring, but date to December 2012â and are not at this point very actionable any more. "Don't be silly" is incivil, but not a personal attack. But an examination of Bobrayner's countercomplaint reveals that Bobrayner has been edit-warring at Republika Srpska (1 to 3 April). I also find it problematic that, in his counter-complaint, he alleges without evidence on at least two occasions that a revert was made by Evlekis while logged out. On the other hand, while I am not convinced by many of Bobrayner's allegations, his counter-complaint does have merit in some parts:
In general, the impression one gets by looking at the edit histories of the affected articles is that both parties engage in tendentious editing, in that Evlekis systematically makes changes favoring the position of Serbia in the dispute about Kosovo, and Bobrayner systematically makes changes favoring the opposite position. Such conduct patterns violate WP:NPOV irrespective of the merits of any individual edits. Evlekis's conduct is much more noticeably problematic, but Bobrayner's tendentious edits are not less problematic just because they are comparatively low-key, e.g. at [207], where a wholesale change of (what looks like) Serbian to Albanian spellings of place names is disguised with the misleading summary "spelling fixes". On that basis, I conclude that sanctions are warranted against both parties, but that the sanctions against Evlekis should be more comprehensive in view of the wider range and higher intensity of disruptive conduct exhibited by him, and his previous 1RR restriction. I therefore intend to impose the following discretionary sanctions:
What do my colleagues think? Sandstein 19:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I haven't had time to review all the evidence including the Republika Srpska dispute, but based on what I've already seen there is evidence of tendentious editing on Bobraynor's part. For example, in this edit Bobraynor adds the statement that NATO planes bombed ethnic Albanians who had been used by Yugoslav forces as human shields, basing it on page 352 of this source. However, the page in question only states that There is some information indicating that displaced Kosovo civilians were forcibly concentrated within a military camp in the village of Koritsa as human shields and later states that the civilians were either returning refugess or persons gathered as human shields by FRY authorities or both. Bobraynor in other words has turned a statement that civilians may have been used as human shields into an unqualified statement that they were used as human shields. Misstatement or misrepresention of sources is a demonstrable breach of core policy and certainly a potential ground for sanction. I should add that while I haven't yet reviewed all the evidence, this is far from the only example of questionable editing I found from Bobraynor, so at this point I could not agree that his editing in the topic area has been altogether innocuous. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Continuing on Sandstein's proposal - I agree that Evlekis should be blocked generally for the Rita Ora problem because his retort shows a lack of understanding of the basic problem - Talk pages are simply not the place for editors to make their own value judgement of any kind about article topics, let alone living people. Offhand I think 14 days is a bit excessive - Evlekis has never been blocked for more than a day, that kind of an escalation seems punitive, but then again, it's his third strike, and I don't disagree with a six-month topic ban on what appears to be some of their favorite topic areas, so I'll agree to whatever length others think is appropriate. As for a topic ban for bobrayner, a third of Evlekis' length seems appropriate to me, because they seem to have a much cleaner plate. I don't think see the point in an immediate interaction ban, the topic bans should be implemented first. An interaction ban should happen only if they escalate the problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
|