Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive207
Rococo1700
[edit]| This is not within the remit of AE, if you wish to report this, WP:ANI is probably the most appropriate forum. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 21 December 2016 (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 Rococo1700[edit]
Article diffs:
Article Talk page diffs: Rococo's WP:WOT: here, here, and here.
User was warned:
Rococo deleted the warnings on his user Talk page
Rococo was BOLD in his edit in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but he was reverted (several times) and a discussion ensued in Talk. Unfortunately, for what ever reason, Rococo had a very difficult time comprehending what many editors wrote, time and time again, explaining as to why certain items should not be considered as "controversial" or why other parts simply fell outside of the scope of the article. Most editors were patient with him, again and again, repeating what they had already explained several times to him. Also, most editors agreed that it was worthy to place something into the article. Subsequently, we were in the process of building a strong consensus on two items: the text itself and placement. However, because Rococo didn't agree with the consensus, he hijacked the discussions and, while discussions ensued, Rococo continued to add his own edits into the article. In this edit here, I gave Rococo four difs showing a consensus that the insertion should not be placed under the heading "Controversy". Those examples were here, here, here, and here. And here was even more to the consensus by Kendall-K1. However, Rococo responded here with "Kamel, none of what you states, I repeat none, constitutes "consensus". Sorry to be blunt but you have a difficulty understanding how Wikipedia works." He then went and placed his own wording in the article here UNDER the heading "Controversy".
While I have not commented on the substance of Rococo's edits or arguments, his many WP:WOT are filled with absurdities, such as this, where he equates Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was simply a passenger in a police-led motorcade with Rodney King. Rococo is an extraordinarily disruptive editor who has flagrantly violated several policies while being given many warnings. He has demonstrated zero interest in building consensus in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article. At the least, he should be temporarily blocked, and I support a ban from editing the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article for a period of time.
Discussion concerning Rococo1700[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 Rococo1700[edit]I think a brief review of the prior archives of discussion of this topic show what I am up against. I have been pleading for arbitration on this topic, because examination of prior discussion shows that there is a determined group of editors that delete any insertion of well-sourced material into this text. This text for over ten years had information linking Schneerson to the Crown Heights Riot. The obituary of Schneerson in his home town newspaper, the New York Times, as well as a number of the retrospectives (The Atlantic and New York Daily News) that I read mention the role of Schneerson as a major leader in one of the communities involved in the riot, both leading up to riot, or the accident that triggered the riots, or in the days that followed. These riots were likely the most prominent in New York City in the last three decades, one of the largest cities in the United States. But more to the point: His biography as exemplified by the template of the obituary, dedicates nearly 10-20% of the space, including a major subsection to "Tensions in Crown Heights", describing events related to the accident and subsequent days, including the response of Schneerson. Again this is material that had been deleted without explanation from the text. I am adding well sourced material, less than 1-2% of the article with sentences derived from two sources, but mainly the New York Times biography of Schneerson. I have repeatedly asked the editor above and Bus Stop to provide equally sourced material that excludes Schneerson's mention from the Crown Heights riot. The sometimes make suggestions, but then they start arguing about the section where it should be. And still argue about whether it is relevant to his life. Now they are placing threatening notes on my talk page and other sites; I assume because they have no sourced material they wish to discuss to argue their position. At least, despite multiple requests I get nothing. They continue to try to get into an argument about innocence and guilt, and who started the riot, and which car Schneerson was in. I am not buying that. The issue has to be: is this an important part of his biography and does it deserve to be mentioned in an encyclopedic entry on the man. His biography and any neutral history of the events of the day, substantiate this, and make it one of the most influential events that he was linked to. They still come back and re-argue that it is not important, but the biography proves them wrong in this regard. They provide no source for this opinion, except themselves. There recently was an editor from the wikiproject Biography (User talk:Kendall-K1) that tried to intervene, but has quickly given up. Another editor told me to give up arguing with the protectors of this article. In the past some of the editors involved now have argued on other topics in Schneerson with User talk:Sir Joseph. Ultimately, my recommendation is that this will end up in arbitration, because these editors are not willing to find a mediated solution. I have placed an entry in the Neutrality noticeboard. I do not know how to bring this up with administrators in order to get a mediated solution. My solution at this point in an entry that adds in their suggestions but derives from the section in his biography in the New York Times. It is not far from the text and subsection that was found in this article from article from 2009 to 2015, prior to that from 2003 to 2009 it was part of the running text of the article. It was deleted without discussion. Again, they want the argument to be about me, or about the fact that they are three editors, etc. Anything but discuss the sourced material. Let me know if you can help in this regard.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Rococo1700[edit]
|
SaintAviator
[edit]| Closed with no action, SaintAviator is reminded to be more careful with their comments referring to other editors, and particularly that they think twice about making inappropriate comments about living persons. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 24 December 2016 (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 SaintAviator[edit]
... and so on. I could keep going further back but it's pretty much the same thing. Note that the above diffs are like 95% of the users contributions since 11/13/16. Insulting others, taunting, making BLP violating remarks is pretty much all they do. You go back to earlier edits it's the same thing as noted by numerous warnings on their talk page. again, I could go back further in time and find several more warnings from a wide variety of users. SaintAviator has been given plenty of leeway in the past and plenty of rope already.
Another clear indication of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE is this section on their talk page they created [19] "Loser Hillary" comment was clearly a BLP violation. "Loser Hillary" /= "Hillary, who lost the election". Also obvious in context of all the other comments made by the users. He's jeering. @User:Lipsquid - 1) diff 150 is clearly labeled as warning from Timothyjosephwood. He just commented in a section you happened to start. I did not say you warned Saint Aviator. 2) don't take things SaintAviator says at face value, much less put your trust in it. 3) these are far from minor infractions as has been noted by several users. And they also establish a long running pattern. Pretty much all that SaintAviator does on Wikipedia is make taunting comments on talk or personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC) @User:Peacemaker67, he's talking about the WP:EEML arb com case from... seven years ago. And no I didn't start it nor was I on it for most of its existence. The fact that he's bringing up something from seven years ago possibly suggests this isn't a new user, but who knows.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Add: Not interested in relitigating a 7 year old case. ArbCom made its decisions that case is over. I do wish to note however that Etienne Dolet's description is full of bull. The fact that he's even trying to bring it up (what's he doing here anyway?) just shows his own battleground attitude. Oh, and might note [20] that as early as Dec 2009, shortly after case closed, AE administrator User:Tznkai basically said that he was going to start banning people who tried to invoked "EEML!" as an excuse for their own disruptive behavior [21]. Like ED and SaintAviator are doing here. User:Peacemaker67, can you also look at the diffs from 11/14? I know they're older but they show that these aren't isolated incidents (and also that when he said "loser Hillary" it was most likely meant as an insult not just a statement of fact as is being pretended right). (2) Can someone explain to me what the hell a "pro-Western slant" is suppose to be? And can someone explain to me why all of sudden we've got two or three editors using the exact same strange phrasing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Previous warnings
Discussion concerning SaintAviator[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 SaintAviator[edit]VM sees me as someone who sees his real agenda in his edits on a few pages like Putin. He thus feels threatened. He will deny this. IMHO for personal or other reasons his agenda is to make some pages anti, like Putins article, making it anti Putin. His drive is to make Putin look bad / guilty / suspect. He and his fellows do not ever deviate from this. Once on an Arb board under WP:EEML VM's (formerly Radeksz) past came out regarding a back channel email group who colluded to influence wikipedia. He was outed. Is he still doing it? Does the same crowd follow him round? Complaints, like this one, are a tactic to attempt to limit people like myself who see whats going on. Whats his motive in making a certain sway of articles anti? I dont know, it could be anything. Most articles that get the anti treatment are Russian. Its quite a disease these days being anti Russian. Its not good editing. Im Australian BTW, not Russian. I like knowledge. I like encyclopedias. I dislike the biased POV editing full of insinuations VM does on certain sites. So I call it like I see it. And a lot of editors over the past few years who have come and gone disagreed with his edits too. They come and go but VM and a core group dont change. Why is this? This is the kind of situation where non anonymous editing would be beneficial. SaintAviator lets talk 04:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Example of VM MVBWs obfuscation. SOHR, VM then MVBW delete criticism section. Long running delay tactics by them blocking return. Like its a joke. No one hardly agrees with them [29]. Today after months of wasted time, its back up. SOHR is a one man bedsit anti Syrian Govt pro Western (correction, pro Neo Con ) spin blogger. VM liked to quote him. SaintAviator lets talk 09:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC) PS Re Loser McCain comment. Clarification of my comment required. Like H Clinton McCain also lost presidential bid [30] Re MVBWs comments below. You're cherry picking my quotes. Heres my full quote. 'Its people like me and Étienne Dolet and many many others who make WP good by resisting the NPOV pro western (correction, pro Neo Con) agenda of people like VM and MVBWs'. BTW how did you know about this board when I didnt live link your name? Its uncanny how you always turn up when VM complains or edits Eastern European articles. SaintAviator lets talk 22:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by EtienneDolet[edit]Firstly, I don't see how these concerns raised by the OP are confined to WP:ARBAP2, bearing in mind that all these diffs (and I mean it when I say all) are found on talk page discussions, and that there are no diffs that present a disruptive editing patterns when it comes to main space editing in the topic area. If anything, these concerns should be brought up at WP:ANI. And in regards to the concerns themselves, some of them are half-truths in the way the OP has chosen to describe them. For example, the reference to "loser Hillary" was merely signifying that she lost the election. This was reaffirmed by SaintAviator when I myself was concerned over that language and requested a clarification from him. Some of the other comments by SaintAviator appear to be harmless (i.e. the non-constructive ones). Since this user rarely edits main space, I suggest that at most he receive a formal warning and be reminded to keep discussions less personal and more content driven. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Lipsquid[edit]First, edit 150 above is mine and I do not consider it a warning and I never said SaintAviator is WP:NOTHERE. Second, the notification on SaintAviator's page is improper Third, these infractions over the last few days are very minor and not worthy of any enforcement action, except this edit: [1]. It really troubles me. It is either true, not true or somewhere in the middle. Someone has to own it... Lipsquid (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sagecandor[edit]The evidence presented by Volunteer Marek shows violations of site policies by SaintAviator (talk · contribs). These include: WP:BLP, WP:NPA, and demonstrate WP:NOTHERE. Example problems [31] [32] [33]. The account in question appears to only exist for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and not to improve content on the encyclopedia. Sagecandor (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward[edit]These seem rather tedentious complaints given the election is over and they are comments in talk space. The very first complaint is about a reference to Hillary Clinton. Clinton was the loser in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. If such a characterization is disturbing to editors, they should probably not be editing political articles as there seems to be a rather high emotional attachment if they view being characterized as "losing" as a BLP violation. I realize the next argument is that the term "loser" was used to invoke a response but I submit it is exposing the raw emotion of the complainant rather than any actionable BLP violation. Clinton being the loser in the election is in no way a BLP violation as she conceded the race on election night. Close this with trouts all around and let the election and its emotions fade away. --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes[edit]As someone who interacted with SA in the project, I must tell that he is not helping. First of all, he intentionally uses broken English and creates unbearable atmosphere on article talk pages with comments like that [34],[35],[36],[37],[38]. Secondly, he edit war on the same pages [39],[40], [41],[42],[43]. I think his response on AE was also clearly a WP:Battle. This is "us against them". For example, he tells: "its people like me and Étienne Dolet" are "resisting" "agenda" of [other users].
Statement by Timothyjosephwood[edit]Close with a clear warning that off-topic comments are not welcome, and BLP violations will not be tolerated, since warnings from lesser mortals like myself have had apparently little impact. TimothyJosephWood 15:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning SaintAviator[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mooretwin
[edit]| User:Mooretwin's topic ban from the Troubles is lifted on appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Mooretwin[edit]I have abided by this topic ban for four years and ten months. I believe I have appealed it on three previous occasions (though unfortunately I am unable to find the logs). The last appeal I would estimate was over a year ago. I come again humbly to appeal for a fourth time, as I believe that I have more than served my time (almost five years now). In this near-five-year period I have not engaged in edit wars, I have not been sanctioned, I have 'behaved'. I found myself involved in one dispute, which I sought to resolve through dispute resolution. I have done a lot of work in improving rugby league articles, which earned me a nice compliment on my Talk Page. I undertake to continue to edit constructively and to avoid edit-warring. Statement by T. Canens[edit]I'm not opposed to a trial lifting. T. Canens (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Statement by uninvolved GoodDay[edit]Mooretwin has shown outstanding behavior, concerning the topic-in-question. IMHO, After (nearly) 5 years, this topic-ban has morphed from a preventative measure to a punitive one. It's time to lift the topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mooretwin[edit]Result of the appeal by Mooretwin[edit]
|
INeverCry
[edit]| Closed with no action. Participants are reminded to work out content disputes without making personal attacks and using rollback inappropriately. There is also no consensus that Julian Assange falls under WP:ARBEE. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 INeverCry[edit]
This is one of those things that needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets worse, since INeverCry basically just opened up a discussion with personal attacks and insults. You start off by insulting people, chances are the discussion won't get better. I do want to note that I find being called "anti-Russian" very insulting. It's basically like calling somebody racist. And it's total nonsense. So yeah, it's an egregious personal attack. (Note that the original text in the article was added not by me but by User:Snooganssnoogans) (3) @TheTimes - your comments are not related to this AE. INEverCry participated in the discussions on those other articles. If you want to file an AE request against me (and yes, you're misrepresenting the situation) go for it. Otherwise please stop trying to derail this request or deflect attention from the subject's violations.
Oh ffs Peacemaker, I was blocked once by User:Drmies just for saying that someone was "POV pushing" on an article, and that was after a long and exhausting discussion. Here the editor in question immediately starts of with insults, accuses me of being "anti-Russian", which aside from the fact that it's a total load of shit, IS in fact an accusation of bigotry (note I said "like" calling somebody racist) and then persists in their insults after having been asked to stop. I'm sorry but if these aren't block worthy personal attacks on a DS covered article I don't know what is. And care to explain how in the world we're suppose to "work this out civilly" when the editor in question IMMEDIATELY starts of with insults? That's sort of unlikely to happen. As far as the content goes, are you serious about suggesting DS? This involves somebody removing text from the article because they think the freakin The Guardian is an unreliable source (because they don't like what the newspaper wrote)! And you know, what? There's been a ton of that lately. Editors running around removing reliable sources because they think "mainstream media is full of lies" and other nonsense like that. And given how the past year has played out, you're gonna get a lot more of that. Oh maybe I should start an RfC? Right, so that the reliability of sources can get decided by the little tag team gangs that have been popping all over the place? That's gonna work out well. What you're basically doing is dropping the ball, big time, and forcing those of us who actually work on content and edit these articles to keep them half sane, to put up with this crap over and over and over again. So no, this isn't "edit-warring over a content dispute". It's ONE user reverting solid, reliably sourced, text by citing bullshit excuses ("the Guardian is not reliable") then edit warring to enforce their view, and when approached for a discussion immediately launching into insults and personal attacks. That's pretty much THE definition of disruptive behavior.
What did I say about this getting out of hand? And that it needed to get nipped in the bud? See here. User:92slim has now jumped into the edit war, even though they've NEVER edited that article best I can tell, and even though they haven't bothered to join the discussion on talk. What is he doing there? Well, he tried to revert me on one article, but that was a violation of 1RR, so after I politely reminded him of it [46] (he removed the reminder, and also he had broken 1RR on the same article a week or so ago [47]) he went over to another article I edited, Battle of Aleppo and tried to revert me there. But his revert was done by User:Iryna Harpy. So he went to yet another article I recently edit, the Julian Assange one, and jumped in to edit war. He's stalking and revenge reverting and spoiling for a fight. This is WP:BATTLEGROUND plain and simple. And User:Peacemaker67 you're not exactly helping to put out the flames here. This is all part of the same problem. Should I file a WP:AE report, is this enough, or should I just not bother? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Oh gee, another editor that I've hardly interacted with that's bringing up a seven year old ArbCom case. You think someone might be emailing them or coordinating off wiki? Naaaahhhhhhhhhh, couldn't be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC) @LaserBrain, you write as if there are personal attacks on BOTH sides. There aren't. I haven't made any. It's all INeverCry (and now another user). That is the whole freakin' point of this AE. It is impossible to "work stuff out" with someone who only engages in personal attacks! I would hope that at least that part would be obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning INeverCry[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 INeverCry[edit]Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]Volunteer Marek has been the single most aggressive advocate for including the following quote from John McCain in the WP:BLP Vladimir Putin: "Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent. He had Boris Nemtsov murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin. He has dismembered the Ukraine. He has now precision strikes by Russian aircraft on hospitals in Aleppo." Several days after the ongoing RfC on the McCain quote opened, Volunteer Marek precipitated another RfC at 2016 United States election interference by Russia by declaring Putin's own December 23 response to allegations that he personally supervised the DNC and Podesta email hacks to boost Trump (in an article with no other statements from Putin) "wp:undue." Perhaps this adds some context to INeverCry's allegations against Volunteer Marek. (Obviously, barring evidence of actual misconduct INeverCry should not have made those comments, because we all have our own points of view—some, perhaps, more prominently than others.) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Given the underlying context, I disagree with Volunteer Marek's contention that INeverCry's reference to his alleged "anti-Russian agenda" is "basically like calling somebody racist."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC) @MVBW: Of course it is not misconduct to change one's interpretation of WP:DUE depending on whether or not one likes the material in question, but doing so may attract unwanted attention from other users. In fact, since Volunteer Marek's conduct can be scrutinized here as well, it may be worth noting that he recently dedicated an entire subsection—titled "It's EtienneDolet June 2016 vs EtienneDolet December 2016"—at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) to criticizing User:EtienneDolet. In that section, Volunteer Marek wrote:
Since we're on the subject of double standards, I'll just let that quote speak for itself.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Even if we were to concede that EtienneDolet is guilty as charged of POV editing, the necessity of language like "fanatically," "funny," or "sad" would not be established. More importantly, Volunteer Marek's contention that his conduct is qualitatively different from INeverCry's because "it was supported by a ton of diffs" conceals more than it reveals: In both cases, the complaints against named editors should have been made to an appropriate noticeboard—not posted on an article's talk page as a thinly veiled personal attack.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]My experience is that Volunteer Marek has a firm and apparent anti-Putin POV which comes through clearly in his editing, working very hard to insure that any information which throws a bad light on Putin will remain in articles, despite the obvious BLP problems. However, I have not seen any similar "anti-Russian" POV. Putin is not Russia and someday (we can hope) he will not be Russia's leader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Timothyjosephwood[edit]This would be absolutely laughed out of ANI. Statement by My very best wishes[edit]Repeatedly telling to someone without evidence that "you are anti-Russian/anti-Polish/anti-whatever" and that Wikipedia would be a better place with you banned [49] is completely inappropriate. Any user who does it on article talk pages must apologize and promise never do it again. If anyone has a legitimate concern that someone was actually a POV-pusher and that indeed "Wikipedia would be a better place with him banned", this should be brought with evidence on an appropriate noticeboard, instead of openly violating WP:NPA on article talk pages. As an editor with significant experience, INeverCry knows it very well. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
One thing is certain: diffs 1,2,3,5 were not content dispute, but personal comments about another contributor made on a wrong page and without any obvious reason. And on the top of it, he tells: "The truth isn't a personal attack." That might be understandable for a newbie, but not for a former admin. This is very strange. INeverCry is usually polite and does good content work [51]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Thucydides411[edit]This complaint stems from a conflict at the page for Julian Assange. On that page, Volunteer Marek and a number of others are trying to use a single Guardian article (which as I explained on the talk page for Julian Assange, grossly misrepresents an interview in La Repubblica) to insinuate that Assange is some sort of Russian agent. This is UNDUE, because it cherry picks one particular article (of poor journalistic quality, I might add) out of the many thousands that must have been written about Assange over the years to create an entirely new subsection. It's also a serious BLP issue, as the Guardian article it relies on seriously misrepresents what Assange actually said in the interview. Volunteer Marek's response has been that the Guardian is a reliable source, but I think that when it comes to a BLP, a bit more discretion is warranted. Even otherwise reliable newspapers sometimes publish articles of poor journalistic quality, or even hack pieces against a particular person. And seizing on one such article to write an entirely new subsection about a highly notable public figure is completely inappropriate. Unfortunately, this falls into a pattern that I've become familiar with when editing pages alongside Volunteer Marek. This user's open warrior mentality when editing articles related to Russia is all too apparent, and incredibly frustrating to deal with as a fellow editor. Finding a middle ground seems impossible in the face of the scorched-earth tactics I've experienced with Volunteer Marek. This is just my experience with this editor - take it how you will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Just for some further background on this issue, two users insisting on inserting the contentious material into the Julian Assange article were in the famous Eastern European Mailing List (EEML): Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes. So they have a bit of a history on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to Eastern-Europe related issues. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]Assuming this is propery before the AE board, there should be action beyond mere warning here.... one of the diffs in the complaint contains the words That comment will be taken seriously by anyone who really knows you. Wikipedia would be a better place with you banned That's a flagrant vio of the arb principles and if you close this without action then what the hell is the point of having an arbitration panel in the first place? Assuming the ad hominem is 100% correct, such a thing is NEVER appropriate and quite obviously violates the ARB principles demanding civility. C'mon admins show some integrity and spine! We need you to help Wikipedia
If there is mere warning, you might as well invite more of the same NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning INeverCry[edit]
|
Ms Sarah Welch
[edit]| User:Soham321 is indefinitely banned from all pages related to the area defined by WP:ARBIPA, and is further indefinitely banned from opening any case at WP:AE. Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2016 (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 Ms Sarah Welch[edit]
I have explained here why I did not attempt to engage in an extended dialogue with Sarah prior to filing the RfC. I would like Admins adjudicating this case to scrutinize the extensive interaction history of Ms Sarah Welch and Joshua Jonathan on WP before mulling over Joshua's comments in this section. Joshua has given Sarah multiple barnstars and i have yet to come across any instance of him ever expressing disagreement with her about anything. Meanwhile, Sarah's continual proclivity to misrepresent the source material continues on the Charles James Napier page, yet again in material related to Sati. See my edit summaries in diff1 and diff2 to know the errors Sarah had introduced into the article. Soham321 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC) With respect to Js82's charge of canvassing and tag-teaming by Sarah Welch, Joshua Jonathan, and Kautilya3, my suggestion is to ask all three of them whether they have ever exchanged emails with each other. WP Admins will of course be able to determine whether any email communication between these three was ever initiated through their WP accounts. If these three have never exchanged emails with one another I would assume AGF and put their mutual agreement with each other on multiple articles (and even their defense of each other) down to ideological affinity.Soham321 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC) I just read the diffs given by Js82 and i am convinced that they reveal violations of WP:CANVASS. I think it is now important for Ms Sarah Welch, Joshua Jonathan, and Kautilya3 to disclose to the community whether they have been in email communication with each other for the sake of transparency. Soham321 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan, WP:ASPERSIONS does not apply if the accusation is based on truth as is the case with the multiple violations of WP:CANVASS involving you and Sarah, evidence for which has been presented by Js82 Soham321 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC) I will let an Admin correct what is an obvious misunderstanding and misinterpretation of WP:CANVASS by Joshua Jonathan. Bottomline is that per WP:CANVASS you can't notify only a like minded editor(s) about a pending discussion because that results in a biased consensus. I note Joshua's usage of the term "stubbornness" for me and Js82; i request him not to continue using unpleasant adjectives for me and Js82 because that would violate WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. Soham321 (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC) RegentsPark's lack of understanding of WP policy is shocking for an Admin. Bottomline is that you cannot continue making changes to disputed content once the disputed content has been put up for an RfC. I know this to be a fact because this was what i saw first hand in the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page in which certain disputed content had been put up for an RfC and it was not being allowed to be inserted into the main article while the RfC was ongoing. My warning and request to revert(on her talk page), after Sarah continued making changes to the disputed content after i filed the RfC, was ignored by Sarah and in fact she questioned my knowledge of WP policy. What else am i supposed to do besides file an AE case since this is an Arb protected article? I could have gone to an individual Admin, but i believe nothing prevented me from approaching AE and there was no violation of WP:RULES on my part. Additionally, there was little point in arguing with Sarah when we had a fundamental disagreement: my position was that she was misrepresenting the source material in the edits she was making in her main article. Whether AE should be shut down, as RegentsPark comments, is not relevant to this case; he and other like minded Admin(s) can take this up with ArbCom. I also find it curious that RegentsPark completely disregards the patently obvious violations of WP:CANVASS presented by Js82. Soham321 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC) With respect to Ms Sarah Welch's claim that i was canvassing when i left messages on the talk pages of Mohanbhan and Kenfyre it reveals Sarah's lack of understanding of WP:CANVASS. First, both these editors are currently inactive on WP. Second, i posted on their talk pages before i filed this AE case and before i even filed the RfC. Third, i posted a completely neutral message on their talk page. Soham321 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC) RegentsPark, as long as i am following WP:RULES i cannot be sanctioned. In the the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, an RfC had been initiated about disputed content pertaining to the rape allegation against Trump. Refer to this Guardian article to see what i am talking about. This RfC, initiated just before the US Presidential elections, ensured that this material was not included in the main article. Anyone attempting to include this material in the main article was told that there is an ongoing RfC about this content and so it cannot be included. That RfC was closed long after the US Presidential Elections were over. There were editors who complained that this is gaming, but there was nothing they could do since WP policy with respect to RfC was being followed. This is the RfC i am talking about: Link In the present case, I filed this AE after Sarah Welch continued to making changes to the disputed content in the main article after the RfC had been filed. The sanctity of the RfC would have been severely disrupted (it would have been impossible to comment on the existing content) if Sarah kept making changes to the disputed content while the RfC was ongoing. And note that she refused my request on her talk page to revert her changes to the disputed content made after the RfC had been filed.Soham321 (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC) RegentsPark, One difference between the sati article and the Trump article is that the Trump article was being monitored by several editors and Admins who would swiftly ensure that no violations pertaining to the addition of the disputed content occurred in the main article while the RfC was ongoing. For an example of what I am talking about, read this edit summary. The edit summary in the diff says: "rm Jane Doe content per ArbCom restrictions - Doe content is under RfC and must stay out pending consensus to include, and that reasonably includes any reference to it."Soham321 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Js82 has made an excellent rejoinder to RegentsPark. I allowed Sarah Welch's disputed edit to remain in the article and did not attempt to revert it before starting the RfC. So RegentsPark's concern that gaming can take place through an RfC (to keep out content for the duration of the RfC) is clearly not applicable to me. (Given the Trump article example, i do not believe i could have been sanctioned even if i would have reverted her disputed edit before filing the RfC.) This AE case was filed after Sarah continued making changes to the disputed content in the article after the RfC had been filed and refused to revert these changes after being requested to do so.Soham321 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Another aspect of Ms Sarah Welch's behavior: giving frivolous threats. Sati was never a part of Sikhism and has nothing to do with Sikhs. And yet because Js82 is currently topic banned from Sikhism, she wants him to stop commenting on Sati, frivolously bringing up his topic ban from Sikhism in a dispute involving Sati. Soham321 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
In the event that it is determined that Bishonen is guilty of WP:ADMINABUSE, i would like consideration to be given to whether Bishonen should be desysopped. Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Ms Sarah Welch[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 Ms Sarah Welch[edit]The numbering below refers to the numbering in the complaint. 1. [a] Alleges: "Brings up my 6 month topic ban in the middle of a content dispute". Answer: Not really. My first post explained why I reverted. @Soham321 first reply started with forum-y statements such as "This also deserves inclusion in the main article since Akbar is widely considered by non-Hindutva historians as one of the greatest..." and "Since the Charles Napier quote revealed that the British used extremely harsh force (rightfully so) in stopping the barbaric ..."; it also cast aspersions with "Essentially what we are seeing, thanks to you now, is a politicized...". No WP:RS were provided by @Soham321, nor diffs for the aspersions cast. This is just old behavior of @Soham321. To be constructive, we need to focus on the content in the article, back up comments and suggestions with reliable sources, and discuss improvements without casting aspersions. @Soham321 did the opposite in their first reply. 1. [b] Alleges: "Refuses to accept that this violates WP:STICK." Answer: Does not apply, because calling out a repetitive issue is not WP:Stick. We can’t spend hours afresh with the same thing/behavior, as if the past did not happen. It is also not WP:Stick by the standards @Soham321 has argued, against @Bishonen and other admins, for example here. @Soham321 wrote, "Ponyo, I thought about whether i am guilty of not dropping the stick. In my opinion i would have been guilty of not dropping the stick if i had taken Bishonen to ANI or AN (...)". This suggests @Soham321 seems to interpret the same guideline differently, one way for themselves, and another way for most others editors and admins. [2] As noted by @Joshua Jonathan, and this, the content is supported. We are discussing whether it is due and if it belongs in the article. [3], [4] and [5] Did not change the content in dispute. I expanded the section with additional content for NPOV, within the WP:RFC and wikipedia guidelines. FWIW, @Soham321 rushed six RfCs, which @DIY Editor and others have questioned with, "What exactly is the problem; (...) You are asking for comments on 1 day of editing?" FWIW, @Soham321 has been canvassing in last 24 hours, see this, and this. Then to ignore one’s own behavior, to flip, to cast aspersions on @Joshua Jonathan, @Kautilya3; to allege "canvassing and tag-teaming" when they are just volunteering, is puzzling and unfair. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Joshua Jonathan[edit]Let me try to get this clear: you're asking for AE, because
So, you're seriously requesting AE because you disagree with another editor, while the editor in question is engage the discussion, while you state that you don't want to "engage in an extended dialogue with Sarah prior to filing the RfC" because you are "not prepared to argue with an editor who insists on inserting into an article edits which are not supported by the reference they are using"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Regarding Js82's problems with accurately representing the statements of other editors: see my comments at User talk:RegentsPark#Indian subcontinent, "collaborating" with Ms Sarah Welch for some examples of Js82's 'notorious misrepresentations'. Regarding the accusations of WP:TAGTEAM: this is not a matter of "ideological affinity," but of competence and command of sources. These are serious WP:ASPERSIONS. Unfortunately, Js82 has repeatedly resorted to this kind of behavior, as also mentioned at User talk:RegentsPark#Indian subcontinent, "collaborating" with Ms Sarah Welch. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC) @Js82: I think tht you understand perfectly well that the point here is misrepresentation. Let me correct it to "misrepresenting texts c.q. statements," if that helps you. Regarding WP:CANVASSING, the first line there is:
In the case of the two of you, such broadening is definitely necessary, given your shared stubbornness. See also WP:APPNOTE:
Self-explanatory, I'd say. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Js82[edit]
Js82 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Js82 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Js82 (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Js82 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3[edit]There is no case here. I suggest that it be closed promptly before it wastes more of people's time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]In reply to RegentsPark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (below), to me AE's most frustrating dysfunction is how loathe admins are to insist on clean hands before people post here. If we could magically make admins demand clean hands, and sanction dirty ones right out of the gate, over the first year or two we'd
Eventually, the only cases to be filed here would be brought by reasonably level headed eds who have reached wits' end. A side benefit of no small proportions is that the two bullet points would go a long way to making this place more attractive to a wider diversity of editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes[edit]The complaints on AE may have three different general outcomes:
In the case of outcome #3 the contributor who brought unsubstantiated complaints should be warned do not bring such complaints on AE again. If she/he does it second time, they should be automatically banned from bringing new complaints to AE or commenting on AE as a 3rd party. That would make your life a lot easier. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dumuzid[edit]Just a passerby with no dog in this fight, but I feel compelled to briefly chime in. Given the filer's desysop request, I have to say that he or she gets an A for chutzpah but an F for understanding of Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ivanvector[edit]Haven't been following this, just saw the magic word "desysop" flash across my watchlist. I have to say that, in an AE request in which the committee is openly considering sanctions against a filer for a grossly frivolous filing, for the filer to then turn around and suggest desysopping an administrator in the middle of it, well that's pretty much the ultimate WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by kashmiri[edit]Agreed, it seems to be no case here - the normal DR process has not been followed. However, as someone who at two points tried to work constructively with Ms Sarah Welch on an unrelated article (Maya) and found it impossible due to sheer level of aggression from her side, I sort of understand Soham321's frustration. Her terming any attempts of discussion as "FORUM-y" also sounds very familiar. But that's OT perhaps. — kashmiri TALK 23:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Ms Sarah Welch[edit]
|
Volunteer Marek
[edit]| Closed with no action. User:EtienneDolet has undertaken to voluntarily abstain from participation at WP:AE for six months, except for responding to any filings where he's a named party. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC). | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
Request concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]
VM is pushing a strong anti-Russian/anti-Syrian government POV articles related to the Syrian Civil War, especially at Battle of Aleppo (2012-2016), and other articles as well for some time. His behavior has become particularly disruptive since the capture of Aleppo by the Syrian government in recent days.
Has been steadily reverting once every 24 hours at the 1RR Battle of Aleppo (2012-2016) article for the last week or so (aside from a pause around Christmas). Note that there's a clear consensus at the TP to NOT include the alleged massacres in the lede. The consensus was pretty clear by 19 December (though that didn't stop him). It is now at 14-2; the 2 being himself and My very best wishes.
There are other troubling incidents: when VM got reverted and did not get his way with his version of the lead, he went a couple hours later to the similar Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) article (which is so identical that it probably needs to get merged) and inserted the same material about the alleged civilian massacres to the lead of that article, then doubles down to maintain his insertion.
Meanwhile, when VM did not get the consensus he wanted at the TP, he employed the "same-wine-different-bottle-to-get-around-1RR" tactic. The material is similar to material that VM previously edit-warred over, but since he used up his 1R for the day, he inserts something slightly different, so that the gist is the same but without it being a revert. Examples include:
But when that gets reverted altogether, VM does the following:
Frankly, I've interacted with Volunteer Marek for quite some time now, and I must say that this is the most disruptive I've seen him thus far. The diffs (with the exception of a couple) are all from the past 10 days. I must say, however, that the underlying POV push here is anti-Russian, and whoever is on good terms with Russia (i.e. Assad, Trump, Assange) pays a hefty price.
@Drmies: let me clarify for Fitzcarmalan, if I may. The issue isn’t whether the sources are reliable or not. No one in the talk page is arguing that. The argument on the talk page was that the initial claims made for these massacres were made from unverified and unknown sources, therefore it’s undue. With that said, the consensus was to remove any mention of these allegations from the lead. But VM kept reinserting them into the lead in several different ways and forms. First, it was with the UN High Commissioner’s statement. Gets reverted. Then it was with Merkel’s and Kerry’s statements. Gets reverted. The he adds both the UN High Commissioner's and Merkel's and Kerry's statement. Gets reverted. And finally, it was with Samantha Power’s statement. Then that too gets reverted. And if that wasn't enough, in the meantime Marek went along and added the same contentious material to the similar Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) article not once, but twice. All of this occurred in a little more than 24 hours. And to reiterate, all of these statements from this or that politician were over the same allegations of massacre which consensus considered (by December 19) not worthy enough to be in the lead. This is serious gaming of the 1RR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[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 Volunteer Marek[edit](Note: yes, I know this is long. That's cuz there's a buttload of accusations in this battleground report. So please don't tell me to "keep it under 500 words". You know that can't be done)
Specifically, the edits on the 13th and the 14th, restored a long standing version of the article which was altered by several brand new accounts. In particular, This is NOT a revert of this. The edit on the 15th is a revert but it's part of BRD - especially since the info was removed per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The subsequent edits, in the cases where they are reverts concern different aspects of the article. For example this edit and this edit are about unrelated content. So you can't claim "consensus on talk page" when you're talking about completely different issues. At best, consensus was only for ONE issue, which is not to have the number of killed civilians in the lede. And even that's debatable as several other users supported inclusion of the text. I have no idea what "same-wine-different-bottle-to-get-around-1RR" is suppose to mean. It sounds like EtienneDolet is just offended that I've been able to edit the article at all. This is his usual (and he has done this several times in the past) "oh noes! Volunteer Marek won't let me push my POV in peace! Please ban him!". This is exactly what EtienneDolet does - he and his buddies go in, revert blindly and then when their edits are challenged they run off to drama boards to try and get those who disagree with them banned. EtienneDolet has in fact been warned and threatened with sanctions for exactly this kind of behavior previously. See previous AE reports (I'll dig it out later). Ok, now the "Dishonesty" charge. That's pretty damn serious. So he better have something here or I'm gonna be pissed. And I want a freakin' BOOMERANG.
First note I'm reverting to a version by admin User:Drmies. This is restoring the words "pro-Assad", "catastrophic" and "thousands", all of which, are indeed sourced. I am removing the word "alleged" because "alleged" is not in the source and the user inserted it because he claimed the text wasn't supported by sources (false). There does appear to be a sentence there sourced to Daily Beast (not a reliable source) which got caught up in the restoration of Drmies' version. But this is not fucking dishonesty ... it's just something getting caught up in restoring a version.
Bullshit. This is restoring a previous version. The rationale for removing this "sourced material" was ALREADY PROVIDED here.
Bullshit. There's the freakin' edit summary right there which explains it, which says "restore well sourced material. Apparently a few buses being burned is more important for the lede than a massacre of civilians". And at this point. Let's pause and think about what is going on here. EtienneDolet and a couple of his buddies are busy trying to remove any mention of murdered civilians from the lede of the article. Because, they say, it's "UNDUE". At the same time, he is trying to add information about some buses being freakin' burnt to the lede. That's right. EtienneDolet thinks that a massacre of civilians is "UNDUE" but buses being burned is crucial info for the lede. That kind of mentality speaks for itself. And yes, I did start a talk page discussion about it [59]
The person being dishonest here is ED. ANOTHER USER (see comment right above mine in the diff) used the word "bizarrely". I agreed with them. Because the situation on the talk page was indeed bizarre. I'm not mischaracterizing anything. The same editors who were voting to "merge" this material from the article Aleppo Massacre to Battle of Aleppo where busy trying to REMOVE it from the Battle of Aleppo one. How does that work? How can you "merge" something when you are actually removing it? The answer is, it doesn't. It's just a trick (it's actually a very old old trick on Wikipedia). You say "merge" and then remove it from the target and that way you get to delete it without actually doing AfD. Because you know that if you took the actual article to AfD, the vote would be keep. Man, I'm tired of this crap already. It's obvious EtienneDolet has been working on this for the past few days, probably with some help - especially given Athenean's comments in the RfC where he keeps threatening that he'll go to AE.
Can someone please explain to me what the hell is suppose to be wrong with that comment??? What exactly is the problem? How is this dishonest? Where does EtienneDolet get off accusing me of lying? I am making a relevant goddamn analogy. EtiennDolet is basically just taking every single one of my edits to this article and my comments on the talk page and pretending really really hard that there's something "bad" about them. There's not. He's full of it. He's the one that's lying and being dishonest. His description of every single one of those diffs is a big stinking lie. More quickly - nothing wrong with this comment, if you're doing original research, then yeah you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Nothing wrong with this comment, it address content, specifically sources. Oh, this one's funny - [60]. EtienneDolet quotes me as saying: ""If you're not gonna be willing to follow reliable sources then you're WP:NOTHERE for the purposes of building an encyclopedia. Are you? *cricket noises*"" First, if you refuse to follow reliable sources, then yeah, Wikipedia isn't for you. I guess it's the "cricket noises" that are the issue, huh? That's like, uncivil or something, to say "cricket noises" to someone? Right? Oh but wait, wait, what is this comment responding to? Just look right above it to EtienneDolet's comment: " The underlining question here is most important: were/are there independent observers in Eastern Aleppo? *cricket noises*". And see the part which he left out: "Um, the way it usually works is that after you ask a question you give a chance to respond, THEN you start in with the "cricket noises". Not "howabouthequestioCRICKETNOISES!". And anyway, that's not the question. The question is what reliable sources say" (that's me, in case you're losing track) This edit. EtienneDolet quotes me as saying "go edit some other place on internet." What he leaves out is the first part of that sentence "If you don't care to follow Wikipedia policy on reliable sources". Which is about right. IF you're not gonna follow one of our five pillars then other internet forums are a better match for you. This one I believe was already brought up by ED's tag-team buddy Athenean on User:Drmies talk page right here. Please read Drmies response. This one. EtienneDolet says: "The user never said the "bus burnings" belonged in the lead or that SOHR is reliable." Yeah and I never said that "the user" (that would be Athenean) said that. This was a general comment on the discussion in the section. So it's really ED who is "grossly mischarecterizing" my comments. The closure of the RfC. Yes, a non-admin tried to close the RfC after just a couple of days. I reverted it because it's the holiday season and we should give more time for editors who are busy with holiday stuff. That user then actually said they were fine with the closure being undone. What's more, another, actually uninvolved User:Lemongirl942, also asked the user to hold off on closing RfCs. Then yet another User:Iryna Harpy undid another attempt at closure by another involved user, 92slim (recently blocked for incivility for this comment, also a buddy of ED) So all you got here is just EtienneDolet presenting a bunch of diffs and then appending his own FALSE little description of what they SUPPOSEDLY contain. He's hoping that admins, understandably since it's time consuming, check the actual context and verify all of his claim. This is just the standard WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic of diff-padding. Ok I'm gonna make a break here. Because then we come to the real reason why EtienneDolet is filing this AE report, This diff from Dec 23. First, just to get something straight, as soon as ED asked me to remove his name from the sub-sub-section heading, I was happy to do so [61] (he actually didn't bring it up for awhile) Now, is this a "personal attack" meant to "humiliate" EtienneDolet? No. It's not. But it does make him look really bad, which is why he's pissed enough to file this baseless WP:AE report. But the reason it makes him look bad, is because he behaved badly. Here is the diff again [62]. Read it. Then read the discussion it is referring to here. The situation outlined in those two diffs vividly illustrates just what a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor EtienneDolet is, and how completely unconcerned with Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV and WP:RS he is in pursuit of his BATTLEGROUND. And it does this with his own words. It's not a personal attack because it really just quotes him. To recap. Back in April, on the page Russian military intervention in Syria, EtienneDolet insisted that SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights) was NOT a reliable source. He was adamant about it. He was inflexible about it. Uncompromising. He called it a "total joke". A "tool of Western propaganda", And worse. He wasted a shit load of my time arguing that it wasn't reliable. Even that discussion by itself was really problematic. First, he misrepresented what users at WP:RSN said (this RfC was actually an instance of FORUM shopping but nevermind), until one of them showed up and corrected him. Then he claimed that there were "academic sources" that proved SOHR wasn't reliable (April 1 10:16). When I asked him to provide these "academic sources" he evaded and kept repeating the claim without actually presenting them. Finally, when pressed he linked to... a conspiracy website, and a far-right online fake-"magazine" that publishes anti-Semitic drivel. When the nature of these links was pointed out to him, he kept on freakin' insisting that these were, honest to god, "academic sources". Those are the quotes from him I provided in the diff he brings up (here it is again [63]) Yeah, he looks bad in those, but that's all on him. So why is this relevant to the Battle of Aleppo article? I mean aside from the fact that "Russian military intervention in Syria" and "Battle of Aleppo" are related. Well.... because now EtienneDolet decided he wanted to USE the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights as a source himself. Nothing changed in the meantime. It's still the same outfit. There's been no new info about it. In fact, ED didn't even say he changed his mind. The only difference was that in April, SOHR was being used to source something which was "anti-Assad", but in December he wanted to use it to source something which was "pro-Assad". So all of sudden, this source that he spend pages and pages arguing was unreliable, "a total joke", a "tool of Western propaganda", all of sudden, now, it was perfectly fine to use. Because HEJUSTLIKEDIT. Seriously. Read this discussion first. Look at this edit. Keep in mind that he restored this source several times. Then read my comment (here it is again) and tell me that there isn't something seriously wrong with EtienneDolet's approach to editing Wikipedia. I've been here since 2005. I've seen TONS of TENDENTIOUS editors. But this is pretty much top of the list. Definitely top three. To be so totally brazen in one's disregard for Wikipedia policies and goals in pursuit of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, as EtienneDolet is, even I'm surprised, and I've seen a lot of shenanigans here over the years. And I haven't even brought up the strange phenomenon in the Aleppo RfC, where six editors, none of whom have ever edited the article before, but all of whom are EtienneDolet's buddies from the whole Armenia vs. Turkey and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan topic area/battleground, somehow all showed up to vote in his (well, Athenean's, little difference) RfC in quick succession, all in the same way, with exactly the same "rationale". This is a load of crap and I'm tired. I guess now is when all the grudge holders, haters and opportunistic battleground warriors show up and turn this into a circus... Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Oh yeah, please give me some time to dig out old WP:AE reports, including the failed ones that ED already tried to file against me, and some WP:ANI reports (also failed) in which he was warned about using WP:AE and WP:ANI to pursue WP:BATTLEGROUND fights. They're there if you look and I'll get them soon enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC) @Tiptoe, you're confusing me with someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC) @TTAAC, that info had been in the article for several days and nobody objected. So actually, it was your removal of it which was a violation of discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Re ED's [64] - you know what's "not good-natured conduct"? Showing up to AE with a bullshit report, accusing someone of "dishonesty" then lying your ass off about what the diffs you include as "evidence" contain. THAT IS what is not "conducive to civil conduct". Oh, and messing with the comments made by your intended victim. Which appears to be just an attempt to provoke and humiliate them ("I can edit your comments cuz you're such a bad person!"). The fact that ED immediately edited this page again to include my reverting of his changes to my comment is just more illustration that this is nothing but WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior on their part, combined with a bunch of WP:POINTY attempts to provoke someone so that he can have "diffs" to add to his report. Like I said, I have not seen many users on Wikipedia that were this cynical and backhanded in their editing and pursuit of grudges.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Hey User:Bishonen, think about it this way - at least you're an outside observer and you only have to or choose to observe this. You're not actually being attacked and slandered and have your character and good intentions constantly called into question and have every single person you've ever pissed off on Wikipedia cuz you didn't let them add some nonsense to some article you can't even remember show up and pontificate about all the horrible things you are and have done and muse out loud about what kind of nasty things should be done to you. So as much I sympathize - and I do, really really do - you're being cast in the easier role in this theatrical production.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Tiptoe, you are *still* confusing me with another user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
One user says: "The event isn't notable enough to have its own article, yet alone being called a "massacre", thats just the viewpoint of highly pro-salafi jihadist news outlets such as reuters, al-Jazeera,telegraph or CNN, therefore I believe the very existence of such a separate article calling it a "massacre" is a breach fo wikipedia's NPOV"
Another user says: "Mainstream Media cried foul during the military activities without having any credible source on the ground" and goes on to say that CNN and NYT are just as biased as RT or Sputnik.
Another user complains that "the sources are doing original research" - well, duh, that's what secondary sources do. The user appears to be confused about who gets to do original research (sources) and who does not (us). And then there's the claim by EtienneDolet in that RfC, a rather absurd claim, that the text in the article is "not verifiable". My response was simply to point out that there's thirteen (!) reliable sources which back up the text. What ED simply means though is "I don't believe the sources". But that's his problem. Most of my other comments in that RfC was to the note that the criteria for merging an article are NOT "neutrality" (most of these !votes were just straight up WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT votes) but "notability". I.e. Whether we merge or not depends on whether the event was notable, not whether it is being portrayed neutrally. And seriously I could've criticized these !votes much more. Like the user who complains that the reports of the massacre are based on "biased sources" (i.e. Reuters, CNN, NYT and other "highly pr-salafi jihadist news outlets") and then quotes approvingly the ... Daily Freakin' Mail. The actual question with that RfC is the arrival of a large number of sketchy SPA accounts, as well as a cohesive group of editors who haven't edited Syria related articles at all, but who have all edited, and tag-teamed together in the past on.... Armenia vs. Turkey, and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan related articles. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is EtienneDolet's usual stomping ground. How did this group of editors arrive on this and the Battle of Aleppo RfC, in such quick succession, all voting same way and all offering the same rationale? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@News and Events Guy - I haven't harassed anyone. Get a grip.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC) @ED in regard to this comment - I'm sorry, but who went and made you "the average user", whose concerns are so woefully being neglected by the admins? In fact, the disparity between the comments in AE reports and the admins conclusions (which has ALWAYS existed, from the day this board was started) is simply due to the fact that the people who CHOOSE to comment here are a non-random, self-selected group - those with the biggest axes to grind. They are anything but "average". I'd be more worried if the admins DID pay more attention to the peanut galleries that always pop up at these things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield[edit]Is there any point in this? VM has always been a full-time pov editor, ceaseless and tireless if not always effective. Everyone knows this, countless cases over the years have revealed it, but nothing is done. Only the now greatly increased subject range of articles affected may change that. What started as eastern European post-Cold-War related articles has expanded into any subject that VM believes contains some hidden Russian manipulations or hidden pro-Russia end goal, so it is now just about anything to do with the middle east and anything to do with domestic or foreign policy American politics. VM surely genuinely believes he is trying to save saving the world from a tidal wave of Russian malevolence. However, when VM arrives at an article, everyone just groans, knowing they are going to be faced with his ceaseless persistence that his position must be followed and everyone else is wrong regardless of arguments presented or consensus. The Battle of Aleppo RfC [66] is typical - he just goes on and on and on, his tenacity is awesome. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes[edit]
I think this is clearly a WP:BATTLE request by ED because
Statement by Lipsquid[edit]Here we are again, every AE or ANI about VM has a magically appearing MVBW in support of VM. Amazing coincidence how often these two cross paths. Lipsquid (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Iryna Harpy[edit]Firstly, let me qualify why I am here: I've actually been pinged in by VM both here and in the above case involving INeverCry, and am not one of the 'I hate VM, and Mvbw is a sock/meat/cabal-member/jocks and a pair of pantyhose' groupies who have to get their 2¢ worth in every time a thread is opened involving VM anywhere on wp. Currently, the latest infection being spread is the significance of EEML. It's become so ludicrous that Tiptoethrutheminefield has apparently already written his own op-ed/WP:OR history of Wikipedia in which grubbing through the mud is justified because he, himself, is not one of the harshest and hard headed editors around (erhem!... and please read through the entire thread on Thucydides411's talk page as it's good for a depressing laff). As an aside, I've worked with Tiptoethrutheminefield collaboratively despite what other editors may think of him, or his editing history. If I were to keep dredging up past indiscretions and editing by the GRUDGE credo, there'd barely be an editor I would trust isn't communicating with other active and blocked editors off-wiki. Why should I? AGF? Pshaw! As you've intimated, Bishonen, the underlying problem is how tedious this board has become. Editors are so consumed by everything other than the calibre of the content, and flexing their Alpha male muscles that no one with a jot of sense would do anything but lurk around the articles (or put 'em their watchlist as I have). In conclusion, I thoroughly endorse your recommendation.
Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]It may be worth noting that both @Volunteer Marek: and @BullRangifer: appear to have flagrantly violated the American Politics discretionary sanctions pertaining to the restoration of contentious material just a few days ago at 2016 United States election interference by Russia: [69], [70], [71], [72].TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by BullRangifer[edit]I got pinged and see that I apparently did violate the sanction. I can assure you that it was an accident and won't occur again. I just dropped by and saw what appeared to be a ridiculous deletion of properly sourced content (which I usually consider to be a form of vandalism), not realizing it was being contested on the talk page. I hadn't checked the history of that content. My bad. Very sorry for any consternation my restoration caused. I now see it was corrected later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]
Even if the filing party was a horrible jerk and/or if VM 100% correct in the content dispute (I have no opinion on either one at this time), nonetheless there is ample evidence of harassing and uncourteous hostility in the diffs listed in the complaint, under the heading "TP disruption (i.e. incivility/trying to get under his opponent’s skin/TP edit-warring)". Yes, I know people speak heatedly all the time but our past failures to demand courtesy and mutual respect do not excuse more of the same. It may be that the filing party also behaved badly, and that's a separate question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Marteau[edit]We have with Marek a demonstrable pattern of tendentious editing and battleground mentality. It was with interest that I noticed him being hauled into Wikicourt yet again and, I could only hope, finally have him be issued yet another sanction to add to his already formidable block log, hopefully this time something with some teeth in it to hopefully, for once, affect a change in his attitude and his toxic behavior. Unfortunately, this does have all the makings of the "circus" Marek predicted, with Bishonen appearing not with his mop but only to take the opportunity to piss and moan about the process itself. I share Lipsquid's exasperation at this behavior, and am unsure why Bishonen chooses to invest his time in a forum he has such evident contempt for. Perhaps an administrator will accept this case and give it the attention it deserves rather than use it as an opportunity to display his overarching wisdom, wit, and taste in apropos sidebar graphics. Marteau (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Govindaharihari[edit]The administrative comments and the lack of any control over this issue is like banning the user. It will only encourage them to continue, his conduct at multiple arbitration controlled articles is beyond belief, his has multiple reverts at multiple arbitration articles - only a 3rr report and this report have stalled him, if not curtailed he will continue and the outcome will be more severe. Ok, why is this being failed to resolve, is it that, anti Russia is a pro USA position and the admins here are mostly from the USA, but we are looking for neutrality preserved. The user is all over the place, angrily revert warring at multiple arbitration controlled articles. I don't see any reason for this enforcement page if it fails to take action in this case. This User Marek is without doubt the primary disruptive antagonist at multiple arbcom controlled and many closely related articles and biographies, WP:BLP a wiki priority that is clearly not being protected - Assange had around 20 same same reverts over a few days without any admin concern or raising of protection. He has allies as have the opposition, although all sides are editing poorly in regards to wp:policy and guidelines, the lack of administration is the real shame here. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Fitzcarmalan[edit]If some of the admins are (clearly) too tired to look into this, then I suggest they officially recuse themselves and spare us the "it's Christmas so let's get along" kind of nonsense before it starts, especially when one of them shows clear resentment toward this board. And Mvbw should, by all means, take those diffs "into context" himself (no one's stopping you), instead of making baseless accusations and wasting people's time. But now is when I address the ones who are willing to take this seriously: This source supposedly backed his edit. And, as you can see, it was clearly misrepresented because nothing in it even suggests that RBSS is accusing Russia of being behind the incident(s). I undid his revision over a week later the moment I noticed it, explaining in my edit summary that not only was this undue, but it also wasn't backed by the source. Hours later he reverts (see here) and adds another "source" (same; doesn't mention RBSS). And after a third round of reverts, I initiated a discussion here (I urge everyone to take a close look) explaining to him how the sources were clearly misrepresented. Then came my latest content-related interaction with him on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16), just a few days ago. I left off at the point where he wrote this. And he shouldn't be surprised when accused of dishonesty, given this edit on the Aleppo article. It appears that his excuse, in case you missed it in his quite lengthy response on this very same thread, is the following:
Upon closer examination, however, you'll notice that it was hardly a justification to remove the material from the article itself. All he said was: I mean... the gaming is quite obvious, really. So VM gets reverted after adding the stuff about massacres. Then repackages it, and inserts it back into the article. Then that gets reverted, he repackages it again and inserts it back into the article. On my count, VM's tactic allowed him to insert the stuff about the massacres at least 3 times within 24 hours in a 1RR article. Never mind the fact that while this was going on, he went along and inserted the contentious material in Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) not once, but twice. This is the epitome of tendentious editing. But more importantly, this is WP:GAME, or to be more specific: WP:SANCTIONGAME. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Darouet[edit]I wanted to stay far away from this, because VM and I never see eye to eye, but sanctioning ED would be an incredible result. @Black Kite, Peacemaker67, Drmies, and Laser brain: ED provided a great deal of evidence, and similar diffs can be found at literally every topic where VM edits, using the same tactics and ideological outlook. Not one of you has seriously responded to the evidence provided, and the assertion that Russian policy is unrelated to EE grossly mischaracterizes the largest EE dynamic, which is tension between Russia, smaller EE nationalities, and the US. The impression that remains, therefore, is that evidence of disruption has no bearing on results here, and complaints against disruption - when Russia is involved - will get you banned. (Note: I'm not arguing that all content VM added was bad: for instance I've appreciated that VM has sought to include information of white phosphorus munitions use in Syria, even if it's possible some text wording should have been altered.) Given total disinterest in the evidence provided, there is zero reason for an editor to believe Arbitration enforcement can prevent disruption. -Darouet (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kashmiri[edit]I crossed paths with VM on a few occasions in the past but it was mostly painless. However, what brought me here today are his edits on Talk:Aleppo massacre. It left bad taste to see how VM cosistently attacked those who !voted in support of the merger, picking up an argument wherever possible. In fact, he was the only one to have challenged those who decided to cast their !votes there, which looked quite intimidating and, who knows, might have prevented others to contribute to the discussion. VM even (wrongly) challenged the very fact that the merger was proposed on that Talk page. (I apologise for not offering diffs at this time but the discussion there is fairly easy to follow - I doubt using diffs would be of much help.) Yes, the topics can be emotionally charged - it was about an alleged mass killing - but letting other editors express their opinion freely, without intimidation, is the least the WP community expects from everyone, that including VM. I am not in support of a ban; a simple warning might hopefully be sufficient. But such editing pattern on the part of VM has to stop at one point. — kashmiri TALK 23:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Xx236[edit]What if VM is a Cassandra? Cassandra was sent to the Elysian Fields after her death, as her soul was judged worthy because of her dedication to the gods and her religious nature during her life. Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]
|