| Closed without prejudice pending resolution of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Race and Intelligence. Can be resubmitted if necessary. Sandstein 19:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Miradre
Topic ban from Race Related articles broadly construed
I came across this discussion on WP:FTN#Race and crime and was horrified to find one the most POV articles I have ever seen. ITs at AFD now. Review of the talk page reveled alot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have checked several thousand edits back and cannot find something that was not Race or Intelligence related. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
@Timotheus Canens, I ask that Miradre also be officially warned of sanctions in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science topic areas. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MiradreStatement by Miradre
My motivation for editing these controversial topicsBecause the topic of biological differences between groups may be automatically automatically unpleasant and thus may be simply rejected because of this, I feel I must add why researchers on this think their research is important and not harmful to society. It will explain my motivation for editing in order to include these views, along opposing ones according to policy. Researchers investing racial differences and arguing that they are biological are often accused of racism and that their research may harm society. In defense, Steven Pinker has stated that it is "a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide." He has responded to this "conventional wisdom" by comparing the history of Marxism, which had the opposite position on genes to that of Nazism:
Jensen and Rushton point out that research has shown that also in a group with a lower average some individuals will be above the average of other groups. They also argue that when society is blamed for disparities in average group achievements that instead result from biological differences, the result is demands for compensation from the less successful group which the more successful group feel is unjustified, causing mutual resentment. [3] Linda Gottfredson similarly argues that denying real biological differences instead cause people to seek something to blame causing hostility between groups. In the US, examples being the views that whites are racist or blacks are lazy. She furthermore argues that "virtually all the victim groups of genocide in the Twentieth Century had relatively high average levels of achievement (e.g., German Jews, educated Cambodians, Russian Kulaks, Armenians in Turkey, Ibos in Nigeria; Gordon, 1980)." [4] Gottfredson has also disputed that a lower achieving group gains from denying or concealing real biological differences. An increasingly complex society built on the assumption than everyone can do equally well means that they who do not have this ability have increasing trouble functioning in most areas of life. They need various forms of special assistance which is not possible as long as the need is denied to exist. [4] [5]
Comments by others about the request concerning MiradreComment by AndyTheGrumpCan I point out that Miradre's comment that "race and crime is not even marked as being under any editing restrictions or active arbitration remedies" is rather disingenuous, given his contributions to an article that expressly refers to a (supposed) "relationship between IQ and crime" as one of the explanations. Indeed, in this diff [19] Miradre explicitly refers to the linkage. I cannot see how he can reasonably claim not to see that this came within the arbitration remidies remit. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Once again, Miradre's use of the Stephen Pinker quote above illustrates his selective POV-pushing attitude to sources. In the previous paragraph of the same article Pinker responds to a question about genetic determinism:
Miradre somehow manages to take this article as indicating Pinker's support for the study of 'racial differences' and crime as a legitimate subject, rather than as a commentary on the degree to which universals within human behaviour are subject to genetic influence. Pinker explicitly states that the Nazis "....were wrong in believing that races and ethnic groups are qualitatively distinct in their biology, that... they differ in morally worthy traits like courage and honesty". Can one assume that Miradre sees crime as other than "morally worthy"? I'd assume so. And yet he ignores Pinker's explicit statements... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: Whether the article necessarily falls under the arb case remit may perhaps be questionable, but the fact that Miradre's edits have expressly concerned a supposed link between 'race' and IQ isn't. He knew full well what he was doing - indeed, he continues to argue the same points in his response here. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Comment by JagielloMiradre uses remarkably elaborate tactics of discussion and editing to protect his/her white-supremacist POV. See the synchronic evolution of race and crime, discussion page, and admin reporting. Miardre resists any inclusion of non-racist (i.e. mainstream science) POV by covert agressive discussion tactics, making concessions to mainstream views only when faced with deletion procedure. Miardre has absolutely no interest for non-racist POV science unless it can be strategically used to protect his/her own POV-pushing. I assumed good faith at the beginning of the discussion but soon found it impossible. Jagiello ( talk) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Comment by BoothelloThis thread needs to be examined by someone who's familiar enough with the source material to gauge whether Miradre's edits have actually violated any policies. I see a lot of indignation that Miradre would dare to include material about such an offensive viewpoint, and very little discussion about whether his edits are actually supported by the sources. I'll go through the diffs one by one:
I notice that Resident Anthropologist has engaged in WP:CANVASSING to attract people likely to agree with him to this AE thread. [20] [21] [22] This is a fairly transparent attempt at using AE to keep information that he finds offensive off of Wikipedia, even though in all three of the diffs provided Miradre's edits are correctly summarizing what the sources say. If the information added by Miradre is supported by the sources used, he is not doing anything wrong by adding it. On the other hand, if Resident Anthropologist succeeds at censoring the viewpoint he doesn't like by means of canvassing and baseless accusations of source misrepresentation, that will be bad for Wikipedia. Boothello ( talk) 05:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Comment by aprockMiradre is a returning user, who's original identity was not found during a
sock puppet investigation last October. He has not responded to requests for information about what previous account(s) he has edited under, Given the disruptive editing behavior detailed then, previous to the prior AE request, and now, it is quite possible that he is a sanctioned user returning to edit in a manner consistent with WP:CPUSH. A concurrent demonstration of his disruptive editing can be found at the AfD for Race and Crime, an article created by a user banned for racist edits, and now championed by Miradre. Another recent example of his disruptive editing can be found on the [ talk page of Race and sports]. Because this is a case of civil pov pushing, simple diffs are unlikely to shed light on the full level of disruption, I strongly urge administrators to review the AfD discussion and the talk page discussion linked to above. Diffs of specific disruptive behavior from last October which match those supplied above can be found on the SPI page. aprock ( talk) 06:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC) note to Sandstein: From R/I Arbitration Remedies: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles. I guess it is an open question as to whether or not Race and crime, (and Race and sports), constitute "closely related articles", but as AndyTheGrump noted above, even Miradre seems to think that they are related in some way. I posit that using J. Philippe Rushton ("a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, most widely known for his work on intelligence and racial differences") as a source may well qualify as "closely related" regardless of article. aprock ( talk) 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC) second note to Sandstein: What you seem to be saying is that what an article should be about determines whether it is "closely related", and not the actual content of the article or edits. In such a sense, if an editor comes into the article Giraffe, and begins adding content related to the race and intelligence debate, then those edits are not covered by AE here. Is that correct? aprock ( talk) 20:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC) brief update: Miradre is now disruptively editing on the WP:FT/N in the discussion regarding a book by Rushton. As usual, no single diff can do justice to the gestalt of WP:CPUSH that is being pursued, so if time permits, I would suggest reading the entire section. (archived version: [23]) If anyone does read the thread, insight into the disruption is best gained by focusing on the interaction between Miradre and the completely uninvolved editor Hrafn. Interactions between Miradre, Manus, Mathsci, and myself may have too much baggage. aprock ( talk) 08:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) response to Tijfo098: While there is certainly a content dispute going on here, it is the behavior of Miradre during the discussion of content which is the problem being discussed here, not the content. Please review the interactions on the fringe theories noticeboard. If you find his behavior during that discussion to be reasonable and constructive, please endorse it as such. aprock ( talk) 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Comment by MathsciMiradre had received a warning about Race and intelligence as a result of a previous enforcement request here. 2over0's warning on 11 March 2010 stated:
It did not as Sandstein claims refer to articles in the category Race and intelligence, but on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. The material added by Miradre in Race and crime in the two sections Trait theories and Biological theories refers to three different books on Race and intelligence for its argument. These books are Race Differences in Intelligence, The Global Bell Curve and Race, Evolution, and Behavior. The topic Race and intelligence, broadly construed, is discussed extensively in those sections. That extensive material on Race and intelligence was added only days after the explicit warning above, so the warning would have been fresh in Miradre's mind. Administrators should look at the terms of 2over0's notification when evaluating this request. Mathsci ( talk) 09:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment One of the most recent users to accuse Maunus of having a POV at variance with wikipedia policies was ComtesseDeMingrelie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet account of a banned user (Polgraf = Satt 2). Mathsci ( talk) 13:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Update Miradre's substantial recent edits to Race, Evolution, and Behavior [24] appear to contravene WP:ARBR&I#Correct use of sources, as his additions appear to be a synthesis of primary sources with no use of secondary sources covering them. On WP:FTN [25] Miradre has suggested that objections to his edits might require discussion at WP:BLPN. Recent secondary sources related to this topic do exist, [26] although they have not been cited in the article and do not support the point of view Miradre has expressed on WP:FTN. Mathsci ( talk) 14:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) User:MaunusMiradre's editing is definitely covered by the R&I provisions. Whether or not the article is in the particular category, Miradre's edits certainly are: As can be seen in edits such as these, where Miradre changes a neutral wording to a positive one regarding J. Phillippe Rushton's r/K selection theory which has been almost unanimously rejected by specialists and which holds that Blacks are more criminal and less intelligent because the ancestral African environement made that the best evolutionary strategy : [27]. And here where he removes material describing one of the main arguments from a psychologist who argues against the validity of Race as a psychological variable: [28]. The R&I provisions of course do not mean that editors are free to push POV's regarding race and intelligence as long as they do so in articles that are not currently in the R & I controversy category. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
@Boothello. You apparently don't know what canvassing means. ResidentAnthropologist was discussing the issue with Andy and Jagiello because of they were both involved in the AFD that sparked this request for enforcement. I am watching Andy's talkpage and expressed my support uninvitedly, whereupon Resident anthropologist gave me a notice that the AE request was live. That is not canvassing. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment by BorisGI find myself in disagreement with many commenters. It appears to me that in all the diffs Miradre has closely followed the source. We can debate how closely, but certainly such borderline cases are not cause for sanction. It seems that the filing party is trying to ban a user because that user is using the source which says things they find outrageous. And many others join in in self-rightous attempt to censor the article. I see no serious violation on the part of Mirarde. At the same time, I find the debate of whether the article is within the scope of DS to be of only academic importance. If the user violated policies, he should be sanctioned, either under AE or not. If he didn't then he walks free. My take anyway. - BorisG ( talk) 23:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Comment by Tijfo098Whether the articles edited fall within the mandate of AE or not, the evidence presented above is quite unconvincing with respect to policy violations. Despite the repeated assertions that the two or three edits somehow are POV or FRINGE, this request seems to be nothing more than another attempt to win a content dispute at AE from the usual suspects. Where is the evidence for instance that "In reality the study is only backed by a small group of psychologists that have an economical interest in Rushton's Pioneer Fund." I'm willing to WP:AGF that this is the case (and perhaps Miadre didn't know it), but just saying it on Wikipedia doesn't make it true. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Miradre
I have not examined the edits in question, but the case defines the topic covered by discretionary sanctions as "articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy". Because Race and crime is not in that category, this makes the request not actionable, unless the article is shown to have been in the category during the time of the allegedly disruptive conduct. Sandstein 05:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Note this edit by Miradre at Race and crime. He is adding a discussion of the views of J. Philippe Rushton, an author whose page is included in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. I don't see Arbcom choosing a narrow scope for WP:ARBR&I if an editor seems to be adding the kind of material covered in other articles in the R&I category. Besides, there could be an argument based on the article content that Race and crime *should* be included in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. See for instance the whole section called 'Trait theories' in the same article. The relationship of Race and crime article to the Race and intelligence topic is further underlined by the 'See also' link connecting the two. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As proposed by Timotheus Canens, I am closing this request pending resolution of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Race and Intelligence. If that request concludes that the edits were within the scope of the remedy, the enforcement request can be resubmitted. Sandstein 19:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) |
| Blocked for 72 hours. Sandstein 20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Ryoung122
In my view, this editor is incorrigible.
Discussion concerning Ryoung122Statement by Ryoung122Comments by others about the request concerning Ryoung122Result concerning Ryoung122
The newest of the diffs you provide is almost exactly three days old. I'm inclined to close this as stale unless someone can provide a compelling argument that a block would be anything other than purely punitive 69 hours after the fact. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
|
| No action taken at the moment. T. Canens ( talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Uruandimi
This report concerns the behavior of Uruandimi (who I think is also Special:Contributions/212.64.94.231 when logged out) at Palestinian refugee. In a nutshell, Uruandimi appears to be an inexperienced editor who does not understand what is required of him with respect to article content edits and talk page use.
Things have gone downhill from there. There were a number of other problematic content edits (e.g. here and here) but the main problem seems to be the non-stop soapboxing and refusal to get the point on the talk page. See
It's concerning that it's also at nl:Overleg:Palestijns vluchtelingenprobleem too. Both Carwil and I have tried to be patient, explain policy (repeatedly), ignore the occasional assumption of bad faith and soapboxing but we aren't really getting anywhere.
The user has not been officially informed about the sanctions by an admin. Carwil and I have informed the user about the sanctions amongst other requirements on the article talk page ( here) and at User talk:Uruandimi. It didn't help.
Official notification of the sanctions, some kind of warning, whatever it takes.
Response to Sandstein. I appreciate that the problem may be too much information but all I can say is that that's one of the main issues that needs to be addressed, Uruandimi filling the talk page up with his own partisan opinions. There isn't a content dispute because there are no sources, nothing, just Uruandimi trying to impose his personal views on Wikipedia. The links to subsections in the article are diffs in the sense that they represent the difference between when a subsection wasn't there and it's current state. Each subsection could be presented as actual diffs with dates and well-explained descriptions but the diffs would contain exactly the same information as the subsections. Each subsection could be further broken down into individual diffs representing each sentence written by Uruandimi in principal and I could provide a date and well-explained description for each one spelling out how it fails to comply with the policies and guidelines of the project. Many of those descriptions would be identical and they would form sets of descriptions that demonstrate a pattern. But what would be the point ? The pattern is far more obvious by simply reading what he has written on the talk page. It can be summarized as an inexperienced editor who doesn't understand what is required of him with respect to article content edits and talk page use in an article covered by the sanctions. I think the problem is obvious if you read what he writes, even from one subsection picked at random. It's possible that he has walked away but at the very least I think he needs official notification of the sanctions and some kind of gentle reminder from someone he might listen to that there are rules and they apply to him. It doesn't seem much to ask. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Response to EdJohnston, yes, Uruandimi is certainly being highly tendentious and is clearly trying to push his personal POV. I could post diffs of some problematic statements he's made e.g. referring to the term "Palestinian" as "an odious national identity." which he had the good sense to reword here although he chose to retain his description of the identity as a "discriminatory, utterly fraudulent denomination" which apparently he would like to "cleanse" from Wikipedia. Then there is this edit where he argues that we are commiting "history fraud and a hideous act of discrimination" by using the term Palestinian refugee in the same way reliable sources use the term. However, I'm not trying to get the guy into trouble for the things he has said or the unsourced content edits he's made. He is welcome to his opinions, I just think it would be better for the project if he stopped putting them on the talk page and making content edits based on them rather than reliable sources, read the policies/guidelines/sanctions and started to comply with them. I'm prepared to start removing his comments from the talk page if he continues this way but I would rather not. It's looking more like he's walked away so perhaps the issue has gone away and no action is necessary anyway...hard to tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning UruandimiStatement by UruandimiThe issue is about including the PLO Covenant, which calls for Israel's destruction, in a new section called "attitudes and policies of the Palestinian Arabs" on this page. By including the text of this government document, I would like to show that (1) the Palestinian Arab community officially nurtures a negative and hostile attitude towards Israel and the Jews; (2) that this attitude has been a matter of Palestinian Arab policy for a long time (the page on Yasser Arafat's predecessor Amin al-Husseini shows that this policy actually dates back to the '20's of last century); and (3) that this attitude and policy possibly caused such large numbers of Palestinian Arabs to become refugees in the first place. However, including the PLO Covenant would 'ruin' the current narrative on the Palestinian refugee page, whose authors seem to assume that Israel and the Jews initiated the expulsion or caused the flight of the Palestinian Arabs from their homes. Among other demands, Sean.hoyland and Carwil told me that for the PLO Covenant to apply to the Palestinian refugees, I must provide a reliable source stating that the Palestinian refugees are actually Palestinian Arabs. The sanction was announced just as I was about to suggest that the burden of proof is on them since in my opinion, the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs are one and the same. If people want to continue to prevent a paragraph on the PLO attitudes and policies from being included on this page, they must quote a reliable source which says (1) that there is a difference between the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs; (2) that the PLO Covenant does not apply to all the Palestinian Arabs; and (3) that the PLO was not recognized by the Arab League (1964) and 100 nations, the United Nations General Assembly (1974), the EU, Israel and the USA (1993) to solely represent all the Palestinian Arabs. With kind regards, -- Uruandimi ( talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning UruandimiI may comment more later, but for now I want to clarify one thing. Uruandimi alleges on this page, "Sean.hoyland and Carwil told me that for the PLO Covenant to apply to the Palestinian refugees, I must provide a reliable source stating that the Palestinian refugees are actually Palestinian Arabs." Sean and my comments are on the record at Talk:Palestinian refugees, but this understanding of our request lacks any basis I can remember. I did say, "If you want to discuss the political views of Palestinian refugees, most of whom cannot take part in PA elections, look for research on the topic, and don't quote documents written decades ago." This was one of many requests for reliable sources relating Palestinian refugees to the material that Uruandimi has posted from the PLO Covenant and Hamas documents. Neither Sean nor I have objected to Palestinian refugees being Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs (the term Uruandimi prefers). Instead, we have insisted that a chain of connection—Palestinian refugees to Palestinians to PLO/Hamas to PLO Charter/Hamas Covenant—is not sufficient to place contentious discussion of the Charter/Covenant on the Palestinian refugees page. At least not without reliable sources connecting Palestinian refugees to the Charter/Covenant.-- Carwil ( talk) 08:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Uruandimi
There is only one actual diff in the evidence section, and I do not see how it reflects more than a content dispute, which AE does not decide. The links to whole discussions are not helpful; evidence should be submitted in the form of dated and well-explained diffs. Without objection, I intend to close this report as not warranting a warning. Sandstein 19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Closing as no action taken at the moment, since the editor reported has not been editing since April 10. If the situation recurs, feel free to re-report. T. Canens ( talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
| Jaakobou warned not to make meritless requests. Sandstein 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Tiamut
All Israel-Arab related articles are under WP:1RR, as noted in the further remedies. Both Tiamut and RolandR are experienced editors with a knowledge of the arbitration and its remedies.
A) A slap on the wrist sanction against Tiamut, and B) A review of possible tag team mentality and consideration to impose a "tag-team" warning and/or ban on the people involved in the recent edit-warring. e.g. two editors who have helped each other break policy in a blatant manner will be placed on a deferred sanction to not repeat such actions for a time period under discretion by reviewers of this submission.
Refuses to accept anyone else's opinion on Talk page. Is editing against consensus.
Discussion concerning TiamutStatement by TiamutComments by others about the request concerning TiamutHmm, it is regrettable that Jaakobou is restoring a half-baked and demonstrably fraudulent filing of a now-blocked sock. Revert 1 was at 07:27, 18 April 2011. What is marked as "Revert 2" above isn't anything of the sort; it is a diff including "Revert 1" + a typo correction. What is marked "Revert 3", then, is actually #2. At it is time-stamped 10:34, 19 April 2011, that is outside of the 24h window. Yes, edit-warring can still be sanctioned even if the edits are not technically in violation of policy or restrictions, but as this case involves a now-exposed mini sockfarm, one of which was apparently the initial creator of the problematic material, this case should be dismissed. Jaakobou should be cautioned against blindly restoring Arbitration filings without first investigating exactly what is being restored, IMO. Tarc ( talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Question: I'm very concerned regarding behavior where multiple editors edit-war and, on the face of it, this seems to be such a case. Am I missing something that it is immediately dismissed and labelled as "frivolous"? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Question 2: Does everyone who post here get threatened for being blocked if the situation reported does not result in a block on someone? Why am I being threatened over a situation where clear edit warring has occurred? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Side note: I've now noticed that the diffs overlap and that Tiamut has indeed made only 2 reverts rather than 3, and that they were made within 26 hours and not 24. I'm not sure this should be considered as good form, esp. considering 4 editors with 5 usernames were edit-warring, but it is not a literal violation of 1RR. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC) + 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Tiamut
|
| Closed without action, but please be more careful. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Jaakobou
Block or topic ban
Jaakobou has not edited the Gaza War page since early May 2009. Shortly after I edit the page the user reverts my edit. WP:IBAN specifies that if editors X and Y have an IBAN in place, editor X may not undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).
Discussion concerning JaakobouStatement by JaakobouI had realised the error a split second after pressing the 'save' button (to fix an issue of deleted content) and immediately clicked the 'stop' button on the browser. I refreshed the history page a number of times and also opened my user contribution page to make sure that the edit did not take place -- or, in the case that it had, in order to revert myself. Both pages showed that the 'stop' has successfully stopped my edit and I had no alternative but to assume I had successfully avoided possible drama. I would have reverted it then had it appeared on my browser and would have reverted it now, but it was already reverted. I have no plans on reverting or creating any IBAN issues regardless if I feel that content has been removed or any other issue. Apologies to everyone involved -- this will NOT happen again. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC) +fix 15:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC) +declaration of intent. 15:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC) + shorter, better 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning JaakobouResult concerning Jaakobou
|
| blocked 48 hours for 1RR |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JonathanGo
Violated the 1RR on Palestinian people
Violated the 1RR on Palestinian nationalism
Block or topic ban
This account was registered in late January, though it only made 2 edits prior to April 19. Since then, the account has almost solely been focused on repeatedly adding unrelated material taken from another article into these two articles. The user has been notified of the 1RR multiple times and continues to repeatedly revert multiple users to attempt to force in this content.
Discussion concerning JonathanGoStatement by JonathanGothis account was active since January and it's not a fake account. was trying to edit 2 aricles about Palestinian issues. the articles are used as a political propaganda withholding much relevant information concerning palestinian history, and on the other hand relying on fictional assumptions and beliefs. about the restrictions. at first I was not aware of these restrictions. the second time I made an edit and when I came beck to the site I didn't see it on the history. so i re edited the article , I didn't revert it. in any case I didn't abused the editing rights. and as you can see I was trying to explain the necessity of the new sections on the conversations. this looks like an organized, method of using the wikipedia as a political propaganda mean and spreading fictional information rather then facts, especially referring to Palestinian nationalism formation date, the editors are trying to promote a fictional theories about ancient as possible, Palestinian nationality establishment .--Jonathango 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC) As you can clearly see. Regarding Palestinian people , I made only 2 reverts on 24 April. The third revert that mr. nableezy regards to, is the same one like 2nd revert, he just copied it twice.I hope it was an unintentional mistake. As I stated, the second revert was made by mistake since I didn't see the edit history when I went beck to the page so I just put it beck again and didn't use the "undo". About Palestinian nationalism – as you may have noticed the reverts took place in different days. As I understand it 1RR rule means that one revert allowed per day. And please correct me if I'm wrong. this looks like an attempt to shut down any opposition view and I hope you are not going to give it a hand.--Jonathango 13:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC) after my above remarks mr. nableezy edited his third time stamp Regarding Palestinian people. you can see it's on 25 of April - and that's a new day. additionally , the first edit that mr. nableezy refers to as an "undo", is in fact not a revert at all but a completely new edit , which is a significant shortening of previews section that I edited as a result of the discussion we had as you can see in this article. the same is applied to the editing were done on Palestinian nationalism. the first edit that mr. Nableezy refers to of 24 April is not an Undo but a new edit , which is a significant shortening of previews section that I edited as a result of the discussion we had as you can see in this article and the second edit was made only at 25 April.--Jonathango 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning JonathanGoI suggest a topic ban or indef block for this WP:SPA. We don't need this approach to I-P topics in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC) If someone wants to read a less firebrand account of this issue, Tom Segev's article in NYT is available. Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC) The fact that JonathanGo edit wars to keep that huge section full of who said what and what date at Palestinian people instead of (say) History of the Palestinian people or more appropriately at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni is tell-tale sign why he is editing here. The section at Palestinian people on al-Husayni, which JonathanGo edit wars to keep intact, is much longer than the one for 1948-1967, and slightly longer than the one called "1967 to the present" [40] (despite the edit summary). Nuthin' much of note happened since the Palestinians were all Nazi collaborators, I guess... Tijfo098 ( talk) 13:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Result concerning JonathanGo
|
| Closed. Paul Bedson warned of ARBPS sanctions Courcelles 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Paul Bedson
Notifications of the provisions of ARBPS, to be logged at that case page, and advice on the appropriate use of reliable sources and maintaining a collaborative and civil attitude.
To provide context that the " Megalithic Yard" is not considered credible by archeologists (and hence is governed by the WP:FRINGE guideline), Dougweller added a quote to Talk:Megalithic Yard citing Archeostatistics: old statistics in ancient contexts (NRJ Fieller Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 1993 42, 279–295): "It is a sad fact that the megalithic yard hypothesis itself is of negligible interest to archaeologists. From what is known of the development and structure of prehistoric societies over the areas and time spans involved in the construction of the circles, the hypothesis that a strict mensuration system, based on a common 'brass-edged whalebone yardstick', was in widespread use is not worth entertaining. It belongs to the semi-mystical fringe of archaeology concerned with ley lines, Atlantis and the like."
Discussion concerning Paul BedsonStatement by Paul BedsonThis seems to be a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revoluiton in Aaiha. It seems based on this spiteful editor trying to promote his own pseudoscience opinions that vertical standing stones in the middle of England were positioned by Glaciers tens of thousands of years ago. It is also an attempt to prevent coverage notable topics that has reduced coverage on Wikipedia on valid metrological and archaeological topics due to people's personal interpretations either not understood, or ignored and prejudiced against to protect personal reputations. If there has been some civility breaches, it is normally to do with wild and crazy POV pushing suggestions like the megalith-building-glaciers and those suggesting the pyramids were surveyed with a desk ruler. This type of behaviour has led to other websites such at The Megalithic Portal, Quantitative Archaeology Wikipedia [56] and Archaeowiki [57] providing far better academic coverage of valid topics way ahead of Wikipedia. Due to certain editors failure to understand the relatively easy and widely covered statistical analysis [58] that has caused the unit in question to reach the mainstream with such an overwhelming number of sources including other archaeological encyclopedias. Barbara Ann Kipfer (2000). Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology. Springer. pp. 344–. ISBN 9780306461583. Retrieved 23 April 2011. If some sources have been debated, this is purely due to the massive and overwhelming number that represent the mainstream opinions on this outrageously uncovered topic. I certainly won't resort to such petty and vengeful action as this editor when he deleted my posts and replaced with barmy glacier theories. I have no interest in covering such madness, or ley lines or atlantis for that matter. So I'll proceed to ignore this. Paul Bedson ❉ talk❉ 12:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I would add that the entire basis for the subject area in question has no evidence whatsoever and is labelled with "Citation needed" on Alexander Thom's page "mainstream science which generally labels it as pseudoscience citation needed." In response to Doug Weller's completely libellous remarks -
If you have archaeological training (and that goes for you too ResidentAnthropologist), shame on you for seeing the evidence [59] and sitting on your hands, or supporting this action. Paul Bedson ❉ talk❉ 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Paul BedsonWelcome to Wikipedia. Tijfo098 ( talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (After reading Talk:Measuring_rod at several edits at Megalithic_Yard) It looks like Paul Bedson is trying to insert some fringe ideas into the articles, as if they were accepted scientific ideas, using outdated sources, refusing to consider more modern sources, and sourcing conclusions to sources that don't make those conclusions. Also, a fair amount of original research. Also, he seems to ignore any source that doesn't agree with his own ideas, and pushes any source that is in agreement with his ideas, independently of how good they are, as Tijfo098 points out above. Also, ending the patience of editors who make good edits and who have to clean up after him. He might cause knowledgeable editors to burn out and abandon topics where their work is necessary. TL;DR: Paul Bedson is fringe POV-pushing. He needs a topic ban from the topic of "measuring-related topics in antiquity", broadly interpreted. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Citing: ''http://www.paygan.com/eden/maps.html''probably does more to hurt you in this forum than anything Doug or I could really add to the this discussion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Paul Bedson
|
| 3 month topic ban under WP:ARBKOS. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Biblbroks
Editor has stated himself that he is aware of the 1RR restriction and of the fact that he is risking a ban for his edits [69], hence no further warning necessary
Topic ban on Kosovo
The lameness of this conflict over interwiki links probably requires some explanation. Biblbroks' edits are motivated by a desire, driven by a pro-Serbian, anti-Kosovo-independence POV, to de-emphasize or hide references to Kosovo as an independent state from the main Kosovo article. The topic was recently split into a main Kosovo article which is nominally about the geographical region, and a Republic of Kosovo article which is about the partly recognised independent state on its territory. Biblbroks is now fighting to hide even the iw-links to all other wikis that haven't followed this model and are still treating both concepts in a single article. There has been an endless deluge of wikilawyering and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stonewalling about this on the talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BiblbroksHow about warning Biblbroks that if he continues to remove interwiki links that he will be banned for one year from editing the Kosovo article? User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Statement by BiblbroksStatement (by) -- biblbroks (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning BiblbroksWhiteWriterI would just love to say that during the wast and highly successful split of the article Kosovo into Republic of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and Kosovo, we all had unwritten administrators understanding that 1RR on Kosovo (and all new-old related articles) was temporarily suspended, until stable versions are created. While this edits regarding interwikis where also question of separation and split, it may be understood that that same understanding is under way for this edit too. Nevertheless, per that, and per situation in question, i would propose just a strong warning, as i don't think that situation is that dire that need topic ban. Actually, i think that situation is quite far from that. -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Biblbroks
|
| Enforcement by indefinite ban of User:Vecrumba is declined. User:The Four Deuces is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to minority peoples of the Soviet Union due to repeated violations of the warning in Section 8 of the decision |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Vecrumba
Also, on Communist terrorism:
3rd place — re: Christians, we have no problem calling a spade a spade, no worries about offending anyone; Christianity is an instrument of death; 2nd place — re: Muslims, we must take care to differentiate the people from the faith, and to differentiate the faith from those extremists who invoke faith in the name of terrorism; we must lastly underscore that the name of a thing is not necessarily the thing itself; 1st place — re: Communists, per Paul Siebert, yourself and others advocating for same, a derisive propagandic term first [implied by chronology mentioned in article] applied by Nazis to demonize the Soviet Union, then in the Cold War era to freedom fighters et al.; the name of the thing applies to (denouncing) a thing which does not itself exist. I don't expect to persuade you or Paul Siebert or other editors of a POV of similar ilk. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, as the proverb goes." [22 April 2011 (UTC)] [76]
This is a very abrasive commentary which I believe does not contribute to the improvement of articles. I recommend therefore an indefinite block of Vercrumba. Reply to Fred Bauder: As I pointed out at Talk:Lia Looveer. Mark Aarons is a well-respected journalist. He has worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and his activism included oppostion to the Vietnam War and encouraging the Australian government to prosecute Nazi war criminals. The fact that his father was a member of the Communist Party of Australia does not mean that we should apply a separate standard to his books published in the mainstream press. TFD ( talk) 03:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Vecrumba I made only two comments to that discussion. One was to ask you to provide a link to the edit you were questioning [80] and the other was to say that your suggestion about changing rs policy would be better discussed at the RS talk page. [81] I neither supported nor opposed the use of Russian media as rs. TFD ( talk) 04:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Reply to Martin As I explained, I hold the professor in high regard and would be happy if you would accept his recommendation for the naming of the article. TFD ( talk) 05:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Reply to Fred Bauder I have raised your objections to these sources at RSN [82] and welcome your commentaries there. TFD ( talk) 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning VecrumbaStatement by VecrumbaWhen one manner of insisting a historical personality is a Nazi fails, advocate for deletion of the article. The article has been a magnet for defamations and deletion threats on the part of editors who would generally not be sympathetic to the Baltic position regarding the Soviet legacy since the article was created. This is not constructive behavior. Apparently we're back to control content by eliminating editors you don't agree with. I should mention that since my return to the topic area I've been assaulted for content I haven't even created yet at Communist terrorism where TFD and another editor have been involved, along with other conflicts there, see discussion thread here. This is just an excuse to escalate the conflict over the portrayal of the Soviet legacy and related on Wikipedia. TFD has also been participating elsewhere in a discussion of whether or not accounts carried in Russian state media calling Latvians "Nazis" are reliable, so I see this as a cynical and overt attempt to remove me from that discussion which I initiated at here, especially considering TFD is advocating for a permanent ban. For the entire discussion thread see here at Talk:Lia Looveer. If anyone is interested, the entire talk page makes for interesting reading. Apparently once individuals are dead editors are free to contend whatever they wish. I still have no idea what has made Looveer such a target for some editors. Ah, and some
WP:ADVOCACY there (talk was quiet at
Talk:Lia Looveer for three months until April of this year and TFD arrived). Here we have
Looveer not fleeing to escape the Soviet invasion, TFD maintains the article can only say "moved". As I recall, Looveer left Estonia on the last boat which left Tallinn before the Soviets retook the city. That qualifies as "flee" in anyone's book. The point is, this is all about content and TFD's personal contentions, not about me. As far as TFD is concerned, it would appear I'm just another roadblock to his editorial pursuits to be eliminated by any means possible.
PЄTЄRS Comments by others about the request concerning VecrumbaYou have got to be kidding. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Some thoughts on Fred's comments: I mostly agree and I very much appreciate the fact that you are considering the broader context here rather than just mindlessly applying misinterpreted policies as happens all too often at AE. Two quick thoughts however:
I see nothing actionable in the posts of Vecrumba. In contrast, TFD seems to post to article talk pages in WP:SOAPy manner, without proposing clear improvements. Perhaps the other editors should just ignore TFD when he does so. Tijfo098 ( talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This edit by Vecrumba is troublesome. It is an accusation of bad faith, based on rather shaky grounds. I'm not aware of any reliable sources for communist genocide either. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The language, "I don't expect to persuade you or Paul Siebert or other editors of a POV of similar ilk. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, as the proverb goes." in this edit is a both an accusation of bad faith and a confession of refusal to engage in necessary dialogue. I suppose there is some meaning to "ilk" but it is fighting words when you use it. Editing in this area requires willingness to engage. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC) @Fred, seems like TFD is ignoring you and is continuing to tar Lia Looveer via guilt by association, this time via her association with the Migrant Advisory Council which also included Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru [86]. There were some 200,000 displaced persons from Europe in Australia after WW2, a small number were Nazi sympathisers and even smaller number had infiltrated the Migrant Advisory Council, but all of that was exposed in the 1980s and was quite an embarrassment to the Liberal Party of Australia which had sponsored this council, I don't think the Liberal Party would have awarded Looveer the Heritage Award in 2002 if there was any hint that she had any kind of issue. -- Martin ( talk) 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This is plain error. It is policy to remove all contributions by socks of banned or blocked editors. It is not always wise or appropriate in particular instances, but that is the general rule. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Vecrumba
User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The attention of User:Vecrumba is directed to Principle 4 in the decision, "Keeping one's cool" User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) User:The Four Deuces is reminded that arbitration enforcement is not a weapon to be used in furtherance of political struggle. Using it in the manner he has is grounds for an indefinite ban from topics related to ethnic resistance to Russian nationalism and Soviet expansionism, a remedy which will be imposed if repeated. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Nothing with respect to User:Pantherskin can be considered here as he was not noticed in. Please do not attempt to broaden an enforcement request beyond its terms. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I think this should probably be closed as request denied with a warning to not abuse the process of arbitration enforcement in the future. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |
| Blocked by Mike Rosoft ( talk · contribs). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Meliniki
Massive edit-warring across several articles, against consensus of several users, trying to replace a linguistic map with a new POV-doctored one:
Parallel, related disruptive behaviour also on Commons (multiple bad-faith deletion nominations, personal attacks [94], [95]
Topic ban
New single-purpose account, no constructive contributions, revert-warring and trolling-only account. Has more or less overtly stated on Commons that they are just out to provoke until they are banned [98]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MelinikiStatement by MelinikiComments by others about the request concerning Meliniki
Result concerning Meliniki
|
| Article placed under 1RR per ARBPIA. No action against ברוקולי. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning ברוקולי
The user has brought been here regarding a number of other ARBPIA AE cases and is obviously aware of the case.
Block
I asked the user to self-revert prior to my coming here, the user declined. The reverted material is obviously in the ARBPIA topic area.
I dont really understand why all these legalisms are necessary. It is painfully obvious the material reverted is covered under the topic area and thus the 1RR. The user is well aware of both the case and the restriction. Either way, the user was informed that the material is indeed covered a number of times, including in your first comment in the result section. The user has still declined to self-revert, instead hiding behind the mantra "I have never been notified". I think a number of questions have to be answered. 1. Can a user be sanctioned, without warning, for a first offense of the 1RR (as the section itself stipulates they can be)? 2. Is a notice on the talk page and/or an edit notice on the article required for an article to be considered to be covered under the 1RR 3. Who may place such notices on the talk page? Uninvolved admins, uninvolved users, anybody? nableezy - 18:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ברוקוליStatement by ברוקוליVery interesting, but with no factual/actual basis. The article in concern is completely not about I/P conflict, and not marked as such. It is about a book that deals with economy and Israel. Defining this article as an I/P conflict article equals to defining all the articles about Israel as such. Broccolo ( talk) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning ברוקולי
I have seen the book, though haven't read it yet. It is certainly not about the conflict. It mentions the conflict (hard to avoid when writing about Israel) but its presence in the book is deliberately marginal. An article, even a comprehensive one, could do without mentioning the conflict (or with mentioning it in passing). But since the book is positive about Israel and its economic development, opponents if Israel will of course condemn it. And that's what happenned here on Wikipedia. They turned this article into the battleground. So now of course it should be under ARBPIA sacntions. But since it was not when Broccolo first edited it, this thread should be closed without any sanction for him. Cheers. - BorisG ( talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Response to EdJohnstonSurely you're not suggesting that Broccolo needs a reminder of his responsibilities in this topic area at the top of every page? Or are you suggesting that an article doesn't fall under 1RR until someone bothers to add the 1RR template? If you make an edit that pertains to the I-P conflict, then clearly that edit falls under ARBPIA sanctions, no matter what page it is made on. To argue otherwise is simply an open invitation to WP:GAMEing and WP:Wikilawyering of the worst kind. Apart from which, you yourself already noted an obvious relationship between the article topic and the I-P conflict. What is the problem with imposing a sanction in these circumstances? Gatoclass ( talk) 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Thankyou for clarifying your position. However, I must point out that whether or not the statement Broccolo erased was "more like an editorial than a review" is irrelevant, because the content erased nonetheless pertained to the conflict. We are not permitted to breach 1RR merely on the basis that our edits might be considered reasonable, who would decide on the yardstick of reasonableness? This is a plain breach of 1RR, which might have been excuseable as a simple error if not for the fact that Broccolo has continued to doggedly insist that he did nothing wrong, which in my opinion is certainly an appropriate cause for sanction. Gatoclass ( talk) 19:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Result concerning ברוקולי
|
![[94]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Greece_linguistic_minorities.svg&diff=53747703&oldid=53747022){kind=link}
![[98]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Greece_linguistic_minorities.svg&diff=next&oldid=53747022){kind=link}