TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 412: | Line 412: | ||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Galbraith&diff=1118946980&oldid=1118942787 21:58, 29 October 2022:] Revert 2. |
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Galbraith&diff=1118946980&oldid=1118942787 21:58, 29 October 2022:] Revert 2. |
||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Galbraith&diff=1118953860&oldid=1118952230 23:01, 29 October 2022:] Revert 3. |
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Galbraith&diff=1118953860&oldid=1118952230 23:01, 29 October 2022:] Revert 3. |
||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Galbraith&diff=1118455714&oldid=1094583757 03:09, 27 October 2022] Talk page comments that may run afoul of [[WP:BLP]]. |
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Galbraith&diff=1118455714&oldid=1094583757 03:09, 27 October 2022:] Talk page comments that may run afoul of [[WP:BLP]]. |
||
As explained in greater detail in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=1118958084&oldid=1118840896 my report] at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]], Saucysalsa30 has reverted three times in less than 24 hours to accuse prominent Vermont Democrat [[Peter Galbraith]] (who sought the gubernatorial nomination in 2016) of singlehandedly concocting ({{tq|"<b>his</b> claim of"}}) additional Iraqi chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians shortly following the end of the [[Iran–Iraq War]] (during Galbraith's tenure on the [[United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations]]), but {{tq|"Despite Galbraith's claim, physicians from the United Nations, International Red Cross, and Turkey did not find any evidence of chemically inflicted wounds."}} Saucysalsa30's reverts ''actively remove'' the subject's direct response to this accusation (i.e., {{tq|"To dismiss the eyewitness accounts, however, would require one to believe that 65,000 Kurdish refugees confined to five disparate locations were able to organize a conspiracy to defame Iraq and these refugees were able to keep their conspiracy secret."}}) and incorrectly portray Galbraith as the only source for the chemical attacks reported. |
As explained in greater detail in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=1118958084&oldid=1118840896 my report] at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]], Saucysalsa30 has reverted three times in less than 24 hours to accuse prominent Vermont Democrat [[Peter Galbraith]] (who sought the gubernatorial nomination in 2016) of singlehandedly concocting ({{tq|"<b>his</b> claim of"}}) additional Iraqi chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians shortly following the end of the [[Iran–Iraq War]] (during Galbraith's tenure on the [[United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations]]), but {{tq|"Despite Galbraith's claim, physicians from the United Nations, International Red Cross, and Turkey did not find any evidence of chemically inflicted wounds."}} Saucysalsa30's reverts ''actively remove'' the subject's direct response to this accusation (i.e., {{tq|"To dismiss the eyewitness accounts, however, would require one to believe that 65,000 Kurdish refugees confined to five disparate locations were able to organize a conspiracy to defame Iraq and these refugees were able to keep their conspiracy secret."}}) and incorrectly portray Galbraith as the only source for the chemical attacks reported. |
||
Line 430: | Line 430: | ||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
===Discussion concerning Saucysalsa30=== |
===Discussion concerning Saucysalsa30=== |
||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
Revision as of 01:09, 30 October 2022
Bookku
Topic banned indefinitely from the intersection of Pakistan and Feminism, appealable after six months--RegentsPark (comment) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
Request concerning Bookku
N/A
I have previously worked with User:Bookku over Feminism related articles and was ready to discuss the additions to 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and expected him to assume good faith on my behalf but he made it quite a dispute. Since the start of discussion he continuously blamed me for victim blaming even though I clarified multiple times that I do not deny the happening of incident but there are other things that needs a inclusion for balancing the article and neutrality. He was not ready to accept the inclusion based on WP:BLPPUBLIC and making WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based arguments. He was also not ready to accept the other editor view who came on his notice to some project but held a vague RfC (as called by editors there) where most editors opined the suspects to be Public Figures for the purpose. He still did not accep their views and wilfully brings WP:NBIO to be criteria to include someone's name in the article which is criteria for a person to have separate article and was told about it. Bludgeoning the discussion by bringing irrelevant things to the discussion and creating walls of texts for which a couple of editors requested him to be concise but seems like he always does this as evident from his talkpage discussions. Although he calls himself South Asian gender studies student but his editing is mostly centred around pushing POV against a specific country and sometimes a community. He is even warned for shenanigans for an undue addition and singling out a specific country by User:TrangaBellam. He accepted his POV in his editing in the subject area contrary to Wikipedia is Not Advocacy and WP:NOTFORUM for which he was previously told as well. One more thing which is though a couple of years back happening but since we both were directly involved in a redirect discussion where I was called supporter of Pakistani deep state, promoting Armed Forces' narrative, wisher of soft censors by him. In conclusion his behaviour seems like just lingering on the matter in an attempt to exhaust contributing editors by doing argument for the sake of argument, refusal to accept the other views and hell bent on resisting these changes and inability to understand the situation to follow policies and guidelines. USaamo (t@lk) 14:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon thanks for your mediation offer, you have my full cooperation. Appologies that my response got longer in last discussion but before that I tried to be as concise as possible. He kept on making long replies for which I reluctantly have to reply but still he said to me that I'm not co-operating and his concerns remain unaddressed. In last thread I just combined my responses from above in a single post as I was not in a mood to reply again and again. USaamo (t@lk) 10:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC) @User:Deepfriedokra since @User:Johnuniq himself saying that sources does say it, on Wikipedia content needs to be sourced. I believe its inclusion for reasons I explained here esp 2nd and 3rd point. In brief Police found the said audiotape from victim's associate phone as call recording which is quite likely. The same guy later turned to be the main accused as charged by her. Also audiotapes are not denied by any party and are admitted fact in proceedings since victim charged her associate on its basis and accused himself accepted the tapes reiterating it in his statement that victim wanted to extort money and I disagreed with her so she charged me. Aman.kumar.goel I have abided by my topic ban from articles of wars between India-Pakistan and I haven't even appealed it after two years for which I was eligible after 6 months because I don't want to edit in that area.(16) I edited The Kashmir Files once only thinking it to be a film article and had no further intention of editing it but when I was told by User:EdJohnston that the said page also cover my topic ban, I duly abided by it. You bringing that here seems to settle the left over scores against me like always. While you yourself have been the editor mostly up on nationalistic lines as noted by editors (17, 18) and your recent undue addition of similar pattern to 2022 Pakistan floods reverted by me and subsequent edit warring by relatively new accounts to add it reverted by other editors. (19, 20) Bookku, My body my choice and Mera Jism Meri Marzi was another case of WP:UNDUE from you since MJMM was an Urdu slogan with no history or usage outside Pakistan while Mbmc had a global usage where that was best suited. I explained that on talkpage before removal. And that redirect discussion was not a humorous essay but a serious discussion and there was no joke happening there. USaamo (t@lk) 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
diff
Discussion concerning BookkuStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Bookku
Assuring you all, I am very much here to build encyclopedia constructively. Pl. let me know any other/ more clarification needed. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Bookku (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Own sign is updated with fresh to avoid bloating
Statement by TBWill make a statement in support of a logged warning. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenonI became aware of the dispute over 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and of Bookku on 11 September, when Bookku posted to the DRN talk page asking for mediation; see Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mediation_help_request_@_article_talk_page. The posts of both Bookku and USaamo are too long, didn't read in detail. Bookku was saying that they would be requesting assistance at DRN and at BLPN. I advised Bookku against forum shopping and said to file in one place. Bookku replied and said they would also need help from other pages. It appears that Bookku is running around in a panic and not helping things. Both Bookku and USaamo need to be civil and concise. I haven't researched the details of the article dispute. If there is a content dispute, I am willing to try to mediate, but will impose word limits and other restrictions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC) ClarificationThis may be a restatement of the obvious, but if a topic ban is imposed, I will not be mediating a dispute over an area where the subject is not permitted to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by Aman.kumar.goel@Deepfriedokra and Johnuniq USaamo remains topic banned from conflicts related to India and Pakistan,[1] and has violated that topic ban as recently as May 2022.[2] USaamo treated allegations as facts on this diff and wrote it in wikivoice. That was a BLP violation. On talk page, USaamo tells Bookku to " Topic ban of USaamo should be extended to cover whole ARBIPA. Bookku is not understanding about the nature of their POV pushing. He has been already warned over WP:UNDUE, NotAForum, bludgeoning in the recent months. However, the activity of Bookku on Public Space,[6] and 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault[7][8] shows he has ignored these warnings and above message confirms great chances of similar disruption. Bookku should be topic banned as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Replies from both editors, Bookku and USaamo, to my above comment reinforces my view that both of them need a topic ban to cover whole WP:ARBIPA. They simply don't see what is wrong with their own editing. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Bookku
|
USaamo
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning USaamo
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBIPA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- "Topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan".[9]
- 30 September: Violates the topic ban by removing content about "
sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971
", the same page (Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020 for topic ban violation.[10] - 6 October: Same as above.
Apart from 2 of these diffs, he has also violated his topic ban on August 2020,[11] and also on May 2022.[12] Both times he was clarified that the topic ban is broadly construed.
I hadn't reported either violation, only asked him to back off, but both times he was not understanding how he is violating the topic ban.
When he violated it last week, I reported at User talk:EdJohnston#Continued topic ban violation by USaamo, where he again failed to accept the topic ban violation. WP:IDHT again.
Few weeks ago, I already provided my comment just above at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Aman.kumar.goel that why USaamo needs a broader topic ban himself, given his long-term inability to edit in this area. These recent topic ban violations just prove it further. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Topic ban from "Topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan" in July 2020.[13]
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- See his comments just above at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bookku
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
@RegentsPark: A topic ban violation is a topic ban violation. Why a warning? This is USaamo's 4th topic ban violation since he has been topic banned. He deliberately violated the topic ban on 6th October even after being told about it. You can take a look at his response here. He is still not accepting his topic ban violation and assuming bad faith with his WP:BATTLEy response. I still recommend extending topic ban or a block for violation at minimum. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Swarm, EdJohnston, and RegentsPark: After "highly" regretting the edit wars here, USaamo has initiated a meaningless edit war on Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault[14][15] to reduce !vote of another editor in the RfC. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Vice regent: With this falsification of evidence, you are complying with a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for which you were already warned by WP:ARBCOM during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#Vice regent warned.
Contrary to your false claims, this report was filed not after "getting into content disputes" but a number of topic ban violations by USaamo because he is refusing to understand the definition of his topic ban.
The content was added by a sock months ago. Not to mention the sources are weak and even cite unreliable ones. I made many attempts to describe USaamo a few times on his talk page but he was ignoring it.[16] To claim that "Aman.kumar.goel's edits violated policy" and "Usaamo modified the article text to match the sources", is absurd because it was already made clear to USaamo that Pakistan is not a regional power and it has been already extensively discussed but he ignored all inputs and continued to edit war, just like he did on 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and is now edit warring at Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault.
This edit is not a revert, neither this edit is any BLP violation or undue.
If you seriously thought that these diffs are going to divert from USaamo's behavior then your behavior is even more concerning. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [17]
Discussion concerning USaamo
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by USaamo
A useless report and yet another attempt to drag me to AE to frustrate me out. I suggest AE should have a preliminary scrutiny for reports to be formally accepted for proceedings here. It will not only save their time but will also protect users from being dragged into baseless and frivolous reports.
AKG already filed a complaint against me with the enforcing admin EdJohnston who viewed in there that I assume this is a political issue and not military issue
. [18] It should have been over for him after this clarification but he still chooses to edit war with me and went on to revert me and that too with a misleading summary.[19] I didn't want edit war so I haven't reverted him back rather alerted admin [20] and waited for a couple of days for his response and since no further response came so I assumed his previous reply to be his view and went ahead with reverting AKG which he at once reverted back and started edit warring. [21]
The content I removed was totally undue POV pushing based on original research. As to whether topic ban applies to it or not, I sought clarification from admin which he actually did and I very much intend to abide by my topic ban. For previous allegations of violation, I've already replied in an above report to AKG where he showed up and my answer is still the same to that extent. [22]
His another undue addition of similar pattern to 2022 Pakistan floods was also reverted by me and subsequent edit warring by him and other relatively new accounts to add it back was also reverted by other editors. [23] [24]
I requested a warning for these shenanigans by AKG and behaviour suggesting Wikihounding me and up with a battleground mentality but now it seems like he's so desperate to get me topic banned from ARBIPA and has dragged me uselessly to here, so I ask for proper action against him for this behaviour which doesn't belong here. USaamo (t@lk) 17:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Update (Please allow it if it gets past 500 words)
Swarm, first of all edit war is highly regretted. Although there was no 3RR violation but it shouldn't have happened anyway from my side. I straightforwardly accepted it in my unblock request as well if it was a necessary administrative action, what else do you think I would have done. Rest it happened from both sides if you see the edit histories of those articles [25] and as Seraphimblade said in above report that it takes two to make an edit war. Aman.kumar.goel is still edit warring on Pakistan article [26] to remove the sourced content that has been there for years with misleading summaries without any effort to build consensus which has been totally disregarded in this report. I reverted him because there has already been a consensus when dispute arised in 2016. Now if he wants to remove it, onus is on him to build a new consensus on article talk but instead he kept on reverting me and other users and editwarred. In one of his summary he linked a 2018 discussion from another article as overriding consensus but that actually ended with no result and went to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and there too, editors arrived at no new consensus so how is it due to use that discussion to remove sourced content.
Also it's wrong to say there was no effort to build consensus from my side. I was very much on Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault trying to explain my edits and previously too I had 14,000 words long discussions including an RfC for these edits which I mistakenly called formal consensus instead of informal consensus. But it's clearly mistaken to say that I'm trying to present the incident as ploy in Wikivoice while I have said this in talkpage discussions repeatedly that incident did happen and was unfortunate but it's the later developments after coming of audioleaks where both were discussing to use it as a ploy to extort money and it's from here that it took a turn when according to girl the one who was her saviour in the incident was charged by girl herself for blackmailing and the guy also blamed her for same. It's all pretty much sourced and I explained it all in length in previous discussions at talk but that's an edit dispute either require DRN or mediation as offered by User:Robert McClenon in a report above which I welcomed.
EdJohnston there has been no balatant or intentional topic ban violations from my side and I very much intend to abide by my topic ban and not appealing it for almost two and a half years while I was eligible after 6 months shows my resolve to stay away from topic. As to the reported violation on Two-nation theory, I did not revert after I was reverted for second time and in my responses on your talkpage while I explained my side, I kept on saying I'm seeking further clarification and same I said in earlier response in this report as well. Had there been a more explicit response by you earlier, it won't have to come here as I already ceased my editing from article even before this report.
Vanamonde93 while I did assume from EdJohnston's reply but before and after that I still sought clarification if you see my responses at his talkpage and here in this report. I earlier believed that topic of wars between India-Pakistan only include the direct wars(which is quite obvious from wording as the dispute which brought these sanctions was about 1965 war) and really didn't know that it does include all military conflicts between India-Pakistan until it was further elaborated by EdJohnston after Kashmir Files comment. As to Two Nation Theory while there is a mention of war but context was political as RegentsPark said, Hut 8.5 explained and EdJohnston assumed it was political issue. My edits on Kashmir Files and Two Nation Theory were not meant to be disruptive nor do meant intentional or balatant violation so requesting good faith. I believe it's pretty much excessive to get me sanctioned from ARBIPA or from all the pages that give any mention of war when I'm up on abiding the already enforced topic ban, maybe it's better to make its wording more elaborative. USaamo (t@lk) 19:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I really intended no edit war from start but somehow I was dragged into it as some editors with no prior editing history at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault (but significant interaction history with OP[27]) showed up and reverted me one after one but I shouldn't have involved in edit-warring from my side which I highly regret, perhaps I should have been more patient in the process. As to the new edit-warring allegations brought up by Aman.kumar.goel on behalf of one of those editors, I only meant to improve the RfC discussion at talkpage as I filed for RfC close after editors suggested for convenience of the closer and gathered relevant responses as the discussions have been quite long and messy over there per WP:TPG. As to the moving one of comment below I wasn't sure that RfC can be restarted after template was removed month prior and the editor who started it also viewed about summing it up month ago. I even asked about it from other editor whose comment was being moved. USaamo (t@lk) 17:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:, @Swarm:, @RegentsPark:, @Hut 8.5: I showed my resolve to abide by topic ban and regretted edit-warring from my side but still if it's necessary to sanction me and that will make Wikipedia better, fair enough. But there's an important note at the top of this AE which states:
If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.
I don't understand even after highlighting the problematic behaviour of the OP from edit-warring to POV pushing, see VR's statement and report below for further illustration, there's not a single word from Admins, not even mere warning against him. Best of luck for AE's neutrality! USaamo (t@lk) 09:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde
I recommend not expanding this to "pages that mention an India-Pakistan war"; that's a recipe for wikilawyering, and giving opponents a chance to play Gotcha. Is there a reason to prevent Usaamo from editing Henry Kissinger? If Usaamo is skirting the edge of the ban, I recommend broadening to an Indo-Pakistani conflict TBAN, or enforcing the ban with escalating blocks. If there's confusion about the edges of a TBAN, Usaamo ought to be aware that asking is better than assuming the TBAN doesn't apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- KoA, your statement is an egregious misreading of what I've written, as I have nowhere argued that the ban as it exists is unclear, only that the proposed revised scope is. Please re-read what I've written. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by KoA
Vanamonde, I was curious to dig a little after seeing your comments, and your thoughts would directly contradict the topic ban. Here was EdJohnston's close After a discussion at the user's talk page I am proceeding with an indefinite topic ban of USaamo from all wars between India and Pakistan. This ban includes any page anywhere in Wikipedia including talk pages and noticeboards.
[28]
That's not to comment on the merits of this request at all, but I am wary of DS sanctions being undermined by those claiming the DS are being weaponized, playing gotcha, etc. when the broadly construed boundaries of those sanctions were already laid out. This topic ban was pretty clear as day, and broadly construed sanctions like that are done for a reason. If someone is pushing the boundaries, that is on the topic banned person regardless of if they are being WP:HOUNDed or not. KoA (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
I was quoted above (correctly) as having offered to mediate a dispute. I will only mediate any dispute between editors who are free to edit in the area in question. I will instruct the editors not to edit the article in question, but the editors must be in good standing to edit. The editor to whom I made that offer has been topic-banned, so that that offer is moot. I am again willing to try to mediate another dispute, but only if there are no topic-bans. So I was probably pinged above merely as a courtesy note. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Vice_regent
IMO, admins should not levy any sanctions until the behavior of all users in this dispute has been examined. There is a pattern of behavior of Aman.kumar.goel getting into content disputes and then using this board to have their opponents sanctioned. In fact, Black Kite observed this pattern earlier: "I note that the person who is edit-warring with Bringtar is the filer [Aman.kumar.goel], and I also note that the filer has brought multiple previous AE cases to try to remove their ideological opponents from the subject area
". Same thing happened here. Swarm notes below Usaamo edit-warred at Pakistan; so did Aman.kumar.goel ([29][30][31]), and neither of the users made a single comment on the article's talk page while continuing to revert the other. And, at first look, Aman.kumar.goel's edits violated policy because the multiple citations([32][33]) immediately after the changed text (assuming they have been quoted correctly) actually call Pakistan a "regional power". I have no opinion on whether Pakistan is a regional power, but it seems Usaamo modified the article text to match the sources cited, while Aman Kumar Goel did the opposite.VR talk 20:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Consider also the behavior of CapnJackSp; it was their report of edit warring after which Swarm blocked Usaamo. In that report CapnJackSp pointed out that Usaamo reverted 4 times between 15:22 12 Oct and 11:26, 14 Oct (45 hours). Yet CapnJackSp themselves reverted 3 times[34][35][36] between 8:24 12 Oct and 7:37 14 Oct (47 hours). More recently, they added text to the lead[37] that is not just undue but also a possible BLP vio.VR talk 23:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- EdJohnston can you clarify if the topic ban would ban Usaamo from editing all articles related to Pakistan, or only those at the intersection of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan? I ask because I was going through their contributions and find they've created good uncontroversial Pakistan-related content, such as Dosso case, Mera Jism Meri Marzi, Mela Loot Liya etc. Is it possible to carve something that would allow them to continue to be productive on non-controversial articles relating to Pakistan? VR talk 05:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Oriental Aristocrat
AKG's own conduct is questionable and they seem to be a serial disruptor. Let's take for example this revert they made. They call other's edit as disruptive editing without assuming good faith and make a revert that removes large chunks of long-standing text without giving any reason. I see that a WP:BOOMERANG is in offing as they clearly show a behavior of someone who's WP:NOTHERE. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning USaamo
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Aman.kumar.goel: I haven't looked at the earlier diffs (probably stale) but the two diffs you've provided seem like a stretch re the topic ban. Yes, there is a reference to a war but the context is not war related. Regardless, USaamo, you need to be careful because "broadly construed" is a very wide net and is subjective in interpretation. I suggest closing this with a warning to be more careful. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- After looking at the recent edit war at Pakistan I think some sort of sanction is necessary (though neither USaamo nor AKG bothered to take their case to the talk page, from what Vanamonde says above, AKG read the consensus correctly). While an all topics from ARBIPA may be excessive, I'll support it with an "appealable in six months" slapped on. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- The Bangladesh Liberation War is in scope for the topic ban, although the conflict was mainly between Pakistan and what's now Bangladesh the war saw extensive Indian intervention against Pakistan in the closing stages, and judging from our article the Indians basically won the war by overwhelming the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh. The edits in question removed content which mentioned the war in passing and doesn't deal with any aspect of the Indian intervention. Also one of them took place after this edit from the admin who imposed the sanction. I suspect EdJohnston might have missed the fact that the edits related to the Bangladesh Liberation War but USaamo might not have realised that. I suggest a warning to stay away from that topic. Hut 8.5 18:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Seeing that USaamo's edits have been causing concern since at least 2020 I am not optimistic that a reminder or warning will be sufficient. My impression is that USaamo is willing to follow very precise rules. So I would modify my previous topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan by adding a ban from all articles that mention any wars between India and Pakistan. This would exclude him from editing the Two-nation theory. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- In the light of User:Swarm's observation below about USaamo's behavior at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault, I propose that User:USaamo be banned from all topics covered by WP:ARBIPA. As Swarm observes, "There is both history and a clear pattern of current disruption in AE topic areas". USaamo's responses to this AE complaint do not suggest he is mellowing out or becoming more interested in achieving consensus with others. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary, EdJohnston. There is already a standard explained at WP:TBAN that explains how TBANS are apply in situations where an article is not inherently about the subject but covers or mentions the subject in a lesser way. However that is not even the case here, so I'm not sure why we're so hung up on it. The violation is unambiguous; the editor is directly removing a mention of a war fought between India and Pakistan from the article. It is not a case of them simply editing an article that happens to mention such a war. I think most of the time maybe we would factor in that this is a minor violation on a tangentially-related article and cut someone a break, but I reviewed this user's conduct at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault earlier today in response to an AN3 report and I got the impression that they are completely out of control. They were basically trying to forcibly reframe the article to state, as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that the attack was staged by the victim. They edit warred over this in spite of a unanimous and specifically articulated local consensus objecting to the change based on verifiability, synth and RS grounds. They outright falsely claimed that they were enforcing a formal consensus and that they were not to be reverted without consensus, and continued to do so even after a warning. They were also edit warring over at Pakistan quite disruptively as well. I blocked them for disruptive editing before even seeing this report. There is both history and a clear pattern of current disruption in AE topic areas. This should be actioned. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Since I don't find User:USaamo's response above to be convincing, I'm planning to go ahead within 24 hours and widen their topic ban to all of WP:ARBIPA. If admins disagree please let me know. The topic ban would be indefinite but could be appealed in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Dallavid
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Dallavid
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBAA2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 15 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 20 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 19 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 17 October 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 17 October 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 24 March 2021 - Blocked from a user page for
Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy
. - 19 September 2022 - Blocked for 72 hours from the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article for edit warring.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above 15 October 2022
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
On September 14, 2022, Dallavid made this contentious edit to the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article, after which they started a talk page discussion on Talk:September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes#Undue weight. They also made a similar edit to the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis article. Dallavid's edit on the September 2022 clashes article was reverted by another user (Viewsridge) who also replied at the discussion Dallavid had opened. On September 15, while the discussion was still going on the talk page, Dallavid restored their own edit. This time, I undid their edit and requested that they first reach a consensus within the edit summary. I also commented on the discussion to further explain my objection to the edit. Another user then restored Dallavid's edit, but the user Sandstein reverted it with this edit summary: No opinion on the merits, but this version of the lead is confusing and a stylistic catastrophe; see MOS:LEAD
. On September 19, Dallavid restored their edit once more. I asked Dallavid to go back and reach a decision first in accordance with WP:ONUS. On the same day, Dallavid again restored their edit after another user had undone it. On September 20, I restored stable version of the lead and asked the involved editors to reach consensus. Dallavid stopped reinstating their edit for about a month after that. A number of editors improved the lead during that time. On October 17, however, Dallavid abruptly reinstated their edit once more, citing the edit summary no additional discussion in the talk page about the lead's undue weight.
as justification. They also reinstated same edit on the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis. article
Dallavid most likely did not even check edits made to the lead during their absence and simply copy-pasted their edit, because by reinstating their edit, Dallavid also reverted a number of edits from other users without any explanation. For example, their edit also reverted this edit, which was made based on a consensus between several editors.
Dallavid appear to have engaged in edit warring behavior, which continued even after they was blocked and warned for it. This could also be a case of tendentious editing, because Dallavid is not only pushing their POV and not dropping the stick after being opposed by a number of editors, but they continue to do so even after being told that their edit doesn't comply with Wikipedia's MOS. The version of lead Dallavid proposed, which contains things like The Azerbaijani Defence Ministry and Turkish media falsely claimed...
, ...which was disproven by multiple third-party sources
, delivers no new information, but was written in a tendentious way rather than in encyclopedic and neutral tone.
Since I made the report, Dallavid has continued their tendentious editing and edit warring:
- 26 October 2022 - Dallavid partially restores their edit, justifying it with
a very clear consensus
despite the fact that there are three users actively opposing Dallavid's change. - 24 October 2022 - Dallavid restores a category by the name "Azerbaijani war crimes" in an article about Nazi massacre in Poland simply because of the participation of some ethnic Azerbaijanis.
- 26 September 2022 - Although not done after the report, this is a good example Dallavid's tendentious editing: Dallavid removed a whole section from the Ruben Vardanyan (businessman) article, which was supported by reliable sources such as RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, Eurasianet, OCCRP and The Guardian, justifying it with
only "alleged" by one source with no evident reliability, is a BLP violation
. Yet two days later, on 28 September 2022, Dallavid adds contentious material to an article about Nasimi Aghayev, a living person, and supports it with a bunch of Twitter links and a Fox11 source. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Done
Discussion concerning Dallavid
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Dallavid
How is my September 14th edit "contentious"? It was reliably sourced and, as Abrvagl admits, I opened a talk page discussion right afterward to further elaborate and so anyone that wanted to dispute them could discuss it. Abrvagl is incorrect in saying that I reverted Viewsridge, who had claimed there was an issue with my sources in his edit summary but never elaborated what that was, and his removal of my edit also broke several reference tags. Viewsridge was instead reverted by User:Blaylockjam10.[38] Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users,[39][40][41] and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted.[42] When I restored the edits on September 19th, that had been two days after User:Knižnik (himself being reverted by Viewsridge) made a talk page post agreeing[43] that the "both sides accused each other" wording was very undue, given that multiple third-party politicians and organizations confirmed Azerbaijan was the aggressor. These false balance points were further agreed on by User:XTheBedrockX.[44] That is why I restored a version making it clear that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia; there was a clear talk page consensus to do so. But I didn't restore the exact same header, as I had taken care to reword it in order to address Sandstein's stylistic concerns. The user who reverted me was Viewsridge again[45], who bizarrely claimed "Changes opposed by multiple users and discussed against inclusion in the talk page" even though the False balance discussion showed the opposite was true; multiple users opposed the changes Viewsridge was making and he never even replied to them on the talk page. Abrvagl's September 20th edit was not the stable version, and it is very odd for him to have said "lets achieve consensus version at talk fist", because there had already been a talk page consensus established by Knižnik, XTheBedrockX, and myself. Abrvagl and Viewsridge continued to revert other users and asking them to "achieve consensus" while at the same time not participating in the talk page consensus they were reverting. Abrvagl was then reverted by Blaylockjam10 again[46], and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.[47]
As both the Undue weight and False balance discussions show, Abrvagl and Viewsridge never responded to any of the other users explaining to them why the "both sides" wording is undue after September 16th and 17th, respectively, but they both continued to revert other users well after those dates who were simply including what the talk page consensus decided on.
This is clearly just a content dispute, mostly from over a month ago. It's a shame that Abrvagl's first thought was to make an enforcement request instead of joining the talk page discussion he neglected to reply to for over a month. If he had bothered to read the talk page, he would know that the version he claims I proposed was actually a consensus established by multiple other users. --Dallavid (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I trimmed parts of my statement with invisible HTML Comments to meet the 500 word limit. I would like to be given permission to included those parts as well so that I can fully defend myself against the large amount of false accusations Abrvagl made. --Dallavid (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Vanezi Astghik
Dallavid had only made changes that the talk page consensus had already decided on. It is actually Abrvagl who has engaged in edit warring behavior, both with me and with other users on this article. --Vanezi (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Olympian
@User:Vanezi Astghik If you took the time to read the evidence listed by Abrvagl, you'll find that in fact, Dallavid didn't adhere to talk page consensus at all. – Olympian loquere 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Blaylockjam10
The main thing I remember about this is reverting edits that removed text and references that supported that text. It seemed like those edits were done to remove text and references that made Azerbaijan look bad. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by XTheBedrockX
I definitely agreed with Dallavid that it was likely WP:UNDUE to state that both sides blamed each other without mentioning that a number of third party sources also claimed that Azerbaijan was encroaching into Armenia. The non-regional perspectives were important, and also, I think, notable enough to mention in the lead. In any case, though, I don't thank an arbitration request was necessary to resolve this. Contentious reverting without consensus is certainly uncalled for - but questions and debates about WP:NPOV and consensus-building are also a normal part of Wikipedia. I believe Dallavid was acting in WP:GOODFAITH, and I simply don't agree that Dallavid was being anywhere close to disruptive enough to warrant this. User:XTheBedrockX (talk)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Dallavid
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Saucysalsa30
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Saucysalsa30
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 18:37, 29 October 2022: Revert 1.
- 21:58, 29 October 2022: Revert 2.
- 23:01, 29 October 2022: Revert 3.
- 03:09, 27 October 2022: Talk page comments that may run afoul of WP:BLP.
As explained in greater detail in my report at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Saucysalsa30 has reverted three times in less than 24 hours to accuse prominent Vermont Democrat Peter Galbraith (who sought the gubernatorial nomination in 2016) of singlehandedly concocting ("his claim of"
) additional Iraqi chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians shortly following the end of the Iran–Iraq War (during Galbraith's tenure on the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations), but "Despite Galbraith's claim, physicians from the United Nations, International Red Cross, and Turkey did not find any evidence of chemically inflicted wounds."
Saucysalsa30's reverts actively remove the subject's direct response to this accusation (i.e., "To dismiss the eyewitness accounts, however, would require one to believe that 65,000 Kurdish refugees confined to five disparate locations were able to organize a conspiracy to defame Iraq and these refugees were able to keep their conspiracy secret."
) and incorrectly portray Galbraith as the only source for the chemical attacks reported.
Meanwhile, at Talk:Peter Galbraith (albeit prior to being notified of the AP2 sanctions), Saucysalsa30 made additional unsourced claims that Galbraith acted as "a politically-motivated and controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially". Furthermore, Saucysalsa30 incorrectly labelled my own edits to the article as "vandalism" and "self-admitted disruptive editing."
To me, this behavior is shocking and unacceptable in any article that falls within the AP2 topic area. And, while I originally drafted this as an AP2 complaint, I doubt that the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area benefits by having an editor who incorrectly states that only 100 people died in the Halabja massacre (which is not consistent with declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents), or that the Anfal campaign was "made up" by Kanan Makiya (citing a source that directly, repeatedly contradicts this assertion).
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 18:09, 29 November 2020: Blocked 60 hours by Drmies for edit warring following a BOOMERANG at WP:AN3.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above, as well as these diffs: [48], [49].
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Saucysalsa30
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Saucysalsa30
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Saucysalsa30
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.