Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217) (bot |
GoldenRing (talk | contribs) →NadirAli: close with warning |
||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
==NadirAli== |
==NadirAli== |
||
{{hat|[[User:NadirAli]] is warned not to edit war. If this had been brought in a more timely fashion, sanctions would almost certainly have been the result. As it is, let's not see you back here. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 20:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
Line 183: | Line 184: | ||
***As for the move-warring late last week, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=788022516&diff=prev], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=788182719&diff=prev], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=788191110&diff=prev]) again I'm not a fan of the style. But it takes two editors to make a move war and they were at least involved in the accompanying talk page discussion (the page has been move-protected since). The edit summaries are a bit on the snarky, ABF side, but I'm still not really seeing the case for the requested indef topic ban. I'll leave this open for other admins to have their say, but my instinct is to close it with a strongly-worded warning and keep an eye on the situation. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 10:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
***As for the move-warring late last week, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=788022516&diff=prev], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=788182719&diff=prev], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=788191110&diff=prev]) again I'm not a fan of the style. But it takes two editors to make a move war and they were at least involved in the accompanying talk page discussion (the page has been move-protected since). The edit summaries are a bit on the snarky, ABF side, but I'm still not really seeing the case for the requested indef topic ban. I'll leave this open for other admins to have their say, but my instinct is to close it with a strongly-worded warning and keep an eye on the situation. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 10:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
*I'm also of the view that a lot of this evidence is pretty stale. I'm not sure that edit warring months ago justifies a response now. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 13:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC). |
*I'm also of the view that a lot of this evidence is pretty stale. I'm not sure that edit warring months ago justifies a response now. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 13:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC). |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Snooganssnoogans== |
==Snooganssnoogans== |
Revision as of 20:39, 7 July 2017
Quadrow
Quadrow is admonished for disruptive editing and advised to learn the ropes of Wikipedia - perhaps somewhere less contentious. Next time a topic-ban is likely. GoldenRing (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Quadrow
Please put the article under ECP. There has been a large amount of sockpuppetry for the past seven months.
Sandstein, what do you mean by
Discussion concerning QuadrowStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by QuadrowThere seems to be some issue where consensus is getting misused to mean what people on the left side of the argument thinks without considering the fact there is no consensus because others (many others) don't agree. You can follow a massive dispute about whether Breitbart is 'far-right' or not. There is no consensus on that. There is a consensus that Breitbart is described as far-right and there is also consensus that Breitbart object to this description. There is nothing controversial about that fact and I got involved in the talk page before making edits and I edited along the lines of what the consensus is. This was reverted without a discussion and it was reverted against consensus. This enforcement request is entirely politically motivated and is being misused.--Quadrow (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I hope I have demonstrated good faith and that action doesn't get taken beyond a warning, but my opinion is that the whole page has succumbed to left-wing political bias by the unqualified use of the phrase 'far-right' in the lede and experienced editors are aggressively seeking to keep out balance from the article.--Quadrow (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Quadrow
|
NadirAli
User:NadirAli is warned not to edit war. If this had been brought in a more timely fashion, sanctions would almost certainly have been the result. As it is, let's not see you back here. GoldenRing (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning NadirAli
Since the removal of the topic ban, he has been a habitual edit warrior and engaged in disruptive editing. And now he is page move warring on Iron Age in India[4][5], he even reverted the page move of an admin, despite on going discussion.[6]
Blocked for violating 1RR rule on 9 June on Rape during the Kashmir conflict.[20] Capitals00 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NadirAliStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NadirAliThe IP involved consulted a selective group of editors, which is very suspicious behavior and a form of canvassing. [29] [30] When he couldn't win consensus, he pinged the selective group of users, despite being told by to stop. He was also reverted by another user on the same page [31], until he was reverted by me but continued to edit war and then this report against me was filed. His edit summaries are also suspicious and his comment and attempts to ping there tells a lot [32]. Seeing all that, and his experience in editing, I can almost guarantee he's a banned user.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC) With regards to my topic ban on image uploading, I have also made an effort to remove copyrighted material placed by various users. These actions in addition to many useful uploads and linking from commons (eg. Mythology, Droid (robot) amongst many others) balance out the allegations that I'm a persistent violator of WP:COPYRIGHT, at least in my view [33][34][35]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC) In response to the ancient abrcom case, I don't think it matters much as it was a long time ago. But should it be discussed, the case was filed within minutes of me and a departed user who opened an ANI report against the administrator. [36]. This administrator had a history of selectively blocking users on India-Pakistan disputes, and abusive edit warring, including using his rollback tools to evade the 3RR. This was confirmed by Fowler&fowler on that arbcom and documented at Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar-2 by the very users he previously supported. In that case, the same arbcom de-sysopped the administrator but awkwardly backed him on the India-Pakistan arbcom case, despite that very same reason being the main cause of the case.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC) It's been three years since I returned to Wikipedia and my main intention of returning was fixing up pages that seemed inactive/outdated and creating new articles (i have created around 40 pages and still have more to create.) My recommendation is that the IP range be kept under observation and all it's edits on India-Pakistan pages (including the pages he incited edit wars and canvassed on) be semi-protected as well as the users he openly confessed to being affiliated with be strictly warned.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Also I was honestly unaware that the article was under arbcom sanctions, until I saw the talk page. Ever since my block, I have abandoned that article all together.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC) It also seems I'm going to need to take longer time off Wikipedia as I have more serious commitments in life and cannot afford to be in these messes.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Note to administrators: I have never come into contact with this user before. Based on his above proposals, he seems unfamiliar with my editing history. I seldomly edit pages tagged under the two Wikipeojects he mentioned above. They are not in my areas of interest. Unless of course, they overlap with Pakistan. That is mostly to balance out WP:NPOV and accuracy. Besides that, I do not edit pages under those WikiProjects. They are not typically in my areas of interest. My own editing history proves it's been ages since I edited anything on a major Indian state, city or biography of notable Indians, unless again there are overlaps with Pakistan. The last major Indian article I edited to my memory, tagged exclusively under WP:INDIA was at Border Security Force. That edit was more out of my interest in law enforcement than my interest with India. If I remember correctly, it was spacing out the article, an edit I doubt anyone, even those opposing me would contest or disagree with.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
User:EEMIV is a user who has a history of disruptive editing on science fiction pages. [37] His conduct has been an annoyance to numerous users un-related to me (including numerous edit wars) and long before he encountered me or any of my involvement in his previous disputes. The two examples are just of many [38][39]. This user and I had several disputes on a few science fiction pages. One primary example was on the article about The Force, where he removed two bodies of quotes that I worked hard to add onto the article. He did this more than once, at least twice. Judging that it was not something worth arguing or fighting over (despite them being good quality and relevant to the subject), I let him have his way. Another example was how he reverted me on this article, despite that my edit seems more accurate based on the image and article I linked it to. [40]. Again, I judged that it was not something worth arguing over, so I let it go. But every time that I do revert him or resist his reversions, he automatically accuses me of "ownership". He even sent me a message with the titles containing the words "antagonism and ownership" and cited my 2007 ban. I responded to his accusations word by word in a calm and civilized manner. Another dispute that him and I had on The Force article was a section I created called "Scientific and parascientific perspectives on the Force", using the fifth chapter of the book The Science of Star Wars as my source. Within days, the section was re-worded and revised to the point that not only was information incomplete and lacking, but it was also inconsistent with the source it was citing. After several attempts to fix it, I was only reverted. We argued over this on the talk page as well as his talk page (scroll further below) [41], but he refused to compromise and enjoyed the backing of at least two other users. This is also despite none of them having access to the source, while at the time I had hard copy of The Science of Star Wars. Seeing that the section was completely degraded (especially it's inconsistency with the source it was citing) and his stubbornness to let me fix it and with a 3 to 1 ratio of consensus, I boldly decided the article is better off without that section all together. If it's in that terrible state, it might as well go. I even clarified this in my edit summary [42]. User:EEMIV immediately reverted it within a short time and left this edit summary [43]. But right here on Technology in Star Wars, he takes a complete 180 degree turn, arguing that a statement in the lasers section was inconsistent with the source it was citing and needs to be removed [44]. Note that I did not resist changes to that. I made a few edits to the section and if I remember correctly, I placed a {better source needed} template. But his self-contradictive approach gives me the impression that he is more concerned with his personal liking of content rather than following WP:RS. After onwards, I started getting the impression that he was is lurking about my talk page as well as shadowing my edits. He also appears keen to find common grounds against me. One example was when I had gotten into a short disagreement with another user over the redirect of a mostly empty article I created without consensus and also by the fact that it has plenty of coverage to be added. The user sent me a message on it. At the time, the top of my page contained EEMIV's old message on alleged antagonism and ownership. The opposing user added a second edit in the same message and used those same two words for an edit summary I had put while reverting the redirect. EEMIV almost instantly appeared on that users talk page with this comment, even though he was never involved in that small dispute [45]. I gave him this warning [46]. Even afterwards, I was still under the suspicion that he watches over my talk page. I had noticed that when he would appear on voting/discussion pages that I would receive notifications for, but saw no sign of them his talk page. I can't provide all the diffs for that, but here's one example. I received a notification on December sixth about a discussion and vote over a redirect. I suspected EEMIV would vote there. Despite not having received the same notification on his talk page, he was right there, even before I was [47]. Also on that very same day, I made an edit on Category: Star Wars and within hours he appeared there to revert me, despite never having edited that page ever before. I even mentioned this in my edit summary. [48]. Ever since then, he has left me alone. But his sudden appearance at this case, despite not having interacted with me over a period of months, confirms my suspicions that he still shadows my talk page, waiting for the right time to settle a score with me. Even though I have given up (at least for now) on trying to fix that section on The Force article for months and even despite his self-conviction of my supposed "ownership" practice. To me it looks more like a case of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GRUDGE on his part by posting here, despite never having been involved in any India-Pakistan disputes ever before. His talk page history shows no sign of any such involvement, but plenty of angry responses from users he has aggravated and edit warred on more occasions than I have, but cunningly dodged getting blocked. I could provide plenty of diffs for this, but for now I think i've made my point. I don't see why a future discussion on user conduct should exclude him, nor comments by interested users that he has managed to anger and disrupt.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC) User:Lankiveil, I have posted a couple of responses. Please take them into account for any evaluation. Thank you.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Marvellous Spider-ManNadirAli has been blocked for various reasons in past decade. Editors don't have time to assume good faith with his disruptive edits. I request this editor be indefinitely topic banned from all articles of WP:INDIA and WP:HINDU. Statement by EEMIVMy experience with NadirAli is outside the scope of the arbitration issue at hand. However, the often tendentious and occasionally disruptive editing reported above is consistent with how NadirAli has engaged at times with the Star Wars wikiproject. He has expressed an interest in, and a few times has been responsive to, feedback. However, there's a long streak of WP:IDHT when it comes to content disagreements and interpreting sourcing polices. I'd considered an RfC a few months ago when things were particularly challenging, and I wonder whether a discussion about the editor's behavior in a broader venue, and not limited to this particular corner of the project, would be appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by SagecandorAgree with both GoldenRing and Lankiveil that the evidence presented is a bit stale. Maybe a warning, maybe. But to act at this particular page with this particular process for diff links a month old, seems too much for here. Sagecandor (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by UanfalaI've had a few interactions with NadirAli before, and although he's a well-meaning editor sometimes makes good edits, from what I've seen so far (and I want to stress that this is a small sample of his edits), there's a bit too much of CIR issues for him to be a net positive. For example, when it was briefly pointed out to him that he shouldn't introduce American spelling into Indian articles [49], then instead of getting the point (or following up the link to MOS:ENGVAR), he insisted he was doing the right thing even after the gist of ENGVAR had to be digested for him several times by other editors [50] [51] [52]. In another instance, he removed an authoritatively sourced text from an article [53] because he didn't like a certain word used. He did bring it up on the talk page [54], but when I replied to him explaining he was misunderstanding the meaning of the text [55], he didn't reply and when the text was eventually restored to the article he reverted it [56] missing the fact that his own thread on the talk page had received replies and insisting he should have been pinged [57]. Altogether these aren't major "transgressions", but the topic area is one in which we already have to deal with a high number of incompetent or disruptive newbie editors, and an experienced user adding to this maintenance burden is not helpful. NadirAli can be a good editor if he tries to set aside his national bias, learns to take greater care when editing, makes sure he reads and understands what other editors have written to him on his talk page, and starts being willing to admit that he might occasionally be wrong. – Uanfala 07:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning NadirAli
|
Snooganssnoogans
Satisfactory explanation given. Be careful. There may be a case for WP:ARCA as to whether consensus restrictions should apply to Post 32 politics anymore, but that is beyond the scope of WP:AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Snooganssnoogans
On May 11, an IP editor made an edit which, among other things, changed "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented immigrants"[64] The change was not only limited to visible text but it also modified several references, breaking URLs or falsifying Apparently, the edit went unnoticed until today when I reverted it, clearly specifying in my edit summary what I was reverting.[65] Snooganssnoogans violated at least the consensus required active arbitration remedy by counter-reverting me without obtaining consensus on the talk page, but they have also enabled vandalism. Were they deliberately vandalizing a page? No, but judging by their edit summary
@Sandstein: if I have made a mistake in the request, could you help me fixing it? The talk page says
Discussion concerning SnooganssnoogansStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SnooganssnoogansI apologize for re-introducing errors to titles and urls. The reason why I reverted you was that it appeared that you had simply changed "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants" in visible text, and called usage of the term "undocumented immigrants" vandalism. This was an error by me, as you not only changed "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants" in visible text but also fixed errors that had been introduced to titles and urls. I disagree that you "clearly specified" what you were reverting, you just said "Reverting one ancient vandalism" without explaining what was vandalism about it. When I glanced through the edit differences, it appeared as if you just changed one legitimate term in visible text to a different term. I would never have reverted your edit, had you simply said "reverting edit that introduced errors to urls and titles" or exclusively fixed the errors to titles and urls. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, given that users fairly regularly change the term "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants" in Wikipedia articles because they like one term over the other. I thought you were doing that, and were simply referring to usage of the term "undocumented immigrants" as vandalism. It should be obvious though that there was no malicious intent behind the revert, as what would be the point of ruining urls and titles? Note also that I was the one who added some of these links last summer/fall to the old "Political positions of Donald Trump" article (which this article is an off-shoot from), and of course used the correct titles and urls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Statement by SagecandorAgree with GoldenRing that the explanation by Snooganssnoogans is fine here. Appears to be a case of WP:Assume bad faith on part of filing party DIFF LINK. Rationale for this statement: Similar edit as made by Snooganssnoogans was made by Nomoskedasticity DIFF LINK. Comment about issue on talk page by Icewhiz DIFF LINK. Sagecandor (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Agree with Sandstein that filing party failed to note an actionable Arbitration Committee remedy DIFF LINK. Sagecandor (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000Simple mistake. Move along, nothing to see here. Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Snooganssnoogans
|