Amruth7676
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 Amruth7676
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Amruth7676 (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 00:16, 18 November 2021 At Maratha-Mysore War (1682) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (all subsequent diffs are this article too) amends the result to the opposite of what the reference (which they removed) says
- 07:18, 28 November 2021 Reverses the result again
- 16:01, 24 December 2021 Reverses the result again
- 08:01, 19 January 2022 Reverses the result again
- 09:33, 28 January 2022 Reverses the result again
- 02:57, 11 February 2022 Reverses the result again
- 16:15, 26 February 2022 Reverses the result again
- 12:48, 8 March 2022 Reverses the result again
- 03:05, 27 March 2022 Reverses the result again
- 07:20, 31 March 2022 Reverses the result again
- 00:29, 1 April 2022 Reverses the result again
- 13:43, 10 April 2022 Reverses the result again
- 08:55, 22 April 2022 Reverses the result again
- 13:34, 25 April 2022 Reverses the result again
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
n/a
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Asked by @RegentsPark: at 12:47, 1 April 2022 to stop edit warring at the article and discuss their proposed change, and informeed by me at 10:08, 22 April 2022 this report would occur if they didn't stop. It didn't, so here we are.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Amruth7676
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 Amruth7676
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Amruth7676
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Apologies, I AE blocked the user for one year from the article before seeing this request. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Don't apologize, you're in the best position to see if a broader sanction is needed, really without other input, it would seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢
Black Future
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 Black Future
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Black Future (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:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Discretionary sanctions motion (2011)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Whitewashing the article on the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera
- 20 April Removing mention of Bandera as Nazi collaborator; says "debated"; the mention is well sourced in the artyicle
- 20 April Idem, "shouldn't be in the intro"
- 20 April Trying to portray the situation as if only one scolar calls Vandera a Nazi collaborator
- 27 April Removal again, no edit summary; this happened after the user read the DS alert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- None
- 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.
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
- Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
- Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
DS alert on 21 April [1]; the user subsequently blanked the talk page [2]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- A user with 1500 edits; probably too many for an indef per WP:NOTTHERE but should be good enough for a topic ban.
- Indeed, instead of responding here the user has chosen to go for the fifth revert [3] and issues me a template warning for suprise! the edit-warring at Stepan Bandera [4].--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Black Future
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 Black Future
Transferred by me from the user's talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Okay first off, let me just emphasize how utterly vindictive this user report is.
- Based on the diffs presented by the user, there is no clear reason to even request moderation since this all could have been settled directly or through consensus building. These are good faith edits that were reverted by edit-warring users who want to WP:OWN the page, from what I can see. That goes against the entire purpose of this site. Also, my edits were in line with the recommended "Be Bold" strategy: I remove, and when contested, try different means to find a better solution. The only person who is holistically enforcing 1 version of the page is Ymblanter.
- Diffs in question:
- Yes, in Diff #1 I removed a descriptor from the intro because it was a highly controversial statement, and that requires appropriate sourcing (see: WP:REDFLAG), or more importantly, neutral balance in presentation so as to not push an angle on readers. Nothing wrong with that, or the other edits associated on 20 April. First, "Mhorg" reverted me, he then reverted me a second time. Then "Ploni" tag teamed in and called me a "Nazi-collaboration apologist" - utterly uncivil, and I did not break any rules or conduct codes in the process.
- I took some time off, came back a week later, and made an edit in line with the reasoning I already presented - bad sourcing and neutrality. That's when Ymblanter imposed this edit war on me. I then engaged him on the talk page here, where he was already arguing with another user who made the exact same edit as me, below another user who was also complaining about the page's lack of neutrality. There is a pattern going on - users edit & complain, "owners" revert, and NPOV templates get deleted as if there is no problem with the page. He was fully aware of the issue on the page before I even showed up.
- Diff #3 he cited as a violation was an entirely different matter. The article has 1 source: a social scientist writing a forward for a newsletter. That's horrible sourcing for something like this, and so, (as mentioned, WP:REDFLAG) "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Instead of removing, I applied attribution - the author's name and full quote. This was immediately reverted (diff). If there are other scholars or authorities out there, add more! But don't delete attribution.
- Diff #4 is a bad faith citation, with a false description: "Removal again, no edit summary" - it was part of a couple edits (diff), which had summaries, which did not remove the content, but moved it to another part of the intro as a good faith compromise. My summary was "moving claim to appropriate section." This is part of consensus building, and if I can't be bold, try different edits or even touch other parts of the article without being reverted, what is going on?
- Ymblanter has engaged in an identical pattern of tendentious editing and warring with users on this very page:
- Not counting the other users involved, Ymblanter alone has shoe-horned this into the intro a number of times that I can see, reverting the intro on multiple users this month: 1 14 April; 2; 3; 4. He also did this exact same thing last year, only he was bent on adding "terrorist" to the intro rather than "nazi": 1 2. 3, 4
- "Topic Ban": Ymblanter first started calling for me to be "banned" on 27 April before he made this report on me here. This is after I first show up on the page. I'm in no way a single-topic editor here, so to kick me off a topic at first sight seems incredibly reactionary give his past history.
- He then called for it again above, then mocked me in the summaries that "once you get TBanned, we will remove the template" an hour later, while trolling the page to include "One user thanks that" in the template comments to gaslight me. Is this not trolling? Come on, guys.
- Regarding Mhorg's statement:
- As mentioned, Mhorg is involved in this edit war, so his inclusion of other articles I've tried to help needs scrutiny. The first diff he provided said I removed mention of a topic, but this is a lie, as the previous sentence already mentioned it. In the second diff, shows me removing something contradicted from the body of the article - a good faith edit that was reverted by GizzyCatBella (surprise). He then cites a bunch of diffs from Azov Battalion where I was trying to fix the article (which to no surprise, is still a contested issue even today), says I ignored an RFC (which I didnt know existed, then engaged in good faith enforcement of it after someone told me). It was all over that talk page and compliant with the rules. This is dog piling with a clear motive.
- Comments:
- Look, I dont think I did anything wrong here, and I'm clearly not the only one editing the page, nor the only one getting tag teamed here. This all could have been handled directly, or on the talk page, but instead I'm being attacked under a clear motive to silence others. "Revert and if they come back, try to get them banned" is not how things should be done.
- If I'm going to be suspended here, fine, but Ymblanter should have the same done to him. BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 01:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- What a joke this site has become. BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 13:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella
Sadly, the behaviour demonstrates that the user is intending to continue reverting repeatedly despite prior warnings given --> [6] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s what I thought..they continue -->[7] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
(Please note that the data they are trying to erase appears to contradict historical facts (🌍 thanks Bishonen that was my ESL talking🙂) their erasure contradicts historical facts - here is some quick news read about the subject Stephan Bandera -->[8]) - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Mhorg
The user appears to be conducting the same actions here:
- Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists: removes parts on the anti-Polish massacres[9]
- Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists: removes the "antisemitism" ideology.[10]
- Ukrainian Insurgent Army: removes parts on the anti-Polish massacres.[11]
- Azov Battalion: removes the definition of "neo-Nazi"[12] ignoring the 2021 RFC.[13] (and again[14] again[15])--Mhorg (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning Black Future
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Before I noticed this report, I was all set to block Black Future for a week for tendentious editing and edit warring at Stepan Bandera and harassment at User talk:Ymblanter (abuse of warning template). I think I'll just go ahead and do that, as a regular admin action. No prejudice to continued discussion of a T-ban or a longer block here, especially in view of Mhorg's diffs. Bishonen | tålk 21:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC).
- Looking at Mhorg's diffs, a topic ban may well be required given the edit warring sans use of the talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be good with an indefinite T-ban from Eastern Europe. Bishonen | tålk 15:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
- Should we just indef? Based on their response to the block there’s clearly going to be no reasoning with them. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is also acceptable to me. Note, we'd have to do the usual little dance to accommodate the red tape of DS, which allow a year's block maximum (why??): either a year-long block per DS followed by an indef as a regular admin action, or simply the whole indef as a regular admin action. I'd prefer the first-mentioned, to show that several admins are behind the block. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC).