My very best wishes (talk | contribs) →Statement by My very best wishes: more complete citation, Mhorg said it all |
My very best wishes (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 565: | Line 565: | ||
:@El_C. No, I only said in complaint about me it was just a ''content dispute''. Yes, I think it was. Also, I do not imply anything improper about you. I only think you did not make right decision about Nicoljaus. To the contrary, thank you for explanations! As about Mhorg, he does not know much about Russian politics (although he knows Russian), but I think he is an experienced contributor. First time we interacted in 2019 (#1 in my response). I should say though his comment on your talk page looks strange to me. "I have been forced..." Forced by whom? By me? No. |
:@El_C. No, I only said in complaint about me it was just a ''content dispute''. Yes, I think it was. Also, I do not imply anything improper about you. I only think you did not make right decision about Nicoljaus. To the contrary, thank you for explanations! As about Mhorg, he does not know much about Russian politics (although he knows Russian), but I think he is an experienced contributor. First time we interacted in 2019 (#1 in my response). I should say though his comment on your talk page looks strange to me. "I have been forced..." Forced by whom? By me? No. |
||
:EL_C. It appears that Mhorg is an experienced user based on their editing in Italian WP. I think you underestimate him. I mean he is probably a fan of [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHyxQxjO1beZKiOCicRrmHg VOXKOMM International], apparently a left-wing YouTube channel (he posted their videos in WP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separatist_forces_of_the_war_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=645589996],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separatist_forces_of_the_war_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=644554903] that clearly belong to "links to avoid", VOXKOMM International also features fabricated propaganda/hate videos about Navalny and Markiv, subjects that are edited with passion by Mhorg), then Mhorg see the banner on your talk page and therefore decides to act, exactly as he said himself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1006600942]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:EL_C. It appears that Mhorg is a ''highly'' experienced user based on their editing in Italian WP. After talking with him I posted my conclusion in AE statement. |
|||
===Statement by Mikola22=== |
===Statement by Mikola22=== |
Revision as of 16:21, 20 February 2021
Solavirum
Solavirum has been indefinitely topic banned from the WP:ARBAA2 topic area, broadly construed. El_C 22:48, 14 February 2021 (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 Solavirum
I previously made a discussion about just Solavirum's denial of the Armenian Genocide on the incidents noticeboard. The discussion was archived without any resolution, and practically no input from any administrators. Most of the above diff edits have been made after that discussion. For anyone unfamiliar with the subject, here is a cited explanation on why what Solavirum said is genocide denial:
The "Armenian war crimes" category was created back in December by User:Saotura, who was recently indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for pushing Turkish nationalism and Armenian Genocide denial in articles. Solavirum made a comment in support of the edits that Saotura made: "when did someone's personal views became a basis for block?". 'Personal views' referring to genocide denial. After creating the "Armenian war crimes" category, Saotura began padding it with several articles that had no sources describing them as war crimes, of war crimes being charged, and that couldn't even be described as "warfare between sovereign states". Solavirum has continued to stuff the category with articles that have no citations for being war crimes. In just two months after being created, the Armenian category already has been padded with the third largest amount of articles on Category:War crimes committed by country, behind only United States and Japan. It is quite clear that Solavirum is also WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and engages in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POVPUSH edits that he defended. --Steverci (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC) References
Discussion concerning SolavirumStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SolavirumSteverci seems to failing WP: BATTLEGROUND and can't WP:DROPTHESTICK. A user with past long-running blocks, including a topic ban, he seems to wanting me outside of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic. I can refer to the diffs one by one, but it will take a long time, and we've referred to some of the in the previous ANI report concerning me. I'm really just sick of these baseless reports filed against me by Steverci, the last being not even a month ago. If you have problems with these edits, refer to the talk page, and, let me remind you, without behaving like you did here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by MJLBefore this gets started, I should mention that I was the uninvolved editor who closed the topic/site ban discussion in the aforementioned discussion. As I told Armatura, when that user posted on my talk page, it involved a serious amount of offwiki material as its justification. When Laurel Lodged challenged my closure, I explained to him that the possibility of a topic or site ban getting implemented were still open (if based in onwiki behavoir). Either way, the end result of that thread was no action being taken against Solavirum as mentioned by Steverci. However, it is worth noting that Armatura received a one-way IBAN regarding Solavirum by TonyBallioni. That is not nothing. Of the diffs presented in the opening statement, only numbers four through 8 have yet to be reviewed by the community. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by CuriousGoldenLooking through the given diffs, none of them suggests any serious behavioural issues and seems more like content disputes. And as User:MJL pointed out, 4 of them have already been reviewed and deemed as not serious enough in the previous ANI report. El_C also seems to think that the diffs don't constitute anything worthy of a sanction. The main point of the report has since seems to have turned into Solavirum's edit on the Maraga Massacre article. While I agree that Solavirum's edit was definitely not appropriate, it only takes little WP:AGF to see that the user, as they explained, tried to follow a format they saw in another article about a massacre which happened during the same war (which should also probably be changed to the civilian attack infobox template). Solavirum also seems to regret the edit and has apologized for it in one of their comments. I would say that that the user's single edit on the Maraga Massacre article does not warrant a sanction, especially considering that they understood what was wrong with it when told. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by AntonSamuel@El C: Looking at this report, his recent edit on the Maraga massacre article and back at my own earlier experiences with Solavirum - and taking the ideological differences that there seems to be between us into account - if I would try to provide a fair assessment: I would perhaps recommend that it would be a good idea for Solavirum to cool off and take a break from editing articles/material regarding the Nagorno-Kababakh/Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict for a while, and instead contribute to other topics on Wikipedia in order to gain some more experience regarding other topic matters in order to learn a bit more in general, since it seems he can have a hard time seeing clearly on a more basic level, and has some serious skill-learning to do and understanding to gain when it comes to editing Wikipedia neutrally. I have found that he has the ability to follow somewhat reasonable lines of thinking and has reacted relatively reasonably in the past when we've interacted or come into conflict, so I can still see how he would be able to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in the future. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by BuidheAs for Steverci's points about Armenian Genocide denial, they are spot on (it looks like he found them in the Wikipedia article, recently rewritten and brought to GA status by yours truly). There are multiple points of view as to how the "war crimes" category should be applied but a recent discussion concluded (before the cited edits by Solavirum) that it certainly should be avoided if there is no reliably sourced mention of "war crime" in the article, for basic WP:V reasons. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Jr8825It isn't easy to edit in highly contentious areas, and it takes an especially high degree of competence to contribute neutrally you have strong personal opinions on the topic. It's even more challenging if you're surrounded by a highly partisan media landscape which prints jingoistic propaganda completely free of journalistic integrity or respect for the truth. This is the difficult situation which Azerbaijani editors face in A–A, and while I appreciate the efforts some have made to adhere to NPOV, there comes a point where a complete break from the topic is necessary to protect Wikipedia's (already flawed) articles on the area, and also offers the best opportunity for an editor to grow their experience and editing skills. Solavirum's tendency to push article narratives in favour of Azerbaijan at the expense of Armenia has been been raised repeatedly (I left a diplomatic message on their talk page myself just under a month ago, and they've had plenty of more explicit warnings elsewhere) and I still see a clear pattern of sustained bias. Their latest article, the twice-previously deleted Agdaban massacre illustrates all of the above. It relies on unsubstantiated claims from biased, unreliable media sources and wouldn't have been created by an editor who was capable of carefully weighing the available sources against the basic Wikpedia policies of notability, verifiability and reliable sources. Solavirum's beliefs in this topic area affect their judgement to the extent that they're unable to do this. Solavirum isn't a new user, and the lack of caution and self-awareness about the difficulty of editing neutrally, exemplified by the chain of edits to articles on A–A massacres (one of the most emotive subjects of all), give me little hope that things are likely to change in the short term. Although Solavirum has invested a lot of time and effort in the area, I unfortunately believe these contributions may represent a net negative because of the constant insertion of bias. I'm supportive of a topic ban, with the hope that Solavirum will hone their judgement and skills elsewhere. Jr8825 • Talk 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Solavirum
*Solavirum, probably best not to use AA pages as examples. Especially for placing cats somewhat randomly. For example, I just glanced at a few pages listed on Category:Massacres of women, and guess what? Only two of them didn't belong: Khojaly massacre and your restored Agdaban massacre articles. That's a problem, wouldn't you say? El_C 08:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NomanPK44
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1006403252&oldid=1006403185
Statement by NomanPK44
I removed the edit from here [2] because ThePrint is not a reliable source for Balochistan Liberation Army as it has been speculated that it has been supported by India so only third party sources are considered reliable after that I also added a reliable source on that page for the correct size of them[3]. Now if you look to Smuggling tunnel edit I removed the text because it was added using only INDIAN SOURCES no other media source was present there it clearly looks like to be against Pakistan. Because the section was about India-Pakistan so a third-party source should be reliable in this matter rather than all INDIAN SOURCES. Now if you look into the third one [4] I modified it by linking an closed WP:RFC Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory? while the other discussion here is not closed yet. Now on the last edit [5] another user already told me to go to the talk page and also told me that it is a friendly warning and I already have opened a discussion on the talk page after that [6]NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
The diff that I cite in the sanction notice as an example reads (in full): Undid revision 1004538012 by Georgethedragonslayer (talk) How can an INDIAN WEBSITE become a reliable source? LOL
(diff). Need I really say more? It doesn't matter about NomanPK44's contention in this appeal of there needing to be 3rd-party sources. Placing that argument aside, how difficult would it be to just say that, dispassionately? All that bluster about an INDIAN WEBSITE
in all-caps and the LOL
, that's simply too much for this fraught topic area. And that's just one example among several.
Not sure if other AE admins are with me on this (hopefully!), but I am at the point now of just not wanting to let IPA misconduct be overlooked any longer, for whatever reason, and generally am interested in setting a higher standard in this key topic area with respect to following up trouble with enforcement, firmly so. Noting also my pervious AE action against the appellant a month ago, involving a 2-week partial block from the Insurgency in Balochistan mainspace article due to a 1RR violation (see WP:AEL#India-Pakistan for my log entry). El_C 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's worth noting that I regret being too lenient with disruptive IPA users in the past. An example could be seen here: User_talk:El_C#Casperti. And though that particular ban reinstatement happened after this appellant was sanctioned, it is nonetheless emblematic of this excessive leniency on my part (excessive not just in this topic area, but in general, though that is a tale best told elsewhere). So, the time to pivot is due. El_C 08:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Srijanx22
As the filer of the report which resulted in topic ban, I would recommend declining because NomanPk44 sees nothing wrong with any of his edits and justifies his edits over what "has been speculated" and continued doubling downing with his poor understanding of what is WP:RS. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NomanPK44
Result of the appeal by NomanPK44
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Not seeing any actual argument for overturning here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think NomanPK44 would benefit from using the topic ban as an opportunity to practice identifying reliable sources and resolving disputes in less controversial topic areas. Independent publications are not automatically considered primary or unreliable due to the country they are based in, regardless of whether the topic is related to the country. If a section that cites Indian sources would benefit from available Pakistani sources, the preferred action would be to add those sources rather than to delete the existing Indian sources. Alternatively, one can tag the section for due weight and discuss it on the talk page. The explanation for editing against recent consensus in Special:Diff/1006082702 is unsatisfactory, since it does not admit error. Violating 1RR twice in the topic area in just over a month is another negative indicator. I recommend declining this appeal.
@NomanPK44: I noticed that you violated the topic ban by editing the List of wars involving Pakistan article at Special:Diff/1007087462 on 16 February 2021. Please refrain from making any edits about India-, Pakistan-, or Afghanistan-related topics, broadly construed, until your topic ban is successfully appealed. The standard time frame to wait before appealing an indefinite topic ban is a minimum of 6 months. During this period, please focus on less controversial topics, and review the reliable sources guideline and the guide to dispute resolution. — Newslinger talk 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hard decline. The user appears to genuinely believe that Indian sources are inherently unreliable simply because they're from India, to the extent that they're even basing this appeal on it. I mean they're literally here typing "INDIAN SOURCES" as if it's some type of appalling concept. No way. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Mclarenfan17 (follow-up IP report)
Although some limited communication with Mclarenfan17 did occur at User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement, they continue to sidestep the point (as of mere minutes ago, even) about their usage of multiple accounts to circumvent the sanction. Per Black Kite's suggestion, I have indefinitely blocked the Mclarenfan17 account for socking. Black Kite has also noted that range blocking isn't feasible at this time due to high collateral, so we're down to semiprotections — Robert McClenon has compiled a list of these, which I have since applied. From this point on, protections for affected pages may be requested at WP:RFPP, noting specifically that this is an AE protection request. I can't speak for the other admins who participated, but users are free to ping me to any such requests. El_C 22:55, 18 February 2021 (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 Mclarenfan17
Not applicable
I'm reporting 1.129.108.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per the instructions in the outcome of the recent arbitration request. The IP made a number of edits in the same generale style and purpose of the edits of this user and edited the a group of articles they frequently edited. The IP also strems from the range they generally use.Tvx1 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Update: The user has now directly reverted an edit of mine (in fact a blanket revert of a series of edits I had executed), which is another direct violation of the interaction ban.Tvx1 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC) One remark to Robert McClenon's statement. I think requiring that the person simply limits themself to using the Mclarenfan17 account could also be an option. As far as I can understand it has been truly established that they cannot access that account anymore.Tvx1 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite: what concerns me the most is that the first of the edits you referred to directly reverted a set of edits of mine, which is a clear violation of the interaction ban.Tvx1 02:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mclarenfan17Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mclarenfan17I find Tvx1's claims to be made in bad faith. I am largely retired these days; I have been doing a bit of editing recently because of virus restrictions. When he first posted here, he could not cite a single edit that he believed that I had made. He even posted to this page a few days ago and was told that he needed something more concrete. Furthermore, Tvx1 made this edit at 22:31 GMT. It ignored a consensus which was established on the article talk page. Then at 23:01 GMT, Tvx1 posted here at arbitration enforcement claiming that I have been circumventing the terms of arbitration, even though he had no proof of it. Tvx1 is well aware that there is only a small handful of regular editors to that article. In effect, he has made an edit that ignored a consensus, them came here almost immediately to try and have sanctions imposed against me to shut me out of the editing process, if I was ever involved in it to begin with; I was, but given that he could not point to any edits that I had allegedly made, this has clearly been done in bad faith. He has not made any other contributions to that article except to circumvent a consensus, and his interest in the topic waned when I went into semi-retirement last year. Tvx1 has a history of ignoring consensus and of wikilawyering, both of which were acknowledged in the original arbitration discussion by the arbitration committee. I think he is trying to use arbitration enforcement to shut editors he disagrees with out of the editing process so that he can then ignore a consensus that he personally dislikes. Furthermore, the device that I edit from has a dynamic IP address. While I am aware of this, I do not know how to switch it off. So while I might appear to be hopping between IP addresses, everything that I have done has been done in good faith. I am not trying to circumvent the arbitration ruling and have generally avoided Tvx1 since I became active again. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenonI don't know exactly what is meant by an explicit one-account restriction, but I will either suggest or agree with the idea that unregistered editing should be disallowed in the motorsports area, at least in articles that User:Tvx1 has edited. I have tried in the past to be neutral in this dispute because I was previously trying to act as a neutral mediator, but McLarenfan17 has made it impossible for me to be neutral. As a scientist and a historian of science by education, I apply Occam's Razor, which is to use the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation of this motorsports dispute between two editors is that Prisonermonkeys / Mclarenfan17 is gaming the system by the use of IP addresses. It no longer matters whether they have lost their password a second time, or whether they lost it a first time. They know how to create a third account, and their failure to do so can only be explained by trying to game the system and evade the interaction ban. Their statements that Tvx1 is acting in bad faith are a handwave to distract attention from the way that they are acting in bad faith. The way that they can re-establish good faith would be to create a third account. I think that the human who has been User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Mclarenfan17 should be given a choice of two options. First, create a third account and edit only from it, and never from IP addresses. Second, completely retire from Wikipedia and make no edits in the motorsports area. In either case, motorsports articles should be semi-protected. If the human who has been Mclarenfan17 does not agree to one of the two choices, then either the admins at AE or the ArbCom or the community should ban the human, and treat all such edits as edits by a banned user. That's my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's a Whac-a-mole exercise. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Comment by GoodDayClarification needed. Why is any editor being allowed to edit signed-out, when they have a registered account? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC) His IP range should be blocked, as it appears as though the editor-in-question is giving the figurative 'middle finger' to the project. There comes a point, when the project has to acknowledge when an individual 'may be' -bleeping around- with them. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mclarenfan17
|
Mr DipakSingh
Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 20:54, 14 February 2021 (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 Mr DipakSingh
Discussion concerning Mr DipakSinghStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mr DipakSinghStatement by (username)Result concerning Mr DipakSingh
|
Uhhibi
Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 22:24, 17 February 2021 (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 Uhhibi
Before alert
After alert
Discussion concerning UhhibiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by UhhibiStatement by (username)Result concerning Uhhibi
|
My very best wishes
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 My very best wishes
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- My very best wishes (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
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
The user removed with confidence a huge amount of data of the past of politician Alexei Navalny (approximately 7 years of documented pro-nationalist facts and political views from 2007-2013), mainly the controversial one (together with RS), justifying itself in the many (on purpose?) engulfed wall-text-discussions we had [7][8][9][10][11] mainly in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography",[12] abusing everywhere, in my opinion, of the magic word "Undue weight". Or "his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant",[13] confusing Wikipedia for LinkedIn. I want to specify that I didn't add much to the article, all the controversial parts were already there. I just added tons of RS (from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) and released hundreds of comments in the discussions in a polite manner (I hope) and always open to mediation. I find myself compelled to fill this request because I am exhausted and I think the user is acting disruptively, skillfully walking on the edge of Wiki rules.
- 03:51, 9 February 2021 Removal of controversial Narod movement (2007), accusing weak sources, instead of seeking RS, justifying it with "Undue weight" (RS [14] [15] [16])
- 16:51, 12 February 2021 Not collaborating: He questions Narod's existence and asks for the website url.[17] I gave him the archived website.[18] His answer: "This is internet garbage".
- 21:29, 9 February 2021 Removal of references to Navalny on Anti-Georgian sentiment (RS [19] [20]) for "Undue focus". Read the answer [21] from User: Kober
- 20:40, 15 February 2021 Removal of the Russo-Georgian war and racial slurs, (RS [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]) and the nationalist campaign, (RS [27] [28]) denying that the consensus for that part was reached in TP. [29]
- 00:57, 17 February 2021 Not accepting consensus, changing argument in front of evidence in the summary of the user's statements [30]
- 04:24, 11 February 2021 Deliberate distortion of the RS, to omit that Navalny declared himself a "Nationalist-democrat", as User:RenatUK reported [31]
- 04:27, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on the support to 2013 ethnic riots for "Undue weight" (RS [32] [33])
- 04:06, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on Russian march and nationalist campaign, including RS, for "Undue weight" (RS [34] [35] [36] [37])
- 21:01, 12 February 2021 Removal of controversial NAROD-Navalny's videos and accusing TheGuardian,[38] Telegraph,[39] NYTimes,[40] FinancialTimes,[41] Politico [42] having produced "defamatory content".[43]
- 23:06, 13 February 2021 Removal of any reference to the nationalists, despite what the RS says.[44]
- 18:25, 16 February 2021 Coincidences: supports the innocence of a banned user accused of sockpuppetry who took sides for the removal of contents on Navalny.[45] At the same time he supports the guilt of a user accused of sockpuppetry [46] who was in favor of maintaining the contents. Wasn't it better to avoid taking sides?
- 06:21, 11 February 2021 wikihounding?: reverts my old edits, then self-reverts.[47] (For fun?)
- 17:15, 15 February 2021 wikihounding/defaming?: takes one of my first edits in 2015 and accuses me of sponsoring terrorism because I used two semi-primary sources of small fighting formations in the war in the Donbass to prove their existence.
- 21:49, 15 February 2021 wikihounding?: he reverts my old edits with RS, always on controversial content on Vitalii Markiv's trial for "Undue weight".
- 15:37, 16 February 2021 wikihounding?: he reverts my old edits, always on controversial content: Myrotvorets. Instead of adjusting the contents, he removes everything, even the RS.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Not applicable
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Waiting to receive your reply to be able to exceed 500 words, I am "forced" to answer to the slanderous accusations that the user is addressing me again. In this diff[48] I demonstrate how both MVBW and Nicoljaus targeted my edits from last year, removing them. What I wrote on Nicolajius' tp was a sincere invitation to be left in peace,[49] and now MVBW is even trying to accuse me of provoking them![50] Keep in mind that this is the level of how MVBW distorts reality, which is why I ended up making this AE request: I need someone to tell me if I went crazy all of a sudden, or if there is something wrong with this user's behavior.--Mhorg (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning My very best wishes
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 My very best wishes
- Here, on talk page of El_C, Mhorg tells: El C, I was going to write to u|Ymblanter but then I read the banner (I hope everything is ok), so I thought I would contact you. I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician...I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. "Fighting".
- "Fighting" (actually a content dispute) about what? As responded below, we actually agree with Mhorg about almost everything except only the following point. He wants to include this text about Georgians described as "cockroaches", "rodents", "rotten teeth", etc. That was discussed on talk page. For example, here - Mhorg himself marked bold all words he wants to emphasize on the BLP page. I believe Mhorg wants to make an undue emphasis on the page to disparage the most famous anti-Putin activist.
- There is no consensus to include such specific version by Mhorg. He did started a thread on the talk page, here. (note this edit by another user which makes a part of this thread to appear as something started by me. No, I did not start it). Looking at this thread, does it looks like consensus to support anything that Mhorg suggested? I did start this thread to clarify what consensus could actually emerge. It appears that people are more or less agree on sources, but disagree on text to be included (I think a scholarly source [52] should be used, rather than a bunch of polemic journalistic sources). Mhorg is the only user who advocates his version in this thread, while 3 other users (me including) object. I think this content disagreement could be easily resolved by submitting an RfC.
- Mhorg accuses me that I want to remove all "controversial issues" from the page about Navalnyi. No, I never said or tried this. In fact, the entire BLP page of Navalny is one continuous controversy. The content was there all the time. For example, his "nationalism" is now described in the 2nd paragraph of this section. I did not remove it. There is a single disagreement on the page Navalny that was described above.
- Additional responses (roughly in the same order as in the complaint by Mhorg, but not all points):
- We actually agreed with Mhorg to include the content about "Narod" long before he submitted this AE request, i.e. I self-reverted [53], and Mhorg re-edited this text as he wanted [54]. However, Nicoljaus removed it with a reasonable justification [55]. This is not a disagreement with me.
- Yes, the sources in this diff by Mhorg here if not an outright "internet garbage", but definitely something we do not want to use. Please check these links.
- Anti-Georgian sentiment. Here is discussion [56]. This is a typical content disagreement between another set of users, one that I believe has been already resolved.
- Yes, this is an issue of disagreement (see above)
- "Wikihounding" (Vitalii Markiv and Mitotvorets). Actually, we quickly came to consensus with Mhorg on both pages [57], [58], including full agreement on talk page (here, on the bottom). Why bring this here? Not mentioning that I edited page about Markiv in 2019 [59], and it was actually Mhorg who followed my edits on this page in 2019 [60].
- No one accused Mhorg of sponsoring terrorism. That was my comment, and it was summarized in edit summary. That was not about terrorism at all. Yes, I had a concern here, and asked Mhorg about it [61], but it was more along the lines of "links to avoid" and using unrelibale sources (anonymous YouTube videos) with content about living people in WP.
My conclusion. This AE request is an advanced WP:Battle by user Mhorg where he openly declares a war on users with whom he has content disagreements (me and Nicoljaus, on talk page of El_C, first link in my reply), and then successfully provocs Nicoljaus to make questionable comments, leading to his topic ban. In my opinion, that alone justifies lifting the topic ban for Nicoljaus.
- @El_C. I assume that was his edit which triggered the warning? Perhaps admins know better, but I think his citation of the article from The Guardian was on the subject.
- @El_C. OK, I now see the part of discussion you refer to, but I do not think that comments by Nicoljaus on that talk page deserve a topic ban. In fact, Nicoljaus was the most knowledgeable contributor on the subject during this discussion.
Statement by Nicoljaus
I think it's enough to look at the "Top edited pages" of Mhorg [64] and the VoxKomm main page [65] to see almost a complete intersection by topics. Obviously, the user here is just WP:NOTHERE.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it
-- "almost a complete intersection by topics", as Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella
It looks like AE is being used to win content disputes to me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @MVBW ---> "forced" ---> [66] - It could be the language thing.. They could mean "I had no choice." Possibly, I'm not sure, but I believe that's what they meant. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
The filing editor filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on 10 February, which had to do with a survey that had been disrupted by sockpuppetry. The DRN request listed eight editors, the eight who had responded to the survey, which is more than DRN can normally work with effectively. I recommended that the survey, which was sort of an informal RFC, be converted to a formal RFC, with the assistance of a volunteer. Mhorg then requested to put the DRN on hold, which was done. Mhorg then said that there was a complex mix of content and conduct issues, and that they wished to withdraw the DRN in order to file a conduct report, which is this thread. They have now asked me a question on my talk page about the word limit. I can see that they are using a lot of words. I haven't researched the details of the conduct dispute, and have nothing more to add at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Bob not snob
Over in the Western side of Eastern Europe, I encountered My Very Best Wishes in this recent edit in which he restored information sourced to Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza. This is an "anti-socialist" webpage or blog, that is right-wing extremist, and is not a reliable source for anything. The extremist nature is quite obvious, on the archived source itself there is an image of Donald Tusk with a German and Polish flag, with text expressing opposition to the election of a "German candidate" to the Polish presidency. The about page describes how this website was initially the website of the Masovian district of the Real Politics Union, a small extremist political party. The site itself is mainly the work of one individual, Krzysztof Pawlak.
When I pointed this out to My very best wishes, he first reverted my post and then later posted on my talk page: "Unfortunately, I do not know Polish, and I am not sufficiently familiar with Polish sources and politics to respond to your comment".
Moments before placing this extremist source, he removed content from an academic source.
If My Very Best Wishes is unable to assess Polish sources, why is he restoring content removed with the edit summary of "This is not a reliable source"? Bob not snob (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Result concerning My very best wishes
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Note that I was asked to investigate this dispute, singularly (User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article), as an AE matter, but declined. I still don't really have time to look into this in too much depth, but I would like to reaffirm Mhorg's citation of what I said to My very best wishes a few days ago about the nation of Ukraine not setting the tone in designating pro-Russian separatist groups as terrorist organizations (diff). Ukraine certainly does not have anything remotely resembling the gravitas of such designations as listed by the US Dept. of State in their United States Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Also noting a recent related warning from a few days ago which I had issued Nicoljaus with in the course of this dispute (diff). Their extremely terse accusation above that Mhorg is NOTHERE does not inspire confidence, I'm afraid, about Nicoljaus toning down on the WP:ASPERSIONS. What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus.
- That said, not sure why Mhorg would call attention to MVBW's edits to their own sandbox (diff). That space is for MVBW to do with as they see fit. I'd also point out to Mhorg that in one of the pages where they claimed MVBW was HOUNDING them, MVBW had actually edited that page before them. Notwithstanding all of that, my first impulse (such as it is) is that this isn't actually as one-sided as some of the participants above make it out to be. Finally, Mhorg, remember what I told you about the AE noticeboard having a word-limit? Please make note of that (didn't count, but it does look pretty close to the limit, at the very least). You may wish to trim in order to continue participating. El_C 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, the point is that there are more than a few nations out there (like WP:ARBAA2, etc.) who may designate hostile groups as "terrorist" or "extremist," but that does not imply that this is something which we necessarily are required to observe on the project, as such, overall. El_C 18:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, if you are unwilling or unable to substantiate, it's best to say nothing. Doubling down on WP:ASPERSIONS is not a good look and may be a cause for sanctions. El_C 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, you presume incorrectly. I had no knowledge of that edit. The warning, as mentioned, revolved around Nicoljaus' most recent comments to Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Narod_movement. El_C 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, I only noted the sanction here for the record. But, in any case, the actual reasons that immediately prompted it are noted here. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the sanction, nor are 3rd party AE appeals a thing. El_C 23:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Indefinite topic ban from any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBEE topic area (including the Balkans), broadly construed. It was imposed at User talk:Nicoljaus#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Eastern_Europe
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- I notify you that I have filed an arbitration enforcement action appeal
Statement by Nicoljaus
The administrator who imposed the restrictions put forward two reasons. The first one, as he himself admitted during the discussion on my talk page [67], is irrelevant (he claimed that I admit my HOUNDING of the user and even justify it). In fact, the situation is completely reversed and El_C even warned the user that I "hounded" [68]. So, one of the reasons for the indefinite topic ban can be discarded and I think we should expect some easing of sanctions.
The second situation is more complicated. I found in the contribution of Mhorg some features that seemed suspicious to me. When Mhorg submitted an AE request to another user they were "fighting" with, I shared my observations so that a non-involved administrator could evaluate them by making a decision on the request [69]. The administrator El_C in response made some claims that I may have misunderstood. Later, during the discussion on my talk page, he mentioned that the site I link to was in Italian. But there was no indication of this in his message [70] (actually, I don't read Italian either, but I didn't have any problems). I felt that it was necessary to specify more precisely which part of the rule WP:NOTHERE I refer to and specified the corresponding line, that's all. Reaction of administrator El_C seems excessive. I may have underestimated how serious the charge of violating the WP:NOTHERE rule is (my previous wiki experience doesn't give a reason for this). It is also possible that my observations do not provide sufficient grounds for such accusations, but I have not received direct explanation for this.
As a result, I find the measures taken, on the one hand, unnecessarily harsh, and on the other hand, do not allow me to understand what is wrong. I write a lot on the subject of the Second World War and the history of Russia and usually had no problems with my fellow Wikipedians. My previous blocks is usually arose from the fact that I was constantly attacked by the sockpuppets of disruptive users such as Crovata or Umertan. (With Mikola22, there was a special story, and I admit that I was wrong). I'm asking for lifting, or, at least the modification of the topic ban) – guys, seriously, what are the problems if I write articles like Dmitry Krasny, Battle of Belyov, Izyum-Barvenkovo Offensive, Alexander Bubnov, 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism (except for my poor English, of course)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I made my statements in "terse way" just in attempt to follow the demand "dial it back" and not to BLUDGEON the discussion. I gave only references, indicated what I paid attention to, and the corresponding rule.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The language issue; collapsed to follow word limit |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@Levivich I don't understand why I can't mention that almost all the users I had problems with, were sockpuppets? I was blocked based on the results of the interaction with Themanhascome and Ctvaughn555 (as well as many other user and IPs that attacked me), who were sockpuppets of Umertan aka UkrainianSavior. Miki Filigranski was a sockpuppet of Crovata. The latter, unfortunately, involved the then-inexperienced user Mikola22 in the conflict. I didn't mean that the Mhorg is a sockpuppet, and I didn't make any hints about it (and, moreover, twice), I just want people not to be afraid of my block log.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
- Unfortunately, the appellant barely touches on the main reason that immediately prompted the sanction in question, but goes on at length on the ancillary one, devoting nearly the entire length of their appeal for that purpose, despite my previous explanations about that on their talk page. Well, I am here to set the record straight. On the 15th, I had warned them, in no uncertain terms, that they need to tone down their rhetoric, or the likelihood that they would face AE sanctions again is high (diff).
- Then, yesterday, they had accused the filer of an AE request of being NOTHERE by drawing a parallel between their editing focus to items on some non-English external website, and doing so in extremely terse way (diff). So, I had the warned them about that, too, also asking (in part):
What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus
(diff).
- As a response, instead of providing any substance whatsoever so as to clarify the matter as was requested, the appellant rather astonishingly doubled-down on more of the same by simply refactoring the very same terse reply a second time (diff). Needless to say, I found that to have been highly inappropriate.
- As for the more ancillary reason immediately prompting the sanction, after the filer of said AE complaint (Mhorg) accused Nicoljaus of HOUNDING them —notably, without evidence, for which I have also warned them against (diff)— instead of responding with something like no, I am not hounding you, Nicoljaus hinted that they may well be doing so, but ostensibly not to "annoy" them as that user had claimed, but in the interest of the project or whatever (diff). I found this also to have been inappropriate, though not as egregious as the violation noted in the paragraph above.
- Beyond all this, long since I had originally imposed a sanction on the appellant, exactly one year minus a day ago (2020 log entry), I have noticed a return to problematic editing on their part in the topic area, though the volume of their editing was initially very low for this to be too noticeable. But now that it was right in my face, I felt compelled to warn them, then warn them again, then sanction them (this time with a sanction which was not set to expire). I don't recall what last year's sanction was about exactly. Possibly, something about medieval Balkans stuff...? In any case, I think it's well time that Nicoljaus proves that they are able to edit in other topic areas productively and without incident. El_C 11:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I should also note that Mhorg may well be deserving of sanctions, as well. I'm not sure. Frankly, I find it quite difficult to parse what they're saying, overall (including directly below). Their writings are just not coming across as coherent and cogent enough for me to able to make that determination at this time. El_C 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, to "tone down rhetoric" means to dial it back, not to trim it. That was made clear in my warning to you about the VoxKomm aspersion (that it needed substantiation, rather than merely refactoring!), so this explanation which you are now suddenly providing — that is something which I find rather puzzling. El_C 11:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, I'm not asking you to do anything. The sanction has already been imposed. You're appealing it here. I just pointed out that "tone down the rhetoric" does translate to "dial it back." That you think it can mean other things, that isn't on me. Not to be harsh, but I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension. El_C 12:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, check this out. In this appeal, I described my warning to Nicoljaus on the 15th as me asking them to "tone down the rhetoric," which they now say isn't the same as saying "dial it back." But looking again at that warning (diff), I actually did say "dial it back." I'll just quote (in part):
If you contend that there are violations, the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is that-a-way. The article talk page is not for that. You need to take immediate steps to dial it back, because you won't get many more chances.
Weird. El_C 12:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, when an inexperienced user comes to me to ask that I investigate something EE (direct link), but I tell them that I don't have the time and that if they have a solid case they should take it to AE, what are they supposed to do? Regardless of whether their AE complaint has merit or not (again, I'm not sure about that at this time), you painting them as some topic area regular who is using AE to win a content dispute — that is an unfair charge, I challenge. El_C 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, check this out. In this appeal, I described my warning to Nicoljaus on the 15th as me asking them to "tone down the rhetoric," which they now say isn't the same as saying "dial it back." But looking again at that warning (diff), I actually did say "dial it back." I'll just quote (in part):
- My very best wishes, I never mentioned you having said anything "improper" about me because I know you didn't (in all the years of me having known you, in fact). I submit to you that you have misread. El_C 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Mhorg
My accuses of Following\Hounding come in relation to this AE Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes. User:Nicoljaus was trying to find something to discredit my work on Wikipedia (which is public, and I am still waiting for someone to tell me when I have acted maliciously) looking in my edits history... In fact, the user first made an edit[72] to contest an old edit of mine of 25 May 2020, then accidentally removed all my edit[73] (with the motivation that he was fighting with an anonymous user, I don't know...).
The accusation that I made to him (actually asking him to limit the conflict to a certain area and basically to leave me in quiet because I'm really exausted),[74] does not come from nothing, because in the same days this thing happened with User:My very best wishes (they are defending each other in the AE request)[75], who made the same deletion of the same edit of mine[76] in these days of harsh discussions. Again, MVBW removed[77] my old edit of 1 October 2020, and again he removed[78] my old edit of 9 October 2020. I think there is a connection to all of this. I think that I, unlike you, have tried to question your actions by remaining on a very specific topic (and my edit history confirms it).--Mhorg (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- El_C sorry for my bad english, I tried to explain at the best what pushed me to make those accusations. I didn't know the rule of how to report a wikihounding case (I don't know how to do 99% of the things on the English Wikipedia, as you can see). Seeing the same deletions of the same old content, from the same two users I'm having trouble with, seemed like a good reason to ask them be left in peace. Sorry.--Mhorg (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- My very best wishes I didn't understand what you want to imply that I'm an "experienced user who edited 6 years in Italian WP". We have different rules and in 6 years I don't remember ever needing to call an admin, not even to know if a user was right or not to delete all the controversial content of a politician.--Mhorg (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by involved editor My very best wishes
Yes, I know: admins have discretion. But ultimately, this is all about improvement of content. Sure, these subject area are difficult, and some tensions are inevitable. People do occasionally tell something they really think, which may lead to sanctions. They may also watch the editing history of each other. I think most of that matters very little, at least until the behavior is really bad. For example, bringing a battleground request to WP:AE to gain an upper hand in a content dispute probably does fall in that bad behavior category.
What usually does matter is this:
- Was that user highly knowledgeable in the subject area?
- Did she/he worked to actually improve the content?
And speaking about user Nicoljaus, my answer to the both questions is strong "yes", at least on the subjects related to Russia (I do not know what he did before in other subject areas).
- @El_C. No, I only said in complaint about me it was just a content dispute. Yes, I think it was. Also, I do not imply anything improper about you. I only think you did not make right decision about Nicoljaus. To the contrary, thank you for explanations! As about Mhorg, he does not know much about Russian politics (although he knows Russian), but I think he is an experienced contributor. First time we interacted in 2019 (#1 in my response). I should say though his comment on your talk page looks strange to me. "I have been forced..." Forced by whom? By me? No.
- EL_C. It appears that Mhorg is an experienced user based on their editing in Italian WP. I think you underestimate him. I mean he is probably a fan of VOXKOMM International, apparently a left-wing YouTube channel (he posted their videos in WP [79],[80] that clearly belong to "links to avoid", VOXKOMM International also features fabricated propaganda/hate videos about Navalny and Markiv, subjects that are edited with passion by Mhorg), then Mhorg see the banner on your talk page and therefore decides to act, exactly as he said himself [81]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Mikola22
As for our conflicts in the past is concerned I think they were unnecessary, childish and fight about irrelevant information's, but with violation of revert rules. These blocks are now counted in every possible report against me or editor Nicoljaus. We do not meet in the articles after these conflicts and even if we meet I think we would resolve possible problems in good faith. Current editing of editor Nicoljaus I don't follow so I can't say anything about it, but if our conflicts ie blocks are also counted in this procedure I can only ask the authorities not to take our blocks too seriously, if this can be asked at all (I say this from the present time perspective when these conflicts seem ridiculous to me). Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 4)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus
- Cutting through the TLDR, these diffs are sanctionable conduct [82] [83] [84]. It's not OK to casually accuse people of socking in an AE thread (and then double down on it) and the third one is an admission and justification of WP:HOUNDING, and IMO it borders on WP:GASLIGHTING or DARVO. Levivich harass/hound 07:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
KidAd
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 KidAd
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- KidAd (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#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 30 December 2020 Accuses me of "scrubbing" the article Luke Letlow for switching the infobox template from
{{Infobox officeholder}}
to{{Infobox person}}
. - 30 December 2020 Repeats the "scrubbing" accusation and argues I'm trying to declare the election void because Letlow died.
- 30 December 2020 Doubles down when I call them out at Talk:Luke Letlow, and accuses me of condescending to them.
- 31 January 2021 Accuses me of Wikilawyering for pushing back on their argument that
readers don't care what year a picture was taken
in an RfC at Talk:Joe Biden on whether to include a caption on the infobox image. - 2 February 2021 Calls me a stalker for commenting at User talk:KidAd#Captions, which concerned a matter I was directly involved in.
- 20 February 2021 KidAd agrees to self-revert after I inform them they have violated the 24-hour BRD cycle remedy at Hillary Clinton. However, they tell me they do not plan on engaging with me and intend to simply repeat their edit later.
- 20 February 2021 After I inform them on their talk page that they are required to discuss content disputes on the article talk page per WP:DR, they respond to me at Talk:Hillary Clinton. The response, however, is uncivil (alleging that I don't know that the year 2020 came after 2013).
- 20 February 2021 KidAd states that I'm arguing
time passes non-linearly
. - 20 February 2021 After I implore KidAd on their talk page to be nice, they once again claim that I'm arguing time runs non-linearly, and call me insane:
It certainly is insane. Glad we can agree on that
(twisting my description of the ridiculous claim that I don't know how time works as insane to repeat that I believe that and am therefore insane).
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 29 November 2018 3-month AP2 topic ban (expired)
- 30 November 2018 1-week block for violation of topic ban
- 7 December 2018 1-month block for violation of topic ban
- 25 January 2019 3-month block for violation of topic ban
- 23 April 2019 talk page access revoked for 3 months for violation of topic ban
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
KidAd and I share an interest in AP2, and often run into each other. I've noticed a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors, myself included. Often, it takes the form of rude and/or sarcastic responses to others' arguments. Additionally, KidAd often chooses, sometimes defiantly, not to engage in talk page discussion. I've remained collegial and civil, and had been hoping that KidAd and I would come to get along. After a tense discussion at User talk:KidAd#Captions ended in KidAd agreeing to work together with me on an RfC, I'd hoped that this was behind us. Unfortunately, after interacting with them today regarding Hillary Clinton's infobox, that does not appear to be the case. They first flat-out told me they intended to force their change in without discussion, and when they did engage me in discussion, they responded to my argument by suggesting it reflects that I don't know how time works. I implored them to stop on their talk page. However, they repeated their insulting comment immediately after I did so. I'm at the point where I feel I can either give KidAd their way when I disagree with them, or ruin a fun day of editing by interacting with them. That just doesn't feel right to me. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning KidAd
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 KidAd
Especially when compiling a recent log of interactions between myself and Tartan, it becomes clear that our exchanges have been largely negative, though I object to the statement a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors
. When Tartan and I have disagreed, the topics have been formatting, not content-related. As for the recent dispute at Hillary Clinton, please note that I self-reverted my most recent edit as soon as Tartan made me aware of the WP:DS violation. This was an oversight on my part. My comment to Tartan, For issues like this, where there is no clear policy to support changes either way, a discussion will only provide unnecessary frustration
was meant to prevent conflict, a decision directly based on our last negative interaction. Reviewing the Clinton discussion, I see no harsh language, only disagreement. The statement The current infobox structuring should remain in place when it is agreed upon that the date of January 2, 2020 occurred after the periods of 1993 to 2001, 2001 to 2009, and 2009 to 2013
was not written to convey sarcasm. It was written to convey my point that dates should go in linear order. Given that sarcasm is usually communicated using inflection, deriving a particular meaning from text is highly subjective. Responding to Tartan's 9th point in particular, this dif does not include a personal attack or accusation of insanity. I am fully willing to comply with an WP:IBAN between myself and Tartan. KidAd talk 06:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning KidAd
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Just a quick observation. Though the article subjects are all clearly and unambiguously WP:AP2 ones, these series of disputes do not seem to involve AP2 so much as infoboxes, infoboxes and more infoboxes. My sense, then, is that this is an WP:ARBINFOBOX2 rather than AP2 matter. In any case, I have attached the relevant DS alert to both users, just to be on the safe side. El_C 09:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)