→Statement by Delibzr: continuing edit warring |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Result concerning Xtremedood: Closing. 48 hours to Xtremedood for edit warring |
||
Line 311: | Line 311: | ||
*Please see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan]], where Xtremedood has nominated an article for deletion. Xtremedood's questions seem valid to me, and if his behavior regarding that article is the main issue, I'm not seeing any reason for an AE sanction. A review of the AfD comments by others suggests that, if the [[Battle of Rajasthan]] article survives, it is likely to be changed to describe the overall Arab invasion of the 8th century and will not focus on this single poorly-attested battle. I would close this AE request with no action. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
*Please see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan]], where Xtremedood has nominated an article for deletion. Xtremedood's questions seem valid to me, and if his behavior regarding that article is the main issue, I'm not seeing any reason for an AE sanction. A review of the AfD comments by others suggests that, if the [[Battle of Rajasthan]] article survives, it is likely to be changed to describe the overall Arab invasion of the 8th century and will not focus on this single poorly-attested battle. I would close this AE request with no action. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:*Per the reasoning in Sitush's comment, I am planning to close this soon with no action, unless other admins think sanctions are needed. [[User:Delibzr]] and [[User:Xtremedood]] have also clashed at [[List of converts to Islam from Hinduism]] and I've left warnings for both parties. See details at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=661638618#User:Delibzr_reported_by_User:Xtremedood_.28Result:_Both_warned.29 the AN3 report]. That dispute needs either a talk page consensus or a report at [[WP:BLPN]]. [http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/farmas.html The reference that Xtremedood included] to justify having King Chakrawati Famas in the list is not suitable for Wikipedia. Even the current, greatly reduced [[List of converts to Islam from Hinduism]] contains dead links as references for the conversion of some living people. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC) |
:*Per the reasoning in Sitush's comment, I am planning to close this soon with no action, unless other admins think sanctions are needed. [[User:Delibzr]] and [[User:Xtremedood]] have also clashed at [[List of converts to Islam from Hinduism]] and I've left warnings for both parties. See details at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=661638618#User:Delibzr_reported_by_User:Xtremedood_.28Result:_Both_warned.29 the AN3 report]. That dispute needs either a talk page consensus or a report at [[WP:BLPN]]. [http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/farmas.html The reference that Xtremedood included] to justify having King Chakrawati Famas in the list is not suitable for Wikipedia. Even the current, greatly reduced [[List of converts to Islam from Hinduism]] contains dead links as references for the conversion of some living people. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
::*As pointed out by [[User:Delibzr]], Xtremedood <u>[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_converts_to_Islam_from_Hinduism&diff=661944393&oldid=661819712 has reverted again]</u> at [[List of converts to Islam from Hinduism]] without first getting a talk page consensus. This is contrary to the warning I issued per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=661638618#User:Delibzr_reported_by_User:Xtremedood_.28Result:_Both_warned.29 the AN3 complaint]. So I'm blocking Xtremedood for 48 hours for edit warring. He is already notified under [[WP:ARBIPA]]. I don't see the need for any action beyond that for the present AE complaint. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Roscelese== |
==Roscelese== |
Revision as of 04:17, 12 May 2015
Ohconfucius
Two pages about Falun Gong in Ohconfucius's user space are being deleted. No other action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Ohconfucius
During Ohconfucius’ one-year reprieve, he has continued a pattern of POV editing, edit warring, and commenting inappropriately on other users. Most worrying, he restored a polemical anti-Falun Gong essay in userspace after being told by arbitrators to permanently delete it. Background (see also WP:GAME)In July 2012, Arbcom voted to indefinitely ban Ohconfucius from Falun Gong-related topics due to edit warring, incivility, and violations of WP:NPOV. In April 2014, Ohconfucius appealed to lift the topic ban, and assured arbitration committee that he would not return to editing Falun Gong. Arbcom’s response to this request was tepid, but seven arbs ultimately agreed to provisionally suspend the ban with a probationary period of one year. One arbitrator said his agreement was conditional and asked Ohconfucius to "steer well clear of matters of controversy" related to Falun Gong. Ohconfucius reneged on his promises and quickly resumed making controversial edits to Falun Gong articles. It seems to me that he had gamed the system, and not for the last time. He was brought back to Arbcom. The arbitrators again urged caution; one arb said to "move on" from editing Falun Gong, and another told him that he must permanently delete all of the anti-Falun Gong essays that he kept in his userspace and refrain from commenting on other editors or else he (the arbitrator) would request reinstatement of the ban. [1] Ohconfucius deleted the offending essays in his userspace. After the ArbCom case was closed, however, he simply reposted a permalinked version on his user page.[2] This week he restored the page entirely.[3] Violations of WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, WP:POLEMIC[4] – Ohconfucius’ polemical essay on Falun Gong contains attacks against named individuals, groups, and several Wikipedia editors (myself included), violating WP:NPA, WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, and WP:POLEMIC. Note that Ohconfucius has been told on two occasions, by two members of Arbcom, that this essay is inappropriate. User:Seraphimblade told him to permanently delete it or else face reimposition of the topic ban.[5] Violations of WP:NPOVOhconfucius has continued previous patterns of POV editing. Most edits involve deleting/whitewashing reliably sourced information on the Chinese government’s human rights practices or claiming material is not supported by sources when it actually is. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Violation of WP:WAROhconfucius made multiple reverts on September 9 on a Falun Gong-related article, ignoring talk page discussions. (Note: I initially thought these were a 3RR violation, but because some were performed in succession, it’s actually more like 3 reverts). [14] – misstates facts about the history of the 610 Office [15] – reverts (apparently convinced that he's right, while he's not) [16] – deletes information because it was unsourced (see bottom of diff) [17] – after a source was added, deletes it again [18] – deletes information from lede [19] – deletes again [20] – adds quote from Chinese government source and omits Ownby's views [21] – same edit again [22] – deletes information about man in Chengde [23] – deletes again (he's right about this one, but a revert nonetheless) Violations of WP:CIVIL[24] – This talk page discussion is representative of an inability to assume good faith and a reflexive tendency to personalize discussions – something he’s been warned about repeatedly.
Just a quick comment. I believe Ohconfucius' reply elucidates the problem. Instead of addressing his apparent breaches of policy and ArbCom rulings, such as direct personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a platform for ax-grinding and polemics, we get more name-calling from a seemingly unblockable ivory tower and "no further comments." I am not a Falun Gong activist or a so-called Falun Gongster and fundamentally do not see this as a content dispute. Neither have I said that Ohconfucius is "pro-regime." I stated that the direction of his edits on this topic generally serve to improve the image of the Chinese government. Note that he admits to editing from an "anti-Falun Gong" viewpoint instead of NPOV and seems to perceive the Falun Gong namespace as a zero-sum game. There were valid reasons for his indefinite topic ban in the first place; later he was put on probation, and I simply believe the situation should be assessed once again. Best regards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning OhconfuciusStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OhconfuciusI have said time and again that I try hard to leave my personal opinions outside of the mainspace articles. Nowadays, I only make a very small number of edits on Falun Gong topics, yet I still get continually attacked by Falun Gong activists, so I'm not going to dwell on the issue before us. Falun Gong are known for their tenacity and relentlessness, wearing their critics down. The attacks were stressful for me in the past. I just find their attacks on me tiring. Tiring that the Falun Gong activists manifest the very intolerance of criticism of their movement that the Regime does with people who criticise their rule. I have repeatedly asserted that the Falun Gong and the Regime are heavily shaped by the Cultural Revolution, and are thus the antitheses of each other, and this observation/position appears to rile Falun Gong activists. This request is yet another content dispute with the filer of the request and User:TheBlueCanoe, both of whom have a history of editing Falun Gong articles from what I believe is a highly partisan and advocate's viewpoint and with whom I have had running content disputes over the years. A new and inexperienced Falun Gong editor, who for the moment shall remain nameless, has joined their ranks recently, and may have contributed with text copied verbatim from elsewhere. I would merely say that I find copyright violations equally objectionable as the propaganda of the Falun Dafa and of the Regime, and part of that editing work is to remove copyvios or otherwise make clear that these are positions and not fact. All my edits have, I believe, adequate edit summaries explaining my rationale. Whilst the complainant has only found examples he objects to showing my bias, he failed to give me any credit for this comment (for example), which certainly shows that I am editing objectively and in good faith. The Regime almost insists upon the "L'état, c'est moi" conflation between the party and the state in the same way as Falun Gongsters insist on labelling all people who do not support their movement as supporters of the Regime. IIndeed, I restored the essay within my own userspace after learning about the former's complaint to EdJohnson, in which he repeated his previous provocative smear that I was somehow "pro-Regime". It made me suspect whether he understood that anti-Regime people can also be anti-Falun Gong. If the distinction between the two is not clear in his own head, one must question whether he ought to be editing such polemic topics on Wikiepdia. In view of the foregoing, I would state that the assembled should not be too surprised if there were no further comments from me on this case. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by John CarterIt is worth noting that this subject has already been discussed with Ed Johnston at User talk:EdJohnston#Request for reinstating indefinite topic ban on User:Ohconfucius and the comments Ed made in response.
Statement by coldacid (uninvolved)Despite the conversation on EdJohnston's talk, this essay is certainly questionable, and considering Seraphimblade's comment in the June 2014 amendment request, it seems that Ohconfucius is definitely tempting fate. Whether this is the editor taking the WP:ROPE they were given and hanging themself with it, or not, I can't say. For sure, though, we should hear from Seraphimblade on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by coldacid (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC) I have to agree with TheSoundAndTheFury's "quick comment". Regardless of the content dispute, Ohconfucius' attitude even here on this AE request demonstrates that the editor should be strongly encouraged to edit other topics. At the very least, they should be topic-banned from anything relating to Falun Gong, and their attack essay deleted and salted. Ohconfucius has been given enough rope. @Seraphimblade: Would still like to hear from you on this. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Comment by My very best wishesThis edit by Ohconfucius strikes me as very recent and highly problematic (I know how important this article is to Falun Gong propagandists, but you should accept it as an unfortunate consequence of one of your fellow FLG editors choosing to plagiarise an entire chunk of it). Otherwise, I am not sure this AE request would be reasonable, given that most other diffs/edits by Ohconfucius were rather old (although also problematic), and Arbcom did not ask for reviewing this matter after a year, judging from their motion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by TheBlueCanoeHere’s what Seraphimblade said at arbitration:
Reposting an archived version of the userspace essay less than a month later was clearly defying the spirit, if not the letter, of the request[29]. More interesting is that Ohconfucius completely restored the essay last week, after a complaint about it was filed on EdJohnston’s talk page.[30] I have no idea how to account for this--tempting fate, or maybe Ohconfucius thinks he's unblockable. On the NPOV issue, some of these diffs bear examining more closely:
I’ve tried to give the benefit of the doubt that these were all honest mistakes, and maybe they are. But looking more closely at the history I’m not so sure, and it does seem that the user is ideologically driven. Certainly some of the reasons he’s given for deleting cited information on these pages are pretty flimsy (e.g. [35][36] ) It also goes without saying that I don’t appreciate the insinuations that I’m a sock, a “meatpuppet” or a “Falun Gong propagandists” for trying to address and correct the issues I see on these pages.TheBlueCanoe 16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by OccultZoneI have also seen a lot of work by Ohconfucius around, I agree that he knows how content can be made better, every allegations that have been made here, I have no comments on them, and I really believe that EdJohnston is correct with his assertion, he had asked Ohconfucius to blank the pages, and Ohconfucius did blanked them. I would also like to correct TheBlueCanoe that Ohconfucius was never banned.(Check WP:BAN) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ohconfucius
|
Xtremedood
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 Xtremedood
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Xtremedood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBIPA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Claiming a popular battle to be a "hoax"[37][38][39] clear attempt to WP:RGW.
- Edit warring [40][41][42], [43][44][45]
- [46] failure to understand WP:CON, "2 against 1 is not a consensus".
- Blanking of the material that he don't like.[47][48][49] Indeed, if he claims that it is 'unsourced', then why he don't remove the opposite material that is also unsourced?
- WP:SOAPBOXING.[50][51]
- WP:ASPERSIONS, "Your edits often seem disruptive and unprofessional",[52] though the editor in question seems to be making good edits.
- Canvassing a particular side.[53][54][55][56]
- Attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines,(4 Indians and 1 non-Indian)[57][58] a warning can be found here, this was his response.
- That is all from last 7 days. He had demonstrated this sort of battleground mentality in the last report as well.[59] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- [60]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- @Sitush: Your edit was far different than this kind of remark, his is misleading, while yours clearly questions about its qualification as WP:RS. You removed it because you thought that the source is unreliable, while Xtremedood objected to each of them because he believes that the whole battle is hoax. There is big difference in what he is thinking and what others are thinking. Concerning the 2 recent ANIs during this report, his edits do violate WP:CENSOR of material that is often sourced with a reliable source and when it comes along with the BLP violation that has been added below, we will have to think more. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is still WP:SOAPBOX to misrepresent the credibility of the source, call it unreliable but don't connect it with the group that concerns some sort of ethnicity. How about this edit? This was the article where I found him first. Then the AfD of Battle of Rajasthan was clearly unwarranted. He could try RfC or any other WP:DR method for addressing his doubts. Although he went to canvass and comment on the nationalities of those who he opposed, even though none of them(except maybe 1) have revealed their nationality, overlooking is likely going to cause more disruption and lower chances for sanctions in future. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed with Kautilya3, a warning will suffice. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is still WP:SOAPBOX to misrepresent the credibility of the source, call it unreliable but don't connect it with the group that concerns some sort of ethnicity. How about this edit? This was the article where I found him first. Then the AfD of Battle of Rajasthan was clearly unwarranted. He could try RfC or any other WP:DR method for addressing his doubts. Although he went to canvass and comment on the nationalities of those who he opposed, even though none of them(except maybe 1) have revealed their nationality, overlooking is likely going to cause more disruption and lower chances for sanctions in future. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [61]
Discussion concerning Xtremedood
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 Xtremedood
OccultZone has already made a complaint in the past which was dismissed. He seems to have been stalking my contributions, rather than engage in a pragmatic debate on whether or not the Battle of Rajasthan article should be deleted. To claim a battle with such limited sources is "popular" is a clear fallacy. OccultZone has not been able to provide a single legitimate source as to the relevant location of the supposed conflict, the generals involved, and why there are sources saying that conflict continued till 739 A.D. when OccultZone's sources say the decisive battle to stop all battles occurred in 738 A.D.
1) I have not violated WP:RGW, as various other users have agreed with me about the scarcity of sources pertaining to this supposed battle. There are even other users claiming that the article's name should be changed (thus opposing the legitimacy of this as a "popular" battle).
2) These edits do not constitute "edit warring." FreeatlastChitchat and I have been debating for over a month as to whether certain content should be allowed or omitted on the article. There was a DRN discussion mediated by Keithbob, in which we discussed in great detail this article. There has been no resolution as of now, and FreeatlastChitchat's attempt to mediate has also been rejected. Clearly OccultZone seems very desperate to try gather up information about me, he seems to be stalking my contributions. He does not know the background information pertaining to this whole thing. The 3RR was also respected. In the past he also accussed me of making wrong edits of the Mughal-Sikh war battles. However, a thorough investigation found (by administration) that I was correct in my edits. OccultZone's heavily biased accusations should therefore be dismissed.
3) Consensus was not reached in this matter.I agreed to wait for consensus after OccultZone's first complaint. However, OccultZone did not answer my relevant questions pertaining to the sources at hand. From April 20th to April 29th, there was no response. OccultZone, rather than wait for consensus simply reverted the article on April 28th, [62]. This means for 8 days he did not make a response, and randomly suggested that 2 against 1 constituted a consensus, which it does not according to WP:Consensus. OccultZone has failed to answer why the 3,843 figure by the Indian government should not be in the Indian Claims section when that section exists. He also failed to properly detail why the source was supposedly incorrect. The source that I wanted was a third-party source (non-Governmental) and it may therefore be less biased.
4) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing the context of these changes. I had a meaningful discussion with Nijgoykar in which he verified the source of an Arab invasion (the sources were largely Indian) but was unable to verify the source of "forced conversion," therefore the changes meet proper discussion. see [[63]]. WP:Verifiability states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." I was looking to verify this information and followed proper procedure. As for the Invasion of Rajasthan difference, I have stated it here that I deleted it: [[64]]. There is simply no source for a 40,000 Hindus against 100,000 Arabs battle occuring during this time. OccultZone may be ignorant of the immense dynamics of warfare. 100,000 soldiers is not a small figure. There should be some historical record of this. I am still waiting for anyone to source me this figure. As for the third link, I have already stated that there is no historical record of the battle of Rajasthan existing. The only sources are biased and do not adhere to WP:Identifying reliable sources.
5) This does not adhere to the 5 points outlined in WP:Soapboxing. OccultZone did not wait for Administrative decision, rather he tried to delete the template. This is not right. He should have atleast tried to contest it. This may represent heavy ideological bias. Simply saying "not a hoax" here [65] does not suffice to not contest it.
6) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing to context or simply trying to defame. The context of the conversation may be seen here [66].
7) This does not constitute canvassing. Another user (AshLin) first invited 2 people. Consensus on AfD is not based upon a tally of votes, as outlined here: [[67]]. Bringing forth more diverse discourse may provide for more policy-related discourse. See the full dicussion here. [68]
8) Statement was aimed at fostering more diverse dialogue. See point 7. OccultZone's twisting of statements should not be taken seriously. There are clearly a lot more users with interest in Indian topics being involved than many other users.
OccultZone is on record of using blackmailing attempts, threatening me to withdraw a statement or he will inform administration. He said "If you wouldn't retract that part from your comment, I would consider bringing you to either WP:ARE or WP:ANI."[69]. This constitutes clear blackmailing.[70] He also displays immense bias by simply deleting a template, rather than try and engage in constructive dialogue by contesting it. The real battleground mentality is being displayed by OccultZone in his failed (previous) attempt to accuse me of wrong edits on the Mughal-Sikh related articles, his inability to properly address concerns pertaining to the 1971 war article, and his "speedy keep" bias pertaining to the Battle of Rajasthan. Xtremedood (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Response to Dolescum
As to adhere to Wikipedia's policy WP:Other Stuff Exists, which states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." If that section did not exist for these articles [71][72], then it should not exist for this one. The heavy anti-Muslim bias is something I wish to oppose that sadly exists on certain articles on Wikipedia. This bias goes against NPOV. I provided my reasoning in the edit summary [73]. It was based upon sound reasoning. I did not brake any revert rules, it was a one time edit. Any changes I made can be found in that edit. Better left for discussion on the talk page. Xtremedood (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Response to Delibzr
I am not the one who put A.R. Rahman on the list, look at the history, it has been there longer. I simply organized the format and added some new figures. Your source for Dharmendra that he was a Sikh does not work, I looked at the source. The source indicated in the article states he was a former Hindu. If you have a legitimate source feel free to remove it and to discuss it in the talk page with me. Your accustion of me removing content on the Criticism of Sikhism page is baseless. The link for the supposed criticism does not work [[74]], either fix the link or provide me proof of that. I did not find any source that said that Nanak had a debate with Mullahs in Makkah. The whole story sounds fishy to me as why would a person who Sikhs claim to be a non-Muslim (who are not allowed in Makkah) go there and have a debate with religious leaders? The whole passage seems kind of weird and the link did not work. You need a legitimate source for that. Xtremedood (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Dolescum
Further to the appearance of removing material he disapproved of, Xtremedood recently attempted to remove all mentions of Criticism of Muhammad from the Muhammad article. The reason given was to point to the Jesus article and provide a very selective reading of WP:OSE. Dolescum (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Delibzr
Xtremedood has brought bad references(rumor sites[75][76][77]) on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. He claims that A. R. Rahman was a Hindu who converted into Islam, when he was atheist.[78] He claims that Dharmendra was a Hindu who converted to Islam, when he is a devoted Sikh,[79] same with his son.[80] He is violating biographies of living persons on these articles.
On Criticism of Sikhism he removed[81] what he disliked, and wanted to see. Reference was already accessible and supported that info.
Xtremedood has misused references on Battle of Rajasthan, and he has insulted the academics. That article is not going to be deleted or even end up with a merge or redirect, that means his participation was totally disruptive on that AFD. He had to use talk page not AFD or speedy deletions for his doubts, but he seems not to be capable of engaging in a proper discussion without edit warring. He has issues with WP:COMPETENCE. Delibzr (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Xtremedood you went ahead to claim everyone to have been converted into Islam and you remove what you don't like. Link is working and book is available online. What you do is, you hate if anything goes against you. I am shocked that you are not blocked for your propaganda pushing.
- And User:EdJohnston, Xtremedood is still violating BLP by putting false information on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. [82] His agenda is to spam that Mughal Empire won over Maratha Empire, when it is highly opposite. He removes any mention of Maratha victory or expansion by putting his own opinion.[83][84] He is still misrepresenting refs,[85][86] and making disruptive page moves.[87] I would ask for a few months of ban from this whole area. Delibzr (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:EdJohnston you had told not to make any reverts anymore and discuss the content instead, Xtremedood returned to violating BLP and edit warring in just 2 days, see [88] Delibzr (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Calypsomusic
Xtremedood (talk · contribs) is adding source misrepresentation in articles
In Muhammed bin Qasim he writes about other scholars:
- Elliot who hated Islam
- U.T. Thakkur, a staunch Indian nationalist
Elliot is a mainstream pillar of British historiography on medieval India, so the claim that he hates Islam is absurd. Xtremedood is claiming that this source "Maclean, Derryl N. Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Brill Academic Publishers, 1989 ISBN 90-04-08551-3 pg.22-29" says that Elliot "hates" Islam.
But the source says nothing of the sort about Elliot or Thakkur: [89]
There is also a series of unexplained edits by him with blanking of sections, for example here and here He even marked one of those edits as Minor in the edit summary. [90]
His disruptive editing has been brought to his attention by @Kautilya3: @FreeatlastChitchat: @OccultZone: @Kansas Bear: @Ghatus:, and at DR and at ARE but as these edits show, nothing has changed.
Statement by Sitush
Xtremedood was basically right regarding the Battle of Rajasthan. Ok, it wasn't deleted but it is already changing dramatically because (a) the "battle" only seems to exist in the eyes of Hindu nationalists and their ilk; (b) as the later comments here indicate, the title is likely to be changed. Effectively, it was a hoax title, if not an entirely fictitious article.
Xtremedood is also basically right here. They've dealt with it poorly at the end but 2 vs 1 is not much of a consensus, perhaps especially when Ghatus is involved, and using a Government of India source in the way that was being proposed clearly wasn't ideal. Xtremedood should have run through WP:DR for options but underlying it all is a desire to use decent sources and that has struck me in my other limited dealings with them.
I don't have time to go through everything but I do know from things I've seen at Mughal-Maratha Wars that Xtremedood is basically one of the good 'uns there, which Delibzr and Ghatus are not. This type of thing from Delibzr is clearly very poor but Xtremedood's reversion was in turn reverted and Ghatus, who should know better, seemed to have no inclination to set things straight. Similarly, Xtremedood is wanting to use modern reliable sources there but the other two seem not so keen - again, Ghatus could have done something with the article given things said in this thread but they showed no inclination and seem arguably to still be insisting that an outdated historian with a very well known Hindu bias should carry weight disproportionate to NPOV.
Xtremedood's way of handling things might be better but it is my suspicion that they are up against a series of pro-Hindu, pro-India "usual suspects". It's at worst a "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other" scrap and I can feel the frustration. They should be advised to make better use of things outlined at WP:DR and given a decent warning that if they do not then things could get worse for them very quickly. That's all, although warnings to others who are involved might not go amiss. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone: you say this is soapboxing. It isn't. The subject area is rife with Hindutva and less extreme pro-Hindu sources, just as it is rife with stuff from the other extreme. They're making a very good point and I've lost track of the number of times I've had to do similar. The difference seems to be that I usually get away with it, probably because I'm relatively a big beast here rather than a newcomer. I doubt very much you would cite SOAPBOX at me for that, and if I'm right then you shouldn't do it for Xtremedood. I removed that particular source 12 hours ago, and no-one has put it back yet (and shouldn't!) - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone: Xtremedood was making the point that the source was unreliable - the thing is mentioned just above the response from them that you diff'd. It is unreliable and, as likely as not, it is influenced by the Hindutva revisionism because it is quite evident that the author knows nothing of substance about which he is writing. The book is a dreadful potted history, of the sort that could be cobbled together from op-eds, news stories, populist websites and the like. Why anyone tried to defend it is beyond me.
- I'm sure Xtremedood has not behaved perfectly in all of this. I'm equally sure that the same could be said of others. Rap him on the knuckles, dish out a general warning to all involved and point in the direction of WP:DR. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Kautilya3
My feeling is that Xtremedood is a bit of an overenthusiastic new editor, whose infractions are nothing unusual. He made a series of POV edits here, which I queried on the talk page. When he didn't respond after a few days, I reverted them. On the AfD for Battle of Rajasthan, his original point was well-made and I supported deletion initially. His overenthusiasm shows in the huge number of posts he made on the AfD page (something like 60-70 in a week). But the subject is a tricky one. So, on balance, we decided to retain the page but work on the content and the somewhat problematic page title. I think a mild warning to be a bit more cooperative with the other editors is all that is needed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by ...
Result concerning Xtremedood
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan, where Xtremedood has nominated an article for deletion. Xtremedood's questions seem valid to me, and if his behavior regarding that article is the main issue, I'm not seeing any reason for an AE sanction. A review of the AfD comments by others suggests that, if the Battle of Rajasthan article survives, it is likely to be changed to describe the overall Arab invasion of the 8th century and will not focus on this single poorly-attested battle. I would close this AE request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Per the reasoning in Sitush's comment, I am planning to close this soon with no action, unless other admins think sanctions are needed. User:Delibzr and User:Xtremedood have also clashed at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and I've left warnings for both parties. See details at the AN3 report. That dispute needs either a talk page consensus or a report at WP:BLPN. The reference that Xtremedood included to justify having King Chakrawati Famas in the list is not suitable for Wikipedia. Even the current, greatly reduced List of converts to Islam from Hinduism contains dead links as references for the conversion of some living people. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- As pointed out by User:Delibzr, Xtremedood has reverted again at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without first getting a talk page consensus. This is contrary to the warning I issued per the AN3 complaint. So I'm blocking Xtremedood for 48 hours for edit warring. He is already notified under WP:ARBIPA. I don't see the need for any action beyond that for the present AE complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Roscelese
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 Roscelese
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Padenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Roscelese (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/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Roscelese_restricted : specifically "making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert" and failing to "discuss any content reversions on the pages's talk page"
2) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following restrictions. She is:
- indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
- indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
- indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.
These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.
- Passed 8 to 2 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 22:23, 3 May 2015 "Per disc. w/SY86, rv back to Amaury's version. EllieTea, since in the short time you've been editing you've shown repeatedly that you can't/won't accurately represent srcs w/o falsification or OR, I suggest you gain consensus for edits *before* making 'em" This reverted a week and a half's worth of contributions, over 70 edits total. There is no discussion with SY86 pertaining to this, on the talk page, or on either user's talk page. Even so, there was absolutely no attempt by Roscelese to explain the reasons for the mass revert, every explanation claimed there were previous explanations provided, yet previous explanations have been addressed and un-responded to.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- None that I'm aware of
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Not applicable. User is under restrictions from previous arbcom case above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Between April 26th and May 2nd, EllieTea made several good faith edits to False accusation of rape. While the bulk of the changes were fine, there were a few reverts by other users, including Roscelese, EvergreenFir, and SonicYouth86. After seeing these reverts, EllieTea made an effort to discuss them on the talk page: 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Actually, every section in the current revision of [91] has EllieTea attempting to explain and discuss his/her edits. Maybe a little overkill in the number of sections, but nothing too bad.
During this time, Roscelese's only responses to EllieTea were:
- [94] (more uncivil "blatantly nonsensical", "I am strongly inclined to revert all your edits wholesale, back to the version from a few days ago, unless a trustworthy editor confirms that they actually conform to sources") EllieTea responded here (showing sources and asking for an explanation): [95]
- And so forth... Every section in the talk page goes on like that. With EllieTea providing sources, quotes, etc. while Roscelese and Sonicyouth generally ignored rebuttals and sources provided.
Finally, Roscelese reverted the page back over a week (with the first diff I listed above). At this time, the only explanation she provided was "Per disc. w/SY86, rv back to Amaury's version. EllieTea, since in the short time you've been editing you've shown repeatedly that you can't/won't accurately represent srcs w/o falsification or OR, I suggest you gain consensus for edits *before* making 'em" (in the edit summary), and on the talk page: "I've reverted back to Amaury's version from April 25. EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved." I was unable to find any such discussion, and even then I found Roscelese unilaterally reverting the entire article to a week before a bit extreme given all the attempts by EllieTea to discuss it. I reverted the change "Undid revision 660693403 by Roscelese (talk) WAY too large a revert. You owe it to EllieTea to go through and carefully revert the edits that are bad, not just flip the table. WP:REVERT" and left a response on the talk page Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Revert. My revert was later undone by an editor who had never been involved in the discussion and did not get involved in any discussion (but from the Arbitration case, has a clear history of helping Roscelese). This discussion went on for a while between myself, Roscelese, Sonicyouth, and EllieTea. EllieTea and I repeatedly asked for Roscelese and Sonicyouth to explain what was wrong with the bulk of the edits, all requests for specifics were refused with WP:IDHT accusations and refusal to even link the section where it was discussed. ― Padenton|✉ 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
While putting this together, a related ANI was opened, here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_with_User:Roscelese_and_User:Sonicyouth86 ― Padenton|✉ 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Responses to discussion
- [96] @Beyond My Ken: That is correct. I do not know much about other incidents involving Roscelese, but judging from User talk:Roscelese it seems like there may be more if someone is interested in looking into it. Regarding the second question, there was nothing for her in the Enforcement log for the arbcom case, so I don't believe so. ― Padenton|✉ 22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I would respectfully disagree that just because an edit summary was provided that the revert was properly explained. There is no explanation here as to what the problem was with the edits, and there were many good non-controversial edits that were reverted in this en masse rollback despite improving the article. All previous explanations had been addressed, and some of the changes by them were discarded. Yet these explanations do not apply to the revert in the diff above. I do agree this is not clear cut. ― Padenton|✉ 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Sonicyouth86: I do not and have never disputed that some of EllieTea's edits have issues, and that they were rightfully reverted. What we are discussing here is the revert en masse of all of EllieTea's changes to the article, with no discussion and no explanation. As for SPA and "Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic." that is blatantly false. If we look at the analysis, only little over 1/3 of EllieTea's article namespace edits have been in articles remotely related to the topic of rape. ― Padenton|✉ 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see no presented evidence to support Sonicyouth86's ridiculous accusation that "it's no coincidence that Padenton and ElliTea, who support the same edits on talk:False accusations of rape, filed an AE and ANI report essentially at the same time, obviously in an effort to have Roscelese removed from the article so that they can have free reign." I give permission for a CheckUser to examine my email logs. The only email I received, related to this, was an email from a user un-involved in the dispute on 5/4 informing me of Roscelese's sanctions. This request is not out of malice intent towards Roscelese. As for the timing of this arbitration enforcement request, that is unfortunate, but I was too busy putting this together (and you can look at its initial length) to notice that an ANI was filed while I was working on it. However, I quickly mentioned and linked the other discussion both here and at ANI, which is easy to verify, so that point is moot. I would have gotten to opening an AE last week, but I have been busy with a lot of final projects and papers for university the past few weeks. ― Padenton|✉ 20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- If any uninvolved admin feels I have acted wrongly in attempting to resolve this dispute on the talk page and eventually bringing it to Arbcom enforcement to discuss whether Roscelese's actions violate previous arbitration committee decisions, I will happily accept a warning (as suggested by Sonicyouth86) for my actions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I categorically deny any involvement in canvassing (as accused by Roscelese "Check out their canvassing of another blocked SPA") as I have never edited Cubancigar's talk page.(misunderstanding, redacted 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)) The only editors I notified of this discussion are those that saw my linking of it in the ANI, and those I linked above.(Roscelese herself as well, of course, as required) The supposition that because I asked Roscelese to provide more of an explanation for her en masse revert, that I am somehow in cahoots with EllieTea is absolutely ludicrous. I simply feel that EllieTea put in a lot of work, most of which improved the article, and should not have been reverted in its entirety, especially with no explanation provided, nor other attempts at dispute resolution. ― Padenton|✉ 20:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Sonicyouth86: I'll try to respond to all of these.
- Regarding SPA: You can't really count talk page discussions (nor this meta-discussion) as being part of the rape topic. That is why it's best to discuss article-namespace edits when discussing whether someone's an SPA. It is true, that many of the recent edits EllieTea has made in Article namespace are on these related articles, however, I do not agree that they are all problematic, and SPAs usually have much fewer edits, never reaching even 100. It is common, and understandable that editors may have a specific interest in a broad topic which leads them to direct their work to those topics. There are plenty of experienced editors that I have a lot of respect for that do so in articles related to rape.
- Regarding support of EllieTea's edits: As for my first comment in this dispute (where I said I had no problem with EllieTea's edits), it should be read as there being no significant policy issues with the edits as a whole, not that they are not up for discussion, and it was following a comment earlier that day by Roscelese threatening to revert EllieTea's edits wholesale. Try not to think of me as defending EllieTea's edits, I do not agree with every single one, some were rightfully reverted as they happened, others could use a few additional un-involved opinions (perhaps by RfC or DRN), but there were also a fair number of non-controversial edits which improved the article. My point has been that more explanation and more discussion on both parts would have been fair, and a mass-rollback such as what took place here is rarely called for, nor the solution.
- Regarding "no discussion": You are correct that there was discussion, from all parties (Except Binksternet), though incorrect that I have said that there was no discussion. What I have said is that the concerns were discussed and EllieTea attempted to address them, in some cases dropping the change and moving on to others. But for many of the changes, EllieTea made multiple attempts to bring them up for discussion, which he/she is allowed to do, though these attempts were ignored. And when the rollback came, no explanation was provided.
- Regarding timing: I'm not really sure how the end of the protection could have been the trigger for the ANI or AE, I haven't checked the time the protection ends, I've been busy all week. I forget who it was (I looked earlier) but the protection was requested by some random editor who hadn't been involved in any of this. ― Padenton|✉ 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [97]
Discussion concerning Roscelese
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 Roscelese
I was just going to ignore the wall of text at ANI, but now that the same dispute has been dragged here for no apparent reason, I suppose I ought to leave a sentence or two. In brief: The offending user's refusal to acknowledge my explanations of why their edits violated policy repeatedly != my violating my sanction by not explaining my reverts. Moreover, "the source does not contain that statistic or anything approaching it" is not remotely personal, and "that editor is an SPA" is obvious from their edit history. Check out their canvassing of another blocked SPA, too: [98] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Questions for Padenton by Beyond My Ken
Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are reporting is essentially a single incident between Roscelese and EllieTea, is that right? And the AN/I report you cite is about the same incident as well, not an additional incident, yes? Do you have evidence of any other incidents besides this one?
Also a general question to whomever can answer it: has Roscelese been warned or sanctioned for violating this restriction before? I see nothing in the Enforcement Log. BMK (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Sonicyouth86
As I stated at ANI, EllieTea (talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA whose editing is limited to the subject of (campus) rape and false rape accusations. Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic. ET promotes the POV that “only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true”. Their edits demonstrate a clear bias which corresponds with their stated bias. All that Roscelese did was discuss those edits, explain how they violated WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and revert some of those POV pushing edits together with other experienced editors like EvergreenFir and Binksternet. I think that it's no coincidence that Padenton and ElliTea, who support the same edits on talk:False accusations of rape, filed an AE and ANI report essentially at the same time, obviously in an effort to have Roscelese removed from the article so that they can have free reign. I listed some examples of EllieTea's misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, and POV pushing on the ANI noticeboard. Padenton has clearly been unhelpful in the topic area, claiming over and over again that I and Roscelese have been uncivil to EllieTea or accusing me of refusing to discuss, which is demonstrably false. I suggest a warning for Padenton and a topic ban for EllieTea who is obviously WP:NOTHERE. --SonicY (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Padenton: You keep trotting out this myth that EllieTea's edits were reverted "with no discussion and no explanation." Even a cursory glance at the talk page reveals that your statement couldn't be more incorrect.
- As for the SPA thing, EllieTea made 222 article edits since registering their account in June 2009. More than half (134) of their article edits were made this year, and of those 134 edits almost 100 were about rape, campus rape, rape charges against an NFL player, false rape accusations. If we exclude the 13 edits to the Leila Araghian article and 6 edits of the article about a bridge designed by Araghian, all other non-rape related edits this year were minor like adding wikilinks [99], changing the date format [100], italicizing text [101], small copy edits [102]. With the exception of one edit in 2013, all of their article talk page edits had to do with rape [103]. So it's more than fair to say that the vast majority of EllieTea's edits and especially all of their substantial edits are limited to one topic area which is (false accusations of) rape.
- You claim that you have never disputed that some of EllieTea's edits have issues. But you actually did say that you see no issue with EllieTeas edits to the article. Your contribution to the discussion was to a) post blanket approval of EllieTea's extremely problematic additions (see previous link), and b) defend EllieTea's misrepresentation of sources like here. You have actively enabled EllieTea's disruptive behavior and persistent original research. And here you are, requesting sanctions against an experienced editor whose only "mistake" was to engage with an SPA and explain over and over which edits were problematic and why. --SonicY (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Padenton: I didn't mean to imply that you received emails from EllieTea or that you coordinated your complaints against Roscelese off-wiki. What I meant to say was that you were the only other editor who supported the same POV and same content as EllieTea, and you defended even the most obvious misrepresentation of sources. So I regard it as no coincidence that you and EllieTea would request sanctions against Roscelese after the article protection expired and after I mentioned that I intended to take ElliTea and your behavior to ANI or AE. --SonicY (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Padenton: Short reply re your second and third point:
- Yes, there were significant policy issues with the edits as a whole. You just basically repeated your blanket defense of EllieTea's problematic contributions. There were persistent OR and NPOV issues with the edits as a whole. Actually worse than OR, blatant misrepresentation of sources, misrepresentation that corresponds with EllieTea's stated POV.
- EllieTea refused to follow the BRD cycle, restored their edits without consensus and while discussion was ongoing (e.g., [104][105][106]). Even when EllieTea participated in discussion they refused to listen on many occasions, simply repeating their original research even after it was conclusively demonstrated to them with long quotes from sources that their edits misrepresented the sources (e.g., discussion -> refusal to listen). --SonicY (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Padenton: I didn't mean to imply that you received emails from EllieTea or that you coordinated your complaints against Roscelese off-wiki. What I meant to say was that you were the only other editor who supported the same POV and same content as EllieTea, and you defended even the most obvious misrepresentation of sources. So I regard it as no coincidence that you and EllieTea would request sanctions against Roscelese after the article protection expired and after I mentioned that I intended to take ElliTea and your behavior to ANI or AE. --SonicY (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: this arb case doesn't allow the remedy of discretionary sanctions
– the GamerGare ArbCom case does. I intended to request sanctions against EllieTea under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions and I made the mistake of mentioning it to Padenton, and he took it to AE first. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions apply to "any gender-related dispute and controversy" and probably cover the false accusation of rape page. Should I start a separate AE request? --SonicY (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Salvio giuliano: I see no evidence that Roscelese was aware that the GamerGate discretionary sanctions are in force for the false accusation of rape article. And I don't see how Roscelese could have possibly violated those terms by sticking to 1RR and by removing original research and POV. The editor who is aware because they received a DS alert and whose behavior has been problematic is EllieTea. --SonicY (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by EllieTea
If I have understood this discussion, an important issue is whether Roscelese justified the mass revert of my edits. Roscelese did give an explanation for the mass revert, on the Talk page.[107] That explanation states that my edits violate WP:VERIFY and WP:OR.
Consider the diff between before and after the mass revert.[108] Roscelese should be able to specify some aspect of the diff that shows a violation of VERIFY and some aspect that shows a violation of OR.
I ask that Roscelese be required to specify such aspects. EllieTea (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Result concerning Roscelese
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
This complaint may be closed unless it identifies exactly where Roscelese broke the Arbcom restriction. The three parts of her restriction are:
- indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
- indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
- indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.
I don't see a complaint here that Roscelese broke the 1RR. And nobody has presented diffs showing Roscelese reverting with no edit summary. The only clause where you might have a case is the third one, about casting aspersions or personalizing disputes. What I can see is Roscelese using some harsh language, but there is intense disagreement about how to interpret some of the sources about false rape allegations. There is some indication that more than one party is descending into minute analysis of sources that may violate WP:NOR. Charges of misreading sources are not exactly aspersions if there is good-faith disagreement on how to interpret the sources. As yet, this does not add up to a clear case against Roscelese. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- What we have here is a set of people who appear to be ineffective in finding consensus. In lieu of sanctions for this complaint, I think we should consider a period of full protection of False accusation of rape. That would require editors to reach consensus on the talk page before an admin would change the article through the {{Edit protected}} process. The alternative of topic banning all the people whose collaboration is deficient isn't available to us because this arb case doesn't allow the remedy of discretionary sanctions. The only person in the current complaint who can be sanctioned is User:Roscelese because she has a specific restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to use discretionary sanctions, you can invoke WP:ARBGG, which authorised DS for "any gender-related dispute or controversy" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions). Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)