please pardon; adding link to archived section |
Undid revision 828847484 by Jytdog (talk) clearly done in error Tag: Undo |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 226 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{TOC left|limit=2}}{{clear}} |
{{TOC left|limit=2}}{{clear}} |
||
==Hyper9== |
|||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JFG== |
|||
{{hat|Hyper9 is indefinitely topic banned from all Wikipedia pages and discussions connected with Indian history including languages/linguistic history, and Nagadeepa is indefinitely topic banned from all Wikipedia pages and discussions connected with with Indian languages. Both editors are encouraged to appeal the sanction no sooner than six months from now, with evidence that they have contributed constructively in other parts of Wikipedia or in [[WP:SISTER|our sister projects]] in the meantime. Such appeals are likely to be viewed favorably. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC).}} |
|||
{{hat|0RR restriction reduced to 72 hours on [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections]] by sanctioning admin and general agreement below. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>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]]).''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Hyper9=== |
|||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|JFG}} – — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 14:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nagadeepa}} 15:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Hyper9}}<p>{{ds/log|Hyper9}} |
|||
; Sanction being appealed : 0RR restriction on ARPAP2/1RR articles, following [[Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Is there an Admin in the house?]] |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions]] |
|||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Ian.thomson}} |
|||
<!---WP:TBAN---> |
|||
To ban Hyper9 from editing the Malayalam page (and other Indian history pages) where he has been propagating fringe theories not widely accepted by most scholars. Hyper9 has also been repeatedly deleting accurately referenced widely accepted views on the history of the Malayalam language. He has also been brazenly distorting the following accurate source and completely misinterpreting it to suit his fringe theories: |
|||
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24157306.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents |
|||
; Notification of that administrator : |
|||
: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian.thomson&diff=776671810&oldid=776641249 Notified.] |
|||
Finally, he has refused to engage in dispute resolution procedures on spurious grounds: |
|||
===Statement by JFG=== |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_160#Talk:Malayalam |
|||
First of all, I admit that a technical 1RR violation occurred as reported, with a 17-hour interval between two unrelated reverts; I simply didn't pay attention. However, I strongly deny the purported pattern of 1RR violations which has been cited to justify the sanction. |
|||
I note that this not a new problem and he has been banned in the past for similar disruptive behaviour. |
|||
This is a [[WP:HOUND|wikihounding]] campaign by {{u|SPECIFICO}} who has repeatedly accused me of violating DS or 1RR simply when she happens to disagree with my editing. She has been making unsupported DS violation claims and vague litigation threats against several other editors, e.g. most recently {{u|K.e.coffman}} [[User talk:K.e.coffman#1RR violation Russian interference|here]] and {{u|Darouet}} [[User talk:Darouet#1 RR Violation at Russian Interference|there]]. I have warned this user repeatedly of the [[chilling effect]] she is creating, but she keeps trying to corner me on a technicality (and apparently succeeded today). Here are six instances of her direct accusations which turned out to be unfounded: |
|||
* 19 February: [[User Talk:JFG#DS violation]] (alleged two reverts, when only one edit was a revert) |
|||
* 23 February: [[User Talk:JFG#AE request]] (AE process opened by {{u|Steve Quinn}} and dismissed as a simple content dispute, but please open the "Unproductive aspersions" hat to see SPECIFICO's statements) |
|||
* 26 February: [[User Talk:JFG#1 RR violation at Russian]] (unspecified violation, no follow-up) |
|||
* 14 March: [[User Talk:JFG#!RR Violation -- please self-undo]] (lots of discussion among editors and admins about which edits should be considered reverts, no action) |
|||
* 11 April: [[User Talk:JFG#DS Violation at Russians]] (unspecified threat) |
|||
* 16 April: [[User Talk:JFG#Another DS violation at Russians]] (unsubstantiated accusation: one edit is a BOLD cleanup of the article, the other is an exempt revert arguing BLPVIO) |
|||
SPECIFICO never managed to find any genuine misconduct on my part. I consider this attitude to be disruptive and borderline [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], however I refrained from reporting her behaviour and I treated it with as much [[User talk:JFG#This edit...|humour ]] as I could muster.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARussian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&type=revision&diff=773362407&oldid=773361177] An editor once [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive211#JFG brought me to AE], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive337#User:JFG_reported_by_User:My_very_best_wishes_.28Result:_No_violation.29 another to ANEW], and in both cases no violation was found; these were misunderstandings about what constitutes a revert. One of the reporting users [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JFG&diff=768447845&oldid=768447342 graciously apologized] but SPECIFICO [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JFG&diff=next&oldid=768448382 piled on] with a kind of "you'll get nailed next time" taunt, yet she never pushed the matter to [[WP:AE]]. |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
Please note also that I voluntarily self-revert when notified of an actual DS violation (for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=766347245&oldid=766271503 self-revert] + [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=766348695&oldid=766348661 pursuing discussion]), whereas SPECIFICO simply ignores warnings when she breaches revert restrictions (for example [[Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 6#Reinserting content challenged by revert|this thread]] or [[Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 6#Rephrasing Binney/McGovern paragraph|that one]], ignoring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=766791965&oldid=766791194 self-revert] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=766873775&oldid=766873216 requests] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=766863412&oldid=766861917 issuing threats]). |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayalam&oldid=825317310 - 18:38, 12 February 2018 ] Accurate history of Malayalam language with scientific references. Hyper9 has consistently been deleting these referenced edits of mine based on the work of reputed linguists and historians which jettison the theory that Malayalam had an independent origin from Tamil. |
|||
SPECIFICO's hounding behaviour towards me has been so blatant that another editor, {{u|Factchecker_atyourservice}}, whom I didn't know, came to my talk page to joke about it by making [[User talk:JFG#You can run, but you can't hide|a parody of her attacks]]. [[User talk:SPECIFICO#Russians!|This thread]] is also worth reading, whereby another editor, {{u|Objective3000}}, admittedly sometimes in disagreement with me, considered that SPECIFICO owed me an apology for her aspersions. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayalam 16/2/18 14:47] This is the current version of the page where Hyper9 has ensured that a biased and fringe history of the Malayalam language is left unchallenged. |
|||
Imposing a permanent 0RR restriction on me would be validating the chilling effect intended by one adversarial editor, in practice denying me legitimate editing actions towards article improvements in AP2 topics. Given the fuzzy interpretations of what is and is not a revert, I run the risk of being blocked for simply making a bold edit that somebody will construe as a revert of some content. Sanctions are meant to be preventive, not punitive, and this 0RR restriction looks like punitive treatment for a series of mostly-unfounded DS violation claims. |
|||
A full argument between Hyper9 and two other editors Cpt.a.haddock and me Nagadeepa can be seen in the talk page. Anyone who reads the whole exchange and particularly the research article by S.V Shanmugam (which I have quoted from extensively in the talk section) can see that Hyper9 has been distorting this source and is being disruptive and obstructive. |
|||
For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours. Furthermore, I request a strong admonition to SPECIFICO for a pattern of hurling baseless accusations at her fellow editors, thereby wasting everybody's time and energy towards unconstructive discussions. |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malayalam#Debates_on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017 |
|||
Finally, I'm sorry for burdening admins with a rather lengthy statement; I felt I had to provide enough context to defend myself properly. |
|||
===Statement by Ian.thomson=== |
|||
I admit that I had looked though and saw the multiple warnings, with diffs. The proclivity for manual reverts (along with {{u|SPECIFICO}} sometimes not linking to prior versions) makes it harder to sort through. There was a flame this time, and lots of smoke in previous instances. That said, my phrasing was "after multiple warnings," not "multiple violations." |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
JFG said {{tq|For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours}} -- I'll go further and reduce it to 0RR on just the page in question for the three days. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyper9#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban] Hyper9 was previously banned on 7th July 2017 from all articles related to Indian history for the exact same reasons that I am submitting this request. |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
:{{replyto|DHeyward}} My activity at Alex Jones predates his involvement in the election and has been to oppose [[WP:FRINGE]]-pushing editors. My activity at Pizzagate was over BLP concerns and my continued activity is, again, discouraging conspiracy theorists (if it's not fringe, I don't really care what other editors do to those articles). My activity has more to do with conspiracy theorism than with politics, per se. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
===Statement by (slatersteven)=== |
|||
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. |
|||
Well a look at 19th of feb show this revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=766271503&oldid=766271290], followed by this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=766347245&oldid=766271503] which JFG's own edit summery says is a "self revert". Yes it is a technicality, but it is two reverts. |
|||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. |
|||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyper9#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban] (7/7/17) by {{user|SpacemanSpiff}}. {{reply|SpacemanSpiff}} {{reply|Doug_Weller}} |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. |
|||
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyper9#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban] 7/7/17. |
|||
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyper9#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban]. |
|||
I assume the warning on 23 refers to two reverts on the 22nd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=766789047&oldid=766776592] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=766791401&oldid=766789047], opne was (it claims) a reversion of a banned user's material, but still (technically) two reverts. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
I stopped here. yes there do seem to also be multiple reverts on the 26th as well. The two instances of double revert I checked are not really egregious, in that one was a self revert and thus only technical violations.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Apologies for not attaching correct diff links earlier. I am new to wikipedia editing. |
|||
I think this is what is requested as a 'diff': |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayalam&type=revision&diff=825503445&oldid=825317310 [[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)--> |
|||
===Statement by DHeyward=== |
|||
Overturn. This was a rather hasty response to a nebulous charge. Are we really counting a self-revert as a violation of 1RR as the second revert? I noticed SPECIFICO leveling accusations of edit warring against JFG on the BLP notice board and no action was taken. There is a degree of forum shopping going on and it was unclear what action caused the imposing administrator to invoke a 0RR restriction. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 16:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
Clean block log for an editor accused of a pattern of edit warring? Not much of a pattern. |
|||
<!--https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hyper9&oldid=825989414#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement--> |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyper9#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement |
|||
:<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nagadeepa|contribs]]) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)</small> |
|||
Considering the sanction request was made on the article talk page with no discussion and no diffs for a pattern of behavior (which is really a pattern of complaints), this is a rather egregious overreaction to a 1RR violation from an out of process sanction request. JFG has never been blocked for edit warring so the argument for a pattern of edit warring is rather ridiculous. This was an ill-considered sanction. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
I'll also note that the talk page for the article where this request was made has hatted the discussion as being out of process with a notice that bringing sanction requests to talk pages can result in sanctions. This sanction should have never been issued. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion concerning Hyper9=== |
|||
:{{re|NeilN}} As I said, the request was out of process. Had you acted earlier, the request would have been closed. An article talk page was a poor choice and many admin AC/DS sanctions that have come under scrutiny are those that occurred without input at AE or ANI. Everyone agrees that admins can act unilaterally. Virtually everyone agrees that discussion at AE is preferred for any actions that may be questioned. I would hope the imposing admin would lift their 0RR sanction and let it be discussed but if not, they should be prepared that the bar for overturning that decision is much lower than overturning consensus. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 20:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Hyper9==== |
|||
The article under dispute has a problematic regional history to it. It is therefore understandable that it can be controversial - but that is true for a lot of other topics as well. I have searched for sources for these pages and all of the content that I have added are from reputed and estabilshed sources. I have also addressed this filing editor properly, despite his abuses, incivility (I have already been called - 'dishonest', 'charlatan', 'madman' on WP by this editor) and a series of incoherent arguments on the [[Talk:Malayalam]] page. Yet, no action has been taken against this editor. |
|||
:{{re|Sandstein}} If the sanctioning admin had provided diffs or examples of the behavior they were sanctioning, it might be possible to address them. But the admin only said the current 1RR was stale. That diff is all that there is in the sanction discussion. And a clean block log. Not a lot of evidence to address. And we have editors saying a self-revert counts as the second revert in 1RR pages which is nonsense. I can only hope that diff wasn't used as evidence. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Not only this, this other editor was never interested in a discussion, but after one response from me, went ahead and opened a DRN on 10th Feb. The response after which this editor raised the DRN can be viewed here - and only highlights their unwillingness for discussion - |
|||
:I'm also concerned that {{u|Ian.thomson}} has edited within the area of AP2 most recently in Pizzagate and AlexJones, both of which were prominent in the most recent US election. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 21:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=prev&oldid=824718203 (Only the bottom part where I have signed off is my contribution) |
|||
This editor, who has filed this complaint, has been resorting to all sorts of tactics to get the version of the page that he wants without any discussion on the [[Talk:Malayalam]] page. The first action that he did is to file a DRN even before we had any serious discussion. I would like to point out I have made exactly 5 responses to this editor, which can be viewed here - |
|||
The 72 hour agreement for lifting seems reasonable. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 23:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=824981462&oldid=824944902 |
|||
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825312813&oldid=824983593 |
|||
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825504100&oldid=825366118 |
|||
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825548041&oldid=825531524 |
|||
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825954678&oldid=825879648 |
|||
I have been extremely polite and restrained in my responses in this stint - and if there is something that the WP administrators would point out as inadmissible in my replies above, I would be surprised. In my previous experience, the Appeal procedure to a ban request on me did not even allow me to respond to accusations. In this instance, I do hope that my case would be considered more carefully by the Admins. I have contributed significantly to improving these pages as any editor who will examine these pages can tell and much of the sources that I had added in my previous Enforcement case have not been removed - even after the disputing editor cross-checked them. Thanks. [[User:Hyper9|Hyper9]] ([[User talk:Hyper9|talk]]) 21:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by My very best wishes=== |
|||
I think JFG indeed violated 1RR restrictions on these pages previously. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=770176034&oldid=770171265 one] (revert of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=769894949&oldid=769892453 this edit]) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=770241678&oldid=770226101 two] (clearly marked by JFG himself as a revert in the edit summary). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JFG#.21RR_Violation_--_please_self-undo Here is whole discussion] if anyone would be interested in. |
|||
I also admit reporting JFG previously on 3RRNB [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive337#User:JFG_reported_by_User:My_very_best_wishes_.28Result:_No_violation.29 here]. Here is why. My reading of [[WP:3RR]] was that undoing work by previous contributor'''s''' (plural) like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&diff=768398484&oldid=768398401 here] would be counted as revert. However, JFG insisted that one must provide exact edit (diff) by specific contributor (singular) that he reverted. I am not sure that JFG was right, but the closing admin (El C) decided he was right. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[User:EdJohnston]], [[User:Dennis_Brown]], [[User:Sandstein]], [[User:RegentsPark]] - It would have been fair if you could have at least waited for me to provide a First response before arriving at conclusions. Also, to base the present dispute on any previous dispute is to fail to see what is going on now. I am eager to be shown anything that amounts to a transgression in any of my edits and I have been extremely patient in dealing with this filing editor. This filing editor begins their edits on February 8th, 2018 and by February 9th-10th - they file DRN cases thinking that it is some form of 3rd party judgement. This clearly indicates that they were never interested in resolving the dispute through discussion. They have in fact, been trying to use such blocking mechanisms from the beginning - knowing that they can harp about how I was banned previously (which is a whole different story on a different page [[Chera_dynasty]]). The discussion on this page had been in fact settled by me and the other disputing editor with a consensus DRN version and can be viewed here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=prev&oldid=787916353 |
|||
===Statement by (involved editor)=== |
|||
:::In the lede on this page [[Malayalam]], the portion on origins has been made neutral to show the existence of Two views after all this effort by me. There is no need for me to sit and take all these attacks by these other editors if there wasn't any substance to it. All these editors including the previous ones have been trying to push the first view in that origin portion all this while. In fact, before I edited this page, all these disputing editors sat on this page without allowing for the second view to be expressed at all. It is in attempting to neutralise this bias that I have had to do research and add good sources and have been the subject to all these attacks. I dare say that it would be patently unfair as responsible WP Admins if you do not look at my responses more carefully and the nature of the disruptive behaviour and personal attacks by this other editor. If you can then genuinely provide any conclusive examples or reasons why such a drastic action such as a ban on me is warranted, I would accept it willingly. [[User:Hyper9|Hyper9]] ([[User talk:Hyper9|talk]]) 09:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JFG === |
|||
In considering this matter, please note that the sanction would apply to "articles" plural, not just "the article" as [[User:El C]] mentioned below. JFG has been active (without incident) at multiple articles where the sanction would apply.[[User:Anythingyouwant| Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
=====Second Statement by Hyper9===== |
|||
*Not involved in this incident; but placed my comment here conservatively as I’ve been involved in articles, pro and con, with JFG. There are times that I think JFG makes changes to mainspace too quickly during a continuing discussion, which I find quite bothersome. But, I think that we have to take into account the effect of 1RR and DS. I agree that these must exist. It’s just that, at times, editing articles under DS is like dancing the tango in a minefield. Technical violations are going to occur. I may disagree with JFG on many edits – but, he is a valuable editor involved in difficult articles. 0RR seems excessive and damages his ability to contribute. I suggest a rainbow trout, or a brief 0RR as suggested below. [[User:Objective3000|Objective3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I am surprised to know now that it was this same editor who tried to edit [[Talk:Malayalam]] using an anonymous IP earlier. There was no attempt by this editor to clarify that it was them earlier, which is obviously some form of deception. [[User:Francis_Schonken]]: As I have mentioned somewhere in the talk pages, I am perfectly willing to take part in any process for dispute resolution. I have done so successfully in the past and I have shown that I can maintain decorum. |
|||
===Result of the appeal by JFG=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. --> |
|||
* I'd '''decline the request as invalid.''' The appeal does not indicate which specific sanction is being appealed. What I'd expect is a link to a statement by an administrator specifying a sanction. The [[Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Is_there_an_Admin_in_the_house.3F|talk page thread]] linked to in the request does not contain a sanction. This appeal is therefore invalid and can be closed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:* Link now added by appealing editor. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::*I'd still decline the appeal because it is mostly a series of attacks against another editor, substantially without evidence, see [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. An appeal should only address the conduct of the appealing editor. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 20:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{ping|DHeyward}} Although I closed the thread and sanctioned SPECIFICO [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=prev&oldid=776675969] the original sanction itself by {{u|Ian.thomson}} is not out of process as admins can act on any action or requests. However I want to emphasize that article talk pages '''should not''' be turned into mini-[[WP:AE]] boards. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>'''Undecided'''</s>. I was the admin who has gotten many of SPECIFICO's requests to sanction JFG for 1RR violations, but all of these, save one, were not reverts. I'd wait to hear from the enforcing admin's reasoning before deciding. This sanction does severely handicaps JFG from editing the article on an equal footing. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:*0RR for 72 hours (a sanction I often apply at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fan4Life_reported_by_User:Livelikemusic_.28Result:_Blocked_24_hours.29|at AN3]]) sounds like a fair sanction for making this mistake. JFG is cautioned to be more cognisant of 1RR. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
In my defence, I did not know that the 1st DRN case would be closed down because I requested an apology (which this other editor has still not been decent enough to provide). I was under the impression that there would be an apology (as I have done in the past) and we would carry on into the main discussion. Despite this having happened, in the 2nd DRN case, this editor opens a case using words such as "madman" in their opening statement. Obviously, this editor is not interested in having a discussion purely on content as a DRN case ought to be. I must point out that it would be ridiculous if the one editor can launch personal attacks in every alternate sentence in a moderated discussion - and the other editor has to focus on content only. If anything, I have been patient with this immaturity and not responded similarly, but have only asked for such statements to be deleted or an apology given. [[User:Hyper9|Hyper9]] ([[User talk:Hyper9|talk]]) 10:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==E.M.Gregory== |
|||
{{hat|E.M. Gregory is cautioned to take more care in the future when editing articles subject to sanctions. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 00:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC) }} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
[[User:Francis_Schonken]] - For whatever its worth, in answer to your question - I dont have any problem in participating in a content-only discussion. I have done so once in the past and arrived at a consensus with the disputing editor. [[User:Hyper9|Hyper9]] ([[User talk:Hyper9|talk]]) 18:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Request concerning E.M.Gregory=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Fram}} 12:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
The filing editor resurrected their old ID solely for the purpose of disruptive editing and filing a slew of disputes and cases against me. And they still have not shown any sense of basic civility or change in their behaviour. Despite discussing in a wholly reformed manner and being patient with this highly disruptive and uncivil editor, I see that a greater sanction is being called against me with barely any supporting evidence for this. In a sense, I am not surprised by this irrational position by the Admin [[User:SpacemanSpiff]]. I have pointed out the biased behaviour of this Admin in the past as well (in July 2017). I am sure that they are a great Admin in other areas but as far as these topics are concerned, unfortunately I have not seen anything but biased and illogical interventions. However, there is probably very little that a contributor can do in this regard and once the Admins conclude the discussions, I am sure I can adhere by whatever decision is reached. [[User:Hyper9|Hyper9]] ([[User talk:Hyper9|talk]]) 01:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|E.M.Gregory}}<p>{{ds/log|E.M.Gregory}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
====Statement by Robert McClenon==== |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction]] : |
|||
This is not "just a content dispute". It is a content dispute that is compounded by conduct issues. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Malayalam . As you can see, there has been [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] on both sides. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
::Well, I see that [[User:Nagadeepa]] is ranting at great length. My original comment had been that there was [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] by both editors, and Nagadeepa seems to be proving that sometimes the Original Poster gets hit by the [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]]. In other words, I concur with the pending result of topic-banning both parties. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Nagadeepa=== |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&diff=next&oldid=776947585 24 April 2017 10.49] Full revert |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&type=revision&diff=776957492&oldid=776957093 24 April 2017 11.22] Partial revert of same material |
|||
It is very clear from my extensive comments on the Talk:Malayalam page that I have exhausted all avenues of discussion with Hyper9 (whether moderated or non-moderated) and his claim that I want to edit the page without discussion is an outright falsehood.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 18:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AE.M.Gregory&type=revision&diff=773951876&oldid=773834735 ArbPIA reminder] at their user talk page on 5 April 2017 (no idea if this was their first reminder or not) |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&action=history 21 April 2017] warned on same article by Black Kite about 2RR |
|||
"While we are at it, it is necessary to look at the conduct of Nagadeepa, who has been frequently repeating himself by copy pasting same messages, [13][14] typing in caps." |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AE.M.Gregory&type=revision&diff=776962508&oldid=776961807] |
|||
This message by D4iNa4 has angered me. The only reason why I repeated that message in caps is because Hyper9 had repeatedly ignored it and refused to address it. Hyper9 himself requested me to highlight the quotations from the said scholars to differentiate them from my own words. In fact, this quote alone from the paper by S.V Shanmugam exposes Hyper9 whole argument and shows he has manipulated the paper. He did not directly address any of my critical questions and would instead go on a tangent with his responses. Debate with him was impossible hence why 3rd party mediation was crucial.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning E.M.Gregory=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by E.M.Gregory==== |
|||
I lost my cool and reverted too hastily, forgetting to discuss the deletion first on the talk page. I backed off from brangling over I/P articles ages ago, after finding the discussions in re: [[Susya]] endlessly aversive. I now limit editing in I/P to articles that come up for AfD (like this one,) non-controversial topics like art and literature, occassional sourcing, and terrorist attacks - which I create and edit worldwide. This keeps me out of the swamp of deletion wars and personal attacks in which I/P editing is mired. But it also means that I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule. An error on my part. I do want to point out that the information deleted was sourced to an essay was by [[Itamar Marcus]] and published in the [[Times of Israel]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&diff=776947585&oldid=776811716] It was written in NPOV voice and was deleted without discussion during a tense AfD process with editors arguing delete on the grounds that the Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing attack was a single-news cycle event with no ongoing coverage. Removing this material during an intensely controversial AfD process framed by several editors as an argument that all terrorist attacks in Israel/Jerusalem/Palestinian Territories should be added to lists rather than kept as stand-alone articles. (Because I edit terror attacks, crime, and attacks that may or may not be terrorism worldwide, I was aware that this argument is contrary to our treatment of similar attacks in other parts of the world.) I do not know what Fram's motives ere in deleting this material, although certainly he has been adamant in opposition ot the existence of this article, describing it as lacking ongoing impact [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&diff=776520265&oldid=776516053], <s>attacking even what the calls "mainstream" media coverage as "unreliable"</s> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&diff=776633811&oldid=776592100], but because I work regularly at AfD do that edits removing ongoing news coverage from a page have the effect of are making it appear that coverage of an event has not met the criteria of sustained coverage.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 12:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I note that D4iNa4 has been tagged as a suspected sockpuppet. |
|||
====Statement by Fram==== |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogesh_Khandke/Archive |
|||
E.M. Gregory, first read things attentively before making up statements here. I was not "attacking even what the calls "mainstream" media coverage as "unreliable""[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&diff=776633811&oldid=776592100], that was a quote from now indef blocked user Cyrus the Penner (who was on ''your'' side of the debate from the start): they were claiming that mainstream media coverage is unreliable, a statement with which I clearly disagreed, but which showed his POV in editing the article and AfD. Don't attribute statements or opinions I have not made to me please, and certainly don't build a whole flimsy defense on these incorrect starting points. |
|||
[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::Just to clarify IP address 80.229.155.49 in the talk page is also me. I have been engaged in discussion with Hyper9 for a much longer time than has been implied.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 21:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Considering the ArbPIA reminder of early april, and the 1RR reminder of 21 April, it seems unlikely that "I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule." Your description of [http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/opinion-the-palestinians-will-pay-blood-money-to-hannah-bladons-killer-how-should-britain-respond/] as an NPOV source can be judged by uninvolved readers on its merits, but in the end has no bearing on this AE request. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:*You sent me a reminder about this in April?[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 13:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::*Congrats, striking our one incorrect reading of statements by me, and now adding a new one. No, ''I'' didn't send a reminder in early april or on 21 April, other editors did. You can find the diffs at the very start of this AE request. Perhaps, in a enforcement request about your edits, ''read'' the actual request and try to understand what people are saying and what the history is before replying. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Nice try MagSGV. That is not sock puppetry by any stretch of the mind. I only searched for my log in details when I needed to open the DRN. There was a gap of many days between my eventual log in. |
|||
@Shrike: because E.M. Gregory reverted the same thing twice? I didn't really pay attention to what others did separately, and the two edits by MrX are edits he could have done in one go as well (they are two separate sections, if I looked correctly). But if you feel that these as well broke the restrictions and deserve the same treatment, be my guest (I also don't know whether MrX has had ArbPia warnings and recent warnings about this behaviour, which Gregory certainly had, but again, I have not looked in this in detail). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 06:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Francis Schonken I accept that my behaviour has not been perfect, and I should have restrained myself from referring to Hyper9's character. I was infuriated by his stone walling and his brazen distortion of S.V Shanmugam's source. |
|||
@Shrike: E.M. Gregory self-reverted after you advised them to "Just self revert to be on the safe side"... Why this would put them on the safe side is not really clear, his false statements and allegations in this AE request or his inability to see that an opinion piece is not a reliable source for statements of fact about something that perhaps one day might happen don't give me much confidence that there is any understanding of the problems with his edits in this contentious topic area. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Regarding the assertion that Tamilakam refers merely to a political structure, I dispute that strongly. Both S.V Shanmugam and Prof. Sreedhara Menon (Kerala's foremost historian) refer to it as a linguistic/cultural region. For most of its existence it was divided into three warring states all of which spoke Tamil. |
|||
@Wordsmith. No opinion on whether this is the time when a first block is needed, or a final warning is sufficient. But the "clean record" of E.M. Gregory is dubious (the lack of archiving makes it hard to research this though). '''It seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#E.M.Gregory here] they received a one-month topic ban from the Israel-Palestine subject in May 2016.''' So, while his block log is as of now empty, he doesn't have a clean record, not even in this very topic area. " he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert." Yes, after the discussion on his talk page, the ANI request, and this AE request were started, when another editor advised him to do so "to be on the safe side". Self-reverting to avoid a block is hardly a mitigating factor in my book. "the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread[28] (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping." I was advised at the ANI thread to start an AE request, but apparently following that advise is now "forum shopping"? Not really, no. Forum shopping is getting a negative response at one venue, and then trying again at another: it is not being sent by one venue to another, and then being accused there of forum shopping because you followed that advice. "Fram has, in fact, given out ARBPIA DS notices before, so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this." AE is the perfect place for people who have already had ARBPIA warnings (which I didn't know for Gregory at the time I filed the ANI request, just like I didn't know about the earlier topic ban until just now), and I felt that the issues were farther reaching than just the 1RR of ARBPIA. Anyway, your fourth point reads "Fram shouldn't have come here, this is forum shopping. Fram should have come here, this is the right place". Please make up you mind. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
The internal evidence from the ancient literature also supports this.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 08:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Huldra}} my first post on his talk page asked him to self-revert, but instead he reinserted the opinion piece after another user had again removed it. The situation here is not comparable to yours (which I haven't looked in to). ANI and ARE only came ''after'' a request to self-revert was not heeded and a further revert to include the contested material was made. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 06:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
MapSGV well that was clearly was not my intention. It was a case of me not bothering to dig out my long forgotten log in details with my initial discussion. You can believe what you want. But that was not my motivation at all[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Shrike==== |
|||
{{ping|Fram}} Why did you report only Gregory there other users that broke 1RR?For example [[User:MrX]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&diff=776955352&oldid=776955190] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&diff=776954923&oldid=776954622]--[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 13:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Francis yes I would be open to take part in a 3rd party mediated discussion. |
|||
MrX self reverted and I think Gregory too.--[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 13:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::and again here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&diff=776971476&oldid=776969028] with the explanation "I forgot that...." which seems perfectly plausible to me. Lots of us eidt carelessly at times, forgetting stuff.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 14:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::What do you mean, "and again here"? Or do you consider self-reverting as another revert to be added? In that case, why did you self-revert after this AE request was filed? Please stop throwing accusations and incorrect statements around, it really doesn't make you look any better. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|El C}} The user have self reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&diff=776969028&oldid=776962543] even before first admin comment. |
|||
{{ping|wordsmith}}There are additional user that violated 1rr and self-reverted do you suggest to warn them too?--[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|El C}}Do you suggest same sanction for other user that violated 1RR and self-reverted on the same article?--[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 21:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
"Hyper9 seems to correctly indicate that some of the scholars quoted by Nagadeepa rather speak about political and other historical splits". |
|||
====Statement by MrX==== |
|||
I did inadvertently violate 1RR and I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&type=revision&diff=776971476&oldid=776969028 self-reverted]. I was making a series of small contiguous edits and did not realize that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&type=revision&diff=776955117&oldid=776954923 Icewhiz had made an intervening edit]. |
|||
Could you please direct me to which scholar I quote says this. S.V Shanmugam, my main source clearly states that ancient Tamil Nadu and Kerala (Tamilakam) was a Tamil linguistic region i.e. region where the Tamil language was spoken. There is no consciousness in the ancient literature of any other language being spoken substantially.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 10:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
E.M. Gregory seems to have strong views in this subject, as evidenced by his willful violation of two of the article editing restrictions, his [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=E.M.Gregory&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&max=500&server=enwiki 37 AfD comments], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E.M.Gregory&diff=prev&oldid=776958808 suggestion] that Fram and I have a political position with regard to the subject (I don't). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AE.M.Gregory&type=revision&diff=776961807&oldid=776931021 This discussion] and the [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=E.M.Gregory&page=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&max=10&server=enwiki article edit summaries] hint that E.M. Gregory will probably stop at nothing to win disputes in this subject area. |
|||
Francis I will be willing to take part in a 3rd party meditated discussion and will refrain from making any offensive comments to the other editor.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 13:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Francis one of my main concerns regarding any 3rd party mediated process, is that will the 3rd parties actually read the source material under scrutiny? There has been blatant untruths said about one reliable source which anyone can see if they can actually read the research paper. If this does not happen then it will degenerate into a "his word against mine" argument which will go no where. [[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 17:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Dovid==== |
|||
::::::::{{Ping|Francis Schonken}} Is there a way to combine both 'Language and linguistics' with 'History and geography'? This dispute is easily resolved when these two disciplines are looked at together and not in isolation. The linguistic evidence coupled with the historical evidence (garnered from the ancient literature and inscriptions of Kerala which are all in Old Tamil) leaves no doubt that Hyper9's position is a fringe theory. The fringe academic that Hyper9 depends on (Govindakutty) is completely silent on the historical record for example.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not involved here, as I have not done editing in this article. The request happened to catch my eye. After reading through the editing history of the article and a bit of the editors as well, I decided to comment. Forgive me for barging in. |
|||
'posting unexplained poetry' |
|||
This seems to be overblown. A minor infraction of 1RR, which the editor has already admitted to and apologized for? The complainant is being more belligerent than the subject. No sanctions should be applied. |
|||
{{Ping|Bishonen}} the poetry is self explanatory to anyone who has basic specialised knowledge of the topic (which Hyper9 has). It's an ancient poem from an [[Old Tamil]] anthology [[Pathitrupathu]] which was composed in [[Kerala]] during the early centuries of the Christian era (1st-2nd century AD). It proves that the people from Kerala regarded themselves as being part of [[Tamilakam]], the common Tamil linguistic cultural region.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 11:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
"their jumping from an IP to their account on the talkpage without acknowledgement was beyond nonchalant (if not outright deceptive)". |
|||
A warning might be appropriate, but given that the editor has already owned up, and by his/her own statements appears to be self-policing against this behavior, it would probably be more of a sop to [[User:Fram]] than anything else. Perhaps give both of them a warning - [[User:E.M.Gregory]] for hasty editing that lead to rules violations, and Fram for i,,ature administrative action (escalating instead of de-escalating, admin shopping). [[User:Dovid|Dovid]] ([[User talk:Dovid|talk]]) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I did not realise it was such a big sin. The whole premise of the talk page in my estimation was based on the merits of the arguments/evidence, not on who says it. I did not think it was huge deal whether I wrote it under my old handle which I had to dig up from obscurity (so i could request the 3rd party meditation) or written under my IP. To call it deception is extreme. To have such an innocent mistake used against me is unfair.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 13:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Huldra==== |
|||
Ok, my 2 cents: I was given my first block after over 10 years in the IP area, 3 minutes after being reported by an obvious sock, without ''any'' previous warning, and without ''any'' chance to self revert. My second block was also given without ''any'' warning, and without ''any'' chance to self revert. Do I think E.M.Gregory deserves a block? '''Absolutely not.''' The fact that I have been treated like shit by admins, does not mean that I want other editors treated the same way. And, for those of you unfamiliar with the IP area; I’m very much on the "other side of the divide" from E.M.Gregory, in fact, I just AfD one of his latest masterpieces, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis]]. Actually, I would love to see him topic banned from the IP area...or at least, banned from making any new articles in the IP area. But blocked, when he self reverted? No, that is simply not right, IMO. [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 23:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Well now the gloves are off, and I'm expecting the inevitable ban, I'm not going to bite my lips. Everything I said about Hyper9's personal character I genuinely believe. Was it uncivil for me to say it out in a public forum? Yes and I should have restrained myself. However, I know I will be vindicated in the future when Hyper9 comes up again in yet another dispute mechanism with yet another editor. As for me I am not going to waste any time with editing Wikipedia anymore and I would prefer if you would give me a permanent ban from all topics (disable my account please). If I could delete my complete account including all online evidence of it that would be preferable. Thanks.[[User:Nagadeepa|Nagadeepa]] ([[User talk:Nagadeepa|talk]]) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Debresser=== |
|||
E.M.Gregory took full responsibility for his mistake, both here and at WP:ANI,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=776960552&oldid=776959585] so I recommend minimal action, perhaps even a warning. An editor who has been active in this area and has been able to avoid problems, should receive some credit here. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
=== |
===Statement by D4iNa4=== |
||
While we are at it, it is necessary to look at the conduct of Nagadeepa, who has been frequently repeating himself by copy pasting same messages, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=prev&oldid=825713779][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825516842&oldid=825514636] typing in caps. Such disruption only creates hostility. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
"''I am afraid talking to you does feel like I'm talking to a mad man.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=825982217] Clear violation of [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 17:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{Ping|Nagadeepa}} if my above message really "angered" you so much then I am sure you can't deal with content dispute. You believe that because next one is not agreeing with you that means they are not reading your messages and you can copy paste same messages until next one stops. |
|||
Your failure to address your [[WP:BLUD|bludgeoning]], personal attacks, is visible. Talking about a 4 years old block of mine is not going to legitimize your ongoing disruption. Your IP edits seem to be violating [[WP:NOTFORUM]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=prev&oldid=822201601] |
|||
Nagadeepa has CIR issues and since he came with unclean hands, he needs to be sanctioned as well. Or otherwise close the report as content dispute (per Sandstein) and urge the users to try an RfC. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 15:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Nagadeepa could have apologized but this recent comment[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=826875482&oldid=826874197] further confirms that he is going to personalize these incidents and refuse to accept any mistakes. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 14:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by MagSGV=== |
|||
{{Ping|Nagadeepa}} did you confessed your sock puppetry with IP on talk page? I wouldn't be surprised if [[User:Hyper9|Hyper9]] was not aware of it. [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV|talk]]) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Nagadeepa can you just answer my question? Yes that is sock puppetry. Trying to show up that different people are saying same thing when there is one person using the IP and account. — [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV|talk]]) 07:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Bishonen, still Nagadeepa had to confess on talk page that he is behind the IP and he had enough time for that. This issue is not that one sided like you are thinking. Nagadeepa has engaged in disruptive editing. [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV|talk]]) 12:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Francis=== |
|||
{{Ping|Nagadeepa}} it seems important you realise that your behaviour has been all but exemplary, e.g. at the DRN, as already mentioned by Robert McClenon: "there has been [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] on '''both''' sides" (emphasis added). Yours was at least as much a cause to sinking the DRN as Hyper9's (I even thought yours slightly more offensive). You've edited en.Wikipedia for over ten years now, although apparently not always using the Nagadeepa account. Like for Hyper9 it is a pity you apparently rather stayed away than edit outside your area of interest (an apparently very narrow area of interest). Your latest additions to this AE show little or no improvement regarding the tone of your comments, so I suppose at least a symbolical but firm warning to change your ways would be in place. If needs be in the form of an AE sanction. |
|||
Re. "... who's right about the content ..." (mentioned by one of the admins below): scholars disagree, classical story, and opponents try to get their preferred scholars in line for being designated as the "mainstream" in the article, thus discussions devolve in a classical fight, and since neither gets the upper hand on content, in a series of insults. From the more interesting content arguments: |
|||
* Nagadeepa remarks that the scholars which are regarded mainstream by Hyper9 do in fact recognise that the other theory is mainstream. |
|||
* Hyper9 seems to correctly indicate that some of the scholars quoted by Nagadeepa rather speak about political and other historical splits, which are not necessarily the same as the split of the language from its surmised predecessor languages (which is the topic of the dispute). |
|||
So, if scholars don't agree, maybe mention what scholars say in their own name without attempting to distil a "mainstream" indicator for the lead section out of this lack of agreement, which might be a practical application of NPOV instead of this cesspit of a discussion. To me at least Nagadeepa and Hyper9 seem equally lacking in behavioural skills to bring this to a consensus conclusion, and it is a pity that the DRN sank (for which both seem somewhat equally responsible, although Hyper9 should probably have been the wiser one, and Nagadeepa should have been aware that being offensive usually boomerangs), so that the discussion would ultimately have centred around presenting the material in a NPOV way in mainspace instead of being ultimately about editor conduct. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 07:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Ping|Nagadeepa}} would you be prepared, after this AE closes (whatever way it closes) to participate in a content dispute resolution process (RSN, official mediation, RfC, or whatever seems most advisable and gets accepted by those having a say in it) about the topic at hand without launching *any* offence to fellow editors? |
|||
:{{ping|Hyper9}} same question to you of course. |
|||
:It might be possible (but it is up to admins to decide whether anything in this vein would be viable and/or desirable) to close this conditionally, say, that the first incivility by either of you would immediately result in a block of at least a week, with increasing block times when returning from block periods with new insults, etc (and/or other discretionary sanctions if any from the original ArbCom case are still in force). --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 08:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Hyper9}} I grouped your statements. You didn't really answer my question, at least not too clear whether you could agree with "content only" in the discussions (no transgression whatsoever outside of the content issue that needs to be addressed). |
|||
::{{Ping|Nagadeepa}} now you started to discuss content here, on a noticeboard that is a '''conduct''' noticeboard. I asked a question about conduct (i.e. your future conduct, whether it could adhere to certain principles), which you didn't answer. You had the opportunity to talk content exclusively, at the DRN (and it failed in part while you couldn't). Now we're at a conduct noticeboard, addressing conduct issues, and in your latest replies you seem to try to switch topic to content issues. If unclear about the difference (conduct vs. content), I must say that wouldn't promise too much regarding having future discussions either exclusively on content or exclusively on conduct: separating the two aspects is one of the methods used in Wikipedia to bring interminable discussions back on track. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 10:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Anyhow, placed an IPA-related ds alert on Nagadeepa's talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANagadeepa&type=revision&diff=826700471&oldid=822295731]). Reason: Nagadeepa filed this AE request without mentioning any arbcom case (someone else filled it out for them, linking to the IPA case). Formally, this sort of meant Nagadeepa could have been unaware of the ds system. Thought it better to make this clear. In general I still think it best both editors would resume the discussion about the content (which seems interesting enough) without commenting about each others behaviour. This would be the best solution for Wikipedia I suppose: I'm not convinced the current version of the Malayalam article is unbiased, but I'm sure both editors can help hammer it out (if only they'd concentrate on content, not post vaguely related poetry on the article's talk page, walls of texts, boldface repeats of upper-case text, etc.) For that plan to work Hyper9 should be able to take part in discussions too, so I see less benefit in topic-banning them from anything. Nagadeepa seems wise enough not to need mediation in such content discussions: either they stop commenting on co-editors, or they incur the sanctions foreseen by the IPA ds system. Whether or not the discussion is mediated makes no difference. I'd recommend an RfC instead, which might attract other views instead of just two editors running in circles chasing each other's tails. In other words: close this AE request as content dispute, with a stern warning to both editors that IPA's ds sanctions ''will'' be applied if any of the former bad behaviour returns (which applies to both now). --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 15:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* {{Ping|Nagadeepa}} re. "will the [mediating] 3rd parties actually read the source material under scrutiny" – at DRN not, afaik. Afaik the same is true for formal mediation. RfC, e.g. when inscribed in the "History and geography" and "Language and linguistics" sets, has a higher potential of attracting people somewhat knowledgeable in the topic area, and interested in reading available sources. It would also be possible to take the source material to [[WP:RSN]], but that is rather for sorting out limited sets of article content (half a paragraph or so) + underlying sources (less than a handful mostly), but this noticeboard is less suitable for the balance in an article as a whole. Other possibility: [[WP:NPOVN]], rather for the over-all balance, but less focus on detailed assessment of actual sources. Or [[WP:FTN]], but that is only if wanting to brandish one of the alternative theories as "fringe" (might give more discussion than it resolves). So all in all, RfC seems best imho. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 17:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by (username)=== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Hyper9=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
* |
|||
*Ah, my favorite topic area to see at AE again. Doing some looking into the diffs presented, on the face of things it is fairly obvious that a violation did occur. However, there are several mitigating factors. First, we have a 2+ year old account with a clean record and block log. Second, he's been brought up at AE exactly once in his tenure here, in 2015[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive183#E.M.Gregory] where no admin suggested taking any action. Third, he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert. Fourth, the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing:_sourcing_and_edit_warring] (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping. Fram has, in fact, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itzike&diff=prev&oldid=728766542 given out ARBPIA DS notices before], so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this. I'm inclined to resolve this with a warning to E.M.Gregory, but waiting to hear more opinions. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 14:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*[[User:Hyper9]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyper9#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban placed under a six-month topic ban] from 'edits or pages pertaining to Indian history' in July 2017 by [[User:SpacemanSpiff]]. The ban was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_User:Hyper9 unsuccessfully appealed at AE in July 2017]. The six-month ban expired in January 2018. Edits by Hyper9 of [[Malayalam]] during the month of February don't violate any currently active ban, but we might consider whether reinstatement of the ban with a new expiry might be justified. I am filling out some of the fields in this complaint above with the relevant ban information. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{ping|Fram}} My research didn't show the topic ban, so I'll review that thread to see if that changes things. A prior topic ban in the area is often grounds for more severe sanctions. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 15:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Though the complaint here is less than perfectly organized, Hyper9's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hyper9&diff=790992458&oldid=790601762 original arguments against his ban] don't persuade. To see more background, read the editor's talk page starting at [[User talk:Hyper9#Discretionary sanctions alert]], which was in June 2017. I'm leaving pings for [[User:MelanieN]], [[User:RegentsPark]] and [[User:Doug Weller]] since they participated in earlier discussions. Note that, when banned from Indian history, Hyper9 stopped editing the encyclopedia for precisely six months and then resumed where he left off, arguing about the same articles. This somewhat works around the rationale for timed bans, which are intended to let the editor contribute in other areas while avoiding the trouble spot. Hyper9's interactions with administrators were very indignant and they suggest two possibilities: either (a) the admins had no idea what they were doing, or (b) Hyper9 was really off the rails but refused to reflect on the problems they were causing. I suspect that (b) is more likely to be correct. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*If this was on AN3—which in cases of 1RR is actually more likely than AE or ANI—I'd be blocking for 24 hours (due to previous history of topic ban and prior warnings). I still don't understand why the user <s>didn't simply self-revert</s>, as was suggested to them. What happened there? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*A cursory view of the available discussions gives me the impression that an indefinite topic ban might be in order. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm seeing a strong case of WP:IDHT and an unwillingness to discuss in good faith, at DRN or the talk page. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 17:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*Since the user did self-revert after all, I would be willing to consider 0RR for 72 hours in place of a 24-hour block. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
**Pinging [[User:SpacemanSpiff]] who placed the original sanction, as I assume they are familiar with editor. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 13:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::*I don't know the other user's ARBPIA background to tell whether the warning already extended would suffice here. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't see how this is actionable. The supposed diffs being reported aren't diffs. And the explanation given for the report doesn't make clear how this is not just a content dispute. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*I haven't researched the context, so I'm not offering an opinion, merely links for E.M.Gregory's one-month ARBPIA topic ban: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E.M.Gregory&diff=prev&oldid=719366858][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2016&diff=prev&oldid=719367039]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC). |
|||
**I agree the report as given isn't, but there is a problem to be found if you look elsewhere. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*A one-month topic ban a year ago is hardly grounds for blocking an editor who recognizes their error, fixes it, and where there exists little evidence that the conduct at issue will reoccur. A 0RR restriction would be sufficient, but I don't see the case for anything more severe. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 21:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I |
*I concur with the topic ban. Though the discussion on the talk page is rather confusing, Hyper9 is clearly obfuscating and not assuming good faith. Given that they've had similar issues in the past, an indef topic ban is warranted.--[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 14:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
*I'm on the fence, and would like some more information about ''recent'' editing. As [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] says, Hyper9's six-month break after he got a six-month topic ban is a striking circumstance. I don't want to make too much of it, though, as "any edits or pages pertaining to Indian history" was a pretty wide topic ban. If Indian history is the user's area of interest, they can't be blamed too much for simply waiting out the ban. Especially as I didn't see anybody telling them at the time that they needed to edit Wikipedia during the topic ban in order to improve their 'Wikipedia CV'. (I may have missed it.) The break is unfortunate, though — editing other areas would have been a learning experience re how to edit Wikipedia and how to fit into a collaborative community. However, Ed, while I too was pretty appalled by Hyper9's complaints against his ban, on his page and in his appeal here, that was in June 2017. I'd agree he was "off the rails" then. But after his return in January he has clearly made an effort to discuss civilly. [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]], are you looking mainly at the linked June discussions, or at anything recent? And, most importantly for me to form an opinion about a possible re-ban: [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]], could you explain more fully about obfuscation in the January-February discussion on [[Talk:Malayalam]]? It's somewhat over my head. P.S., Dennis, unfortunately SpacemanSpiff hasn't edited since 1 February. It would be a big help if he was here. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 13:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC). |
|||
::His blowing off the DRN really rubbed me the wrong way. You might could argue that it was too early, but it was accepted and he should have accepted a 3rd party mediating. Not all of his recent stuff is bad (I'm on the fence as well) but I'm not convinced he is here to work with others, after just sampling some of his edits. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Bishonen, the discussion is confusing because I can't figure out who's right about the content (but then, I rarely can!). My main concern was with the way Hyper9 handled the discussion. We have a newish editor who is bringing sources to the table but getting no traction. They then tried a DR but Hyper9 shot that down leave one very frustrated new editor. There appear to be some ownership issues as well. If they're not willing to go to DR, then I don't see much choice other than banning them from, at the minimum, Malayalam related pages. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::While I'm pondering. I'll just point out that Nagadeepa isn't technically a new editor, they've been editing since 2007. However, there was a break between 2010 and 25 January 2018. I suppose that ''kind of'' explains their IP editing on [[Talk:Malayalam]] from 80.229.155.49 between 22 and 25 January, which they acknowledge above; presumably they had pretty much forgotten about using the account. "I only searched for my log in details when I needed to open the DRN" is a bit cavalier — if you have an account you should either use it or abandon it, not be on and off, which is confusing for others — but calling it sockpuppetry as MagSGV does is overly harsh, and I assume no sneaky motives. |
|||
::::OK. Considering that Hyper9 has made an effort to be more collaborative this time round, and may reasonably not have expected the DRN to be shut down over their demand for an apology (Hyper9 says above that he didn't), I feel another topic ban from Indian history would be overly draconian. I propose ''' a six-month topic ban from all pages and discussions related to the Malayalam language.''' Better bold that so it stands out in my ramblings. For myself, I would also urge them to stop demanding apologies in any forum, as it never leads to anything good. I see they're still harping on above about how the other editor "has still not been decent enough" to provide an apology. Just move on, please. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 11:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC). |
|||
*I've been away so I haven't followed this issue when it began to unravel but now that I've had time to look at it, I think the original topic ban should be reinstated, indefinitely, with an appeal allowed in six months based on non-problematic contributions elsewhere, or else we're just going to be revisiting this issue again pretty soon (just like this time where the issues started after expiry of the prior topic ban). That said, I don't think the filer's conduct here is any better and they should also be subject to a topic ban from anything related to Indian languages. —[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<span style="color: #BA181F;">Spaceman</span>]]'''[[User talk:SpacemanSpiff|<span style="color: #2B18BA;">Spiff</span>]]''' 04:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
**Great to see you back, Space. I'm coming round to your view, they should have identical topic bans from Indian languages (not Indian history this time, right?). I.e., indefinite, appeal allowed in six months, will only be viewed favorably if they've contributed constructively in other parts of Wikipedia or in the [[WP:SISTER|sister projects]]. Apart from the way Nagadeepa gets personal, their jumping from an IP to their account on the talkpage ''without acknowledgement'' was beyond nonchalant (if not outright deceptive), and posting unexplained poetry there is a waste of other people's time that approaches trolling. But depending on how other admins feel, I would also be on board with merely a strong warning to both, with a request to them to read Francis Schonken's good advice carefully. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC). |
|||
***I think Indian history which includes history of Indic languages would be the right scope as the problems lie in the broader area, primarily related to the event history, not just this language article. —[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<span style="color: #BA181F;">Spaceman</span>]]'''[[User talk:SpacemanSpiff|<span style="color: #2B18BA;">Spiff</span>]]''' 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
***Not opposed to both, even if it just a fixed time, to remove the disruption and create an incentive for the future. Not sure a warning would be sufficient. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 13:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
****Space, I'll certainly defer to your opinion in this, as you know the area and incidentally also the sockfarms very well. But you wrote "I don't think the filer's conduct here is any better and they should also be subject to a topic ban from anything related to Indian ''languages''". So, are you saying Hyper9 should be indefinitely t-banned from Indian history, but Nagadeepa from Indian languages? With the appeal in 6 months etc for both? I'd be cool with that, if so, but we'd better make sure it's clear. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 16:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC). |
|||
*@Bishonen, that is my opinion, since we've seen Hyper9 be disruptive in the wider area, however, based on what I've seen currently I can only find disruption by Nagadeepa within the languages area. Therefore I'd suggest an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian history including languages/linguistic history" for Hyper9 and an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian languages" for Nagadeepa. Needless to say, both bans should apply across any and all namespaces of en.wiki and can be appealed here after six months, subject to evidence of non-disruptive editing in other areas. —[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<span style="color: #BA181F;">Spaceman</span>]]'''[[User talk:SpacemanSpiff|<span style="color: #2B18BA;">Spiff</span>]]''' 04:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
******Perhaps the easiest is to ban both from Indian languages. That way we get to see if Nagadeepa has broader interests and if hyper9 can edit constructively in the other Indian history topics. But, I will defer to Spiff on whatever they think best. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*The discussion has tapered off. {{ping|EdJohnston|Dennis Brown|Sandstein}}, do you have any further comments? There appears to be agreement from several editors to defer to [[User:SpacemanSpiff|SpacemanSpiff]]'s suggestion of an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian history including languages/linguistic history" for Hyper9 and an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian languages" for Nagadeepa, both bans appealable here after six months, subject to evidence of non-disruptive editing in other areas. If no uninvolved admin objects, I will close this request with that result in 24 hours. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 18:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC). |
|||
:*I agree with the closure proposed by [[User:Bishonen]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*Ditto. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 19:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*Aye. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*I haven't followed this request because of the deficient report and express no opinion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*Thank you all, I'll close now. I can't tell the editors they're not allowed to appeal until after six months — an appeal is always allowed, and [[:Template:AE sanction|the AE sanction template]] says so — but I'll explain that it's only after six months that it's likely to be viewed favorably. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC). |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
== |
==Al-Andalusi== |
||
{{hat|In addition to the standard [[WP:ARBPIA]] restrictions, Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of '''consecutive''' edits per 24 hours on an article for six months. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{hat|I'm closing this with no action taken, with a recommendation to take this to [[WP:AN|AN]] where a more tailored TBAN may be considered. This is without prejudice to another admin imposing a post-1932 politics TBAN under their normal discretionary authority. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning Al-Andalusi=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks| |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Icewhiz}} 07:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Al-Andalusi}}<p>{{ds/log|Al-Andalusi}} |
||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia: |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]] |
||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
||
;Prior community discussion of the issues: |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents/Archive_6#NPOV_problem ENI thread: NPOV problem] opened 19:30, 6 April 2017 by [[User:Srich32977|S. Rich]] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#POV_forks_being_created_as_school_project ANI discussion: POV forks being created as school project] opened 22:04, 6 April by [[User: The Wordsmith]] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#Re:_POV_Forks ANI discussion: Re: POV Forks] opened by EJustice 13 April 2017 |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=777111913#Environmental_Justice_class_project_-_update_from_Wiki_Ed ENI thread: Environmental Justice class project - update from Wiki Ed] 15 April opened by [[User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)]] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_(Wiki_Ed)&oldid=776616512#Education_project_issues Thread at User Talk at Ryan (Wiki Ed)] opened 17 April 2017 by [[User: Seraphimblade]] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=777111913#Advocacy_classes_and_issues ENI thread: Advocacy classes and issues] opened 24 April 2017 by {{noping|Seraphimblade}} |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&type=revision&diff=827532709&oldid=827496680 Revision as of 07:43, 25 February 2018] revert 1 in [[Middle East Monitor]]. Much of the revert is of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&diff=823132572&oldid=820720891 Revision as of 12:56, 30 January 2018] edit by an extended confirm user. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_101_(Spring_2017)&oldid=760737866 Course page] with clear BLP violations about Trump (later noted at class liaison page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian_(Wiki_Ed)&oldid=777189773#Wiki_Ed_guidelines here] and removed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_101_(Spring_2017)&diff=next&oldid=771686115 this diff]) and stating the class agenda: {{tq|...in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency.}} created 18 January 2017. While we have the "neutral, well documented" aspect, the agenda to use WIkipedia to raise the alarm is very clear. Please note that there are 6 sections for this class. Here they are at Wiki Ed: [https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_101_(Spring_2017)/home section 101], [https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_102_(Spring_2017)/home section 102], [https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_103_(Spring_2017)/home section 103], [https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_104_(Spring_2017)/home section 104], [https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_105_(Spring_2017)/home section 105], [https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_106_(Spring_2017)/home section 106]. There are 180 students. Some of the articles and their fates have been tracked [[User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles|here]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&diff=827534483&oldid=827534356 Latest revision as of 08:07, 25 February 2018 ] revert 2 in [[Middle East Monitor]] of content added by an extended confirmed user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&type=revision&diff=827534356&oldid=827532709]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impacts_of_concentrated_animal_feeding_operations&diff=prev&oldid=770378173 15 March 2017 ] Encouraging students to generate POV content, eg {{tq|I like the bold statements, even more so when supported by articles (like the Mother Jones one about puppy mill lobbyists!)}} This was made at the Talk page of [[Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&diff=827243070&oldid=827243052 Revision as of 16:14, 23 February 2018] Addition of category "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" to [[Middle East Monitor]], indicating ARBPIA awareness. |
|||
## Am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impacts_of_concentrated_animal_feeding_operations&oldid=770540892 this state] and contained OFFTOPIC, POV content like {{tq|As the most disliked [[POTUS]] of the United States in at least 60 years, [[Donald Trump|Donald J. Trump]] has a highly contentious agricultural platform.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://addictinginfo.org/2017/01/25/the-numbers-are-in-trump-is-the-most-hated-newly-inaugurated-president/|title=The Numbers Are In: Trump Is The Most Hated Newly Inaugurated President EVER|last=Denson|first=Author: Ryan|date=2017-01-25|website=Addicting Info {{!}} The Knowledge You Crave|access-date=2017-03-05}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/the-last-unfilled-cabinet-post/513338/|title=Trump's Last Vacant Cabinet Post|last=Ball|first=Molly|work=The Atlantic|access-date=2017-03-06|language=en-US}}</ref> }} and pretty much everything else in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impacts_of_concentrated_animal_feeding_operations&oldid=770540892#Conflict_of_Interests that section] and other parts of the page. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title= |
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Eye&type=revision&diff=827533383&oldid=823132648 Revision as of 07:51, 25 February 2018] revert1 of [[Middle East Eye]] - removal of some 45% of the article's contents. Much of this content by reverted back into the article in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Eye&diff=821924810&oldid=821924263 Revision as of 11:59, 23 January 2018] by an extended confirmed user (and then some). |
||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Eye&diff=827534445&oldid=827534233 Latest revision as of 08:06, 25 February 2018] revert2 of [[Middle East Eye]], of content added in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Eye&diff=827534233&oldid=827533383 Revision as of 08:03, 25 February 2018]. |
|||
## I am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time contained content like {{tq|The Midwest has traditionally been home to many hog CAFOs, but it became particularly populated with them between the mid 1980s and mid 1990s, especially located in the Black Belt region referring to an area where many slaves traditionally worked on plantations, and after emancipation many freed slaves stayed to work in that area as sharecroppers or as tenant farmers.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Furuseth|first1=Owen J.|title=Restructuring of Hog Farming in North Carolina: Explosion and Implosion|journal=The Professional Geographer|date=November 1997|volume=49|issue=4|pages=391–403|doi=10.1111/0033-0124.00086}} (nb, citation fixed)</ref>}} The ref is about North Carolina which is not in the Midwest; the ref makes no mention of a "Black Belt", nor race at all, nor slavery, nor sharecroppers. It is about hog farming in N Carolina. The next sentence does deal with race: {{tq|To this day, many black residents in the Black Belt region face high levels of poverty, poor standards of housing and low quality of education, employment and health care.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wimberley|first1=Ronald C|last2=Morris|first2=Libby V|title=The Regionalization of Poverty: Assistance for the Black Belt South?|journal=Southern Rural Sociology|date=2002|volume=18|issue=1|pages=294-306|url=http://journalofruralsocialsciences.org/pages/Articles/SRS%202002%2018/1/SRS%202002%2018%201%20294-306.pdf}} (NB, citation fixed)</ref>}} This ref does discuss race and poverty but makes no mention of hog farming or CAFOs. It is clear there is [[WP:SYN]] going on here, to build an argument. The content that these students generated is shot through with this kind of thing. Not what we do in Wikipedia. EJustice has no awareness of this. These kinds of edits were later criticized, and you will see EJustice's response to that. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lejacretcher/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=770381815 15 March 2017] Comment on draft of "Farmworkers in California" in a sandbox: {{tq|An important topic, so work on getting a strong scaffold/outline to make your big points!}} |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Undocumented_Farmworkers_in_California&diff=prev&oldid=774144132 6 April 2017 ] First comment in an AfD, saying article is education program and that it is fine. Article was userified. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_contamination_in_Lawrence_and_Morgan_Counties,_Alabama&diff=prev&oldid=774716283 10 Apirl 2017]: comments on [[Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama]]: {{tq|Additionally, any thoughts on how the Trump Administration's actions will impact this issue? can you find citations to such analysis?}} |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tamsberk/Food_Justice&diff=prev&oldid=774717355 10 April 2017 ] comment on draft - note that their attitude is hardening now: {{tq|1) keep your eyes on the prize -- focus more on strengthening and deepening your citations and evidence on issues of justice than on combatting those who seek to erase any mention of it.}} |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arctic_resources_race&diff=prev&oldid=774718479 10 April 2017]: '''key comment''' -- comment on draft: {{tq|Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article. }} |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Open_Space_Accessibility_in_California&diff=prev&oldid=775238828 13 April 2017] '''first comment addressing non-students''' Responding to comments by [[User:dsprc]] made in response to questions from students about dsprc's edits, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Space_Accessibility_in_California#We_would_like_SPECIFIC_examples_of_the_biased_sections_in_the_article this section of the Talk page]. EJustice cites [[WP:Systemic bias]] and doesn't hear dsprc's policy-and-guideline-based objections. They have the "systemic bias" hammer in hand now, and will be responding regularly with that, instead of addressing issues. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EJustice&diff=prev&oldid=775260128 13 April 2017] at EJustice talk page, responding to dsprc: {{tq|Your input above strikes me as gratuitous, meaning unsupported by fact. Feel free to point to actual text that represents non-neutrality or maligning of others. Please also reflect on how much you are violating Wikipedia's own expressed guidelines for avoiding systemic bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#What_you_can_do).}} |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEffects_of_air_pollution_on_health_in_communities_of_color_in_America&type=revision&diff=775262046&oldid=774828491 13 April 2017] AfD !vote: {{tq|...The course, among many other things, aims to help neutrally document the Trump Administration's assault on environmental protection....Finally, please consider [[Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#What_you_can_do|this advice about systemic bias]] from within Wikipedia itself}} |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&diff=prev&oldid=775264918 13 April 2017] partially deletes a PROD. See edit note. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#Re:_POV_Forks ANI discussion: Re: POV Forks] opened by EJustice 13 April 2017 (linked above). |
|||
## says in OP for example {{tq|.... I think the underlying challenges the community faces with these articles have quite a bit to do with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias systemic biases.] I'd suggest a read of this article to help understand some of the reactions the students' work is eliciting, and a focus particularly on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#What_you_can_do what to do about it]. Finally, a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct....}} (problem is not its "factual correctness" - EJustice is not hearing the problem, and does this typical advocate thing, where the problem '''must be''' with other people.) |
|||
##[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=775396976 14 April 2017] not ''seeing'' the problems {{tq|Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations}} |
|||
## [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=775658706&diff=prev diff] comment: {{tq|Their (my students') constructiveness and meekness '''in the face of hostile editorial responses that seem at times to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class is admirable.'''}} Emphasis added. Note responses to that, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=775665277&diff=prev here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=775682329&diff=prev here]. |
|||
## Please also note this series of responses from [[User:MelanieN]], going from at first very sympathetic, to somewhat exasperated and sharp, as their interaction with EJustice unfolds: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=775617503&oldid=775611843 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=775688062&diff=prev diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=775690973&diff=prev diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=775770854&diff=prev diff], |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIndigenous_rights_to_land_along_rivers&type=revision&diff=775474879&oldid=775472622 03:29, 15 April 2017 ] at an AfD. '''key comment''' {{tq|I agree with your assessment that the students' work (upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities) has been treated with untoward hostility. I could anticipate this because this work does get regularly attacked in the real world. [http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/limbaugh.htm (Check out Rush Limbaugh, 2004.)] And we trained the students to stay calm in the face of such attacks and to do their best and, most importantly to rigorously source their statements. I disagree a bit about the cause of the turmoil. It is a political topic, but more importantly acknowledging issues of race and class challenges many of the known [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias systemic biases] within Wikipedia. Many of these topics though are not political, certainly not by the definition of BLP or the discretionary sanction for post-1932 politics. Are the legalities of tribal lands and waterways really about biographies or direct politics? If not, then what might be at play in seeking to eliminate this as a topic for Wikipedia?}} The last question there is rhetorical, and it is clear what Ejustice believes the problem is. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_(Wiki_Ed)&diff=prev&oldid=775887511 17:52, 17 April 2017 ] Again, in EJustice's view there is no real problem with specific edits students have actually made, nor with the mission of the class and its agenda; the problem is systemic bias among Wikipedians. {{tq|...It's (Environmental justice is) a big deal and has a lot to do with understanding and solving environmental problems. So it's educational content the world needs, provided by people trained to create it. ...My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that.}} |
|||
# As is extremely common in student editing, copyvios were found, which EJustice doubted and pushed back a bunch of times to have versions restored - no concern that WP cannot host COPYVIO. Diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa&diff=prev&oldid=775754692 at deleting admin's talk]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=775755581 at ANI], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa&diff=prev&oldid=775789076 back at admin's talk page]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EJustice&diff=prev&oldid=775891051 at their own Talk page]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian_(Wiki_Ed)&diff=prev&oldid=775790065 at] [[User:Ian (Wiki Ed)]]'s talk page; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian_(Wiki_Ed)&diff=prev&oldid=776047262 diff], etc. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEJustice&type=revision&diff=775809189&oldid=775801760 here], I tried to call their attention to the underlying problem with the mission of the class via the excellent [[Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers]] essay. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EJustice&diff=next&oldid=775894675 response] which included {{tq| I think the key thing that editors are getting wrong is their inability to separate topics that are particularly triggering in today's political environment from good neutral content about things like environmental racism..... But the inability of critics to separate their feelings about the topic from the facts makes some of the feedback less than useful.}} and {{tq|My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that. }}. and later ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EJustice&diff=next&oldid=775956906 diff]) {{tq|You strike me as a live tiger}} This turning things back on people is the same thing they did in the ANI, and is '''what advocates always do in WIkipedia.''' They subsequently moved the DS alert I gave them and that discussion to a subpage, [[User:EJustice/notrelevant]]. The title of which speaks for itself. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&diff=prev&oldid=776209901 comment at AfD], repeated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&diff=prev&oldid=776153940 19 April 2017 ] here at the article talk page as an instruction to their students: {{tq|Feedback from instructor: The literature cited shows that more regulation leads to more employment and economic growth in Appalachia. This paradox increases the notability of this subject and the page could be streamlined based on this connection. }} When I asked what that means exactly, EJustice wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnvironmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&type=revision&diff=776736292&oldid=776715529 this]. In other words, this instruction to the students was conjecture and advocacy stated as Truth<sup>TM</sup>. This is where the class is coming from and where they are being led, in their Wikipedia editing. This is not what we do in Wikipedia. This is a thesis that someone would argue for in an essay. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&diff=prev&oldid=776737751 23 April 2017] another attack on motivations of me and others. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEnvironmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&type=revision&diff=777109542&oldid=777105472 25 April 2017] as above. Which prompted this filing. |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
:(none) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=784434721&oldid=784410034 Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2017] 6 Month Topic Ban for personal attacks and 1RR. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=784636265&oldid=784564165 Revision as of 09:57, 9 June 2017] 1 week block for not following topic ban |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
||
* |
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=784434721&oldid=784410034 Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2017] 6 month topic ban by GoldenRing following AE. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=784636265&oldid=784564165 Revision as of 09:57, 9 June 2017] 1 week block by Sandstein for violating topic ban. |
||
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=784592600 Revision as of 03:24, 9 June 2017] and appeal (copy-pasted over to AE) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=prev&oldid=784676081 Revision as of 14:46, 9 June 2017] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
||
As may be seen here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&oldid=827641028#1RR Al-Andalusi talk page] I requested Al-Andalusi self revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=827534814&oldid=826566141]. This was replied to with a {{tq|Nope, I did not.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=827607340&oldid=827534814]. [[user:EdJohnston]] also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=827615354&oldid=827607340] said this appeared to be a 1RR violation, and urged Al-Andalusi to self-revert. Following a discussion on why this was or was not a revert Al-Andalusi concluded by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=827638810&oldid=827629539] {{tq|Like I said, any change to an article can be framed as a "revert" if one wants to push a certain narrative. Here, you are referencing an edit made a month ago, which tells me how ridiculous this revert claim is. I can go back to some of your edits and demonstrate the same, and claim you've been reverting and violating 1RR on articles. As an editor, it's not expected of me to review an article's history and check each and every edit made to an article, before I can make a change to it, and hope that I'm not "reverting" and violating 1RR.}}. Some 10 hours later - we're here. |
|||
EJustice's trajectory within WP is very typical of advocates who arrive here, mistaking Wikipedia for something that it is not. EJustice arrived with a clearly stated agenda, has mostly ignored feedback, and has accused those who raised issues with their content of being blinded by their own biases. No self-awareness, no acknowledgement that a bunch (not all) of the student editing has violated policies on many levels (POV, SYN, failing verification, COPYVIO), nor glimmer of openness to seeing Wikipedia for what it is. (It ''is'' hard to write about race and class everywhere in the world, including WP - maybe especially in WP with our policies and guidelines and mission, and our community full of messy humans) |
|||
While it may be possible to cast a wider net here, the unwillingness to self-revert on a 1RR warning appears to be straightforward, and Al-Andalusi's final talk-page comment is troubling. |
|||
EJustice set this POV-editing agenda for a class of 180 people; EJustice is driving (their grade depends on it) and encouraging students to add essay content to Wikipedia arguing an environmental justice agenda, against Trump's agenda; this is the [[WP:Beware of tigers]] problem. EJustice has demonstrated this in their AfD !votes, their talk page comments, and their responses at various boards. |
|||
* Willingness to self-revert - I filed this report after my reading of a long user talk page discussion ended with a stmt indicating clear unwillingness, in my eyes, to self revert or account for edits being reverts - and a day after the inital talk page exchange.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
I feel awful for the students. See [[User_talk:Jytdog#Indigenous_rights_to_land_along_rivers|this conversation]] with a student on my Talk page. That student is trapped between what their professor is demanding and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. |
|||
* ARBPIA relevance: revert2 in [[Middle East Monitor]] and [[Middle East Eye]] are clearly both ARBPIA releated as it is directly involves Hamas. Revert1 to [[Middle East Monitor]] also involves Hamas, and the organization itself covers Israel-Palestine as its main focus arguably making any edit to it ARBPIA related. It could perhaps be argued that revert1 in [[Middle East Eye]] is not ARBPIA (there are merits either way), however as revert2 is clearly ARBPIA and the limitation is per page per ARBCOM decision - {{tq|Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.}} and not on a per edit basis - this would appear to be a violation regardless due to ARBPIAness of revert2.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* Regarding the attack on Capitals00 below - I did not canvass or contact him. He had however filed the previous AE report against Al-Andalusi on [[Acid throwing]] (a non-ARBPIA article in general, but ARBPIA related in the Gaza/West Bank section covering usage of this by Islamists against so called collaboraters) which led to the previous topic ban. I would assume he has AE watched.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* {{ping|Kingsindian}} - most of the content in the 3 successive edits by Al-Andalusi between 05:04 and 07:43 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&type=revision&diff=827532709&oldid=827496680 combined diff] are reverts of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&diff=823132572&oldid=820720891 12:56, 30 January 2018] by [[User:Zakawer]] who is in good standing. The grandson bit has been there for a while - however most of the other content removed is quite recent (not that technically this should be an issue - [[WP:3RR]] (modified by [[WP:1RR]] from 3 to 1, but retaining the definition of revert) does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions. {{tq|An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.}}). In any event - this is for the most part quite recent material - and as this is not an often edited article - Zakawer was the last major edit prior to Al-Andalusi editing the page - making this very close in terms of diffs.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 10:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* {{ping|Kingsindian}} {{ping|NeilN}} - I had not intended to bring this up vis-a-vis previous requests, however I shall since it has been brought up here. {{ping|Shrike}} asked them to self-revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=815809432&oldid=815385752], as did I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=815809666&oldid=815809432] this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1929_Palestine_riots&diff=815809132&oldid=815808932 revert] violated the original author clause in regards to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1929_Palestine_riots&type=revision&diff=815806816&oldid=815182347 edits 30 minutes previously] - which was not done. I also asked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=822079922&oldid=815809666 TP request] self-revert on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azmi_Bishara&diff=821972164&oldid=821942492 original authorship] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azmi_Bishara&diff=822073488&oldid=822071567 revert] which was not done - they cited BLPCRIME - however this is a PUBLICFIGURE, and this is not relevant (besides other problems here). Excluding the 1RR vios in this report - there were 4 previous requests (1 Shrike, 3 myself), of which 2 were not done (both involved the "original author provision", however they were clear violations of it). I did not report these at the time due to a combination of [[WP:AGF]] (e.g. on the first example he wasn't editing for 3 days - so I AGFed he may have been away) and since I do not report everything. What made me report this one - was the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=827638810&oldid=827629539 talk page reply to the request] which treated "reverts" as "narrative", and labelled the request as "ridiculous".[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 20:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* {{ping|NeilN}} The proposed remedy would not resolve the "original author" clause addition to ARBPIA (it would be good on straight 1rr) - a problem above as well as in requests by Al-Andalusi, e.g. this mistaken request (as I was not the original author) for a self revert on my TP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icewhiz&diff=828032842&oldid=827905396 Revision as of 04:24, 28 February 2018] - half of which was a category written in Farsi (which Al-Andalusi reverted back in, and requested a self revert on).[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=827710158&oldid=827641028 Latest revision as of 07:36, 26 February 2018] |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
EJustice being here under the Education Program has kind of exacerbated the overall problems - pulling out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=775665277&diff=prev this diff] from a volunteer at ANI, already cited above: {{tq|If it wasn't for the wiki edu connection, [[User:EJustice]] would have already been warned, if not blocked, for POV pushing per [[WP:NOTHERE]].}} |
|||
===Discussion concerning Al-Andalusi=== |
|||
This is.. awkward and unfortunate and is surely something that will be discussed when the semester is over when the Wiki Ed staff are not working like crazy trying to help students complete their assignments. |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Al-Andalusi==== |
|||
There is an ongoing discussion regarding this on my talk page involving Icewhiz and 2 admins (EdJohnston and Dennis Brown) [[User talk:Al-Andalusi#1RR|here]]. I have {{diff2|827623229|pinged}} EdJohnston and have not heard back either from him or Dennis Brown, so I assumed this is a non-issue. Had EdJohnston or Dennis Brown replied back and confirmed the alleged violation, I would have gladly self-reverted, as I did in the past. |
|||
Meanwhile, I continue to disagree with Icewhiz's description of events where he digs up edits that are at least one-month old (Jan 30, Jan 23) and I'm not even aware of, and then conveniently re-interprets some of my changes as being "reverts" of them. What he refers to as "revert 1" would not be called "reverts" on a normal day. Also, notice the use of dramatic sentences like "removal of some 45% of the article's contents". If the content is bad, then it should be removed, doesn't matter how large it is. I think everyone will agree with me on this. In {{diff2|764840210|this edit}}, user {{user|Zero0000}} removed the same exact content from [[Middle East Monitor]] on Feb 11 on the same grounds as my removal of it from [[Middle East Eye]]. Someone had copy pasted the content to the 2 articles. Icewhiz, who clearly spent considerable time studying the editing history of both articles to construct his narrative, would not have missed this change. |
|||
But EJustice's activities have caused widespread disruption and absorbed a ton of volunteer time, as you can see from the discussion boards cited above. They continue to personalize objections to content created by students, instead of dealing the policy-and-guideline based issues themselves, as shown by the last two diffs above in particular. In the case of EJustice ''as a Wikipedian'', in my view they should be topic banned from contemporary politics, and be informed that this goes for future classes via TAs per MEAT. This is a very bad outcome but I don't see another way. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=777191386&oldid=777190123 shrunk]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&curid=27038121&diff=777192656&oldid=777191487 Acknowledged]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*[[User: Sandstein]] I thought about that too. Where I came down is that per the dashboard page cited in the first bullet of diffs, the agenda for this class was driven in reaction to Trump's environmental agenda. The focus of this class is raising awareness of EJ issues and of Trump's "assault" on them. If you control+f this for "assault" and "Trump" and look at the article titles created by the students, you will see that EJustice talked about "assault" not only in syllabus but in an AfD, and that the focus of the class is Trump. At the ANI thread they opened they said {{tq|The topic of environmental justice is particularly tricky right now. President Trump is on the record...}} etc. Contemporary politics is every where in this. That is why their behavior falls under these DS, in my view. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Sandstein thanks for reply but I struggle with your analysis. The ''content'' generated by the students was specifically and generally Trump related, at EJustice's direction. EJustice's comments accuse those objecting to the content of being full of bias -- that we (I am among them) are incapable of editing neutrally about contemporary US politics because of that bias. So the comments are an effort to influence content about contemporary US politics; we do not permit editors to be active in US politics who behave this way. Not to mention, who drive other editors to add this kind of policy-violating content about contemporary US politics. I do appreciate the nod toward AN should you remain with this position and a consensus of admins ends up agreeing with you. That is a valid alternative route. This also prompts me to consider that a community ban might be a more... appropriate solution. But let's see what other admins weigh in with. Thanks again. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
One important point: The history of editing on both articles shows that none of the editors treated the article as falling under 1RR. Icewhiz is misleading when he counts edits related to the Muslim Brotherhood as being ARBPIA-related. The [[Muslim Brotherhood]] does not even have a 1RR tag. Icewhiz does ''not'' explain why he treats [[Middle East Eye]] as a 1RR article in his report, and further, why he lists my edits at [[Middle East Eye]] before his arrival to the article as being ARBPIA related (point #4 on his list). I fail to see the connection. In the same list, for the other article, he counts my edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&type=revision&diff=827532709&oldid=827496680 here] as ARBPIA-related, even though the mention of Hamas is tangential and clearly not the intent of my edit. |
|||
* OK, seems like most people are leaning toward AN as a better venue. I am fine with withdrawing this in favor of that venue. Not sure if that is relevant to a darn thing but wanted to say it. If this is withdrawn, my next step would be to simply provide a link to this request at AN, so that none of us have to re-post what has already been said. If this stays open for further admin input, am fine with too. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I ask that the admins not look at this case literally, as this is the angle that Icewhiz wants to focus on. Instead, ask if it is appropriate for a news organizations to be labelled as the "Muslim Brotherhood" based on sources critical of the news organization? Icewhiz {{diff2|827534325|restored}} the problematic {{cat|Muslim Brotherhood}}, knowing fully the problems that comes with it (he recently removed {{cat|Propaganda in Israel}} from [[Public diplomacy of Israel]] arguing that it is "POVish..."). [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:GoldenRing]] my primary concern is a) EJustice's continued intervention on their own but even more so, semesters to come. Action would be to prevent further disruption, which seems not unlikely. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:<small>Note: Originally posted in Capitals00's section; moved by [[User:Black Kite]].</small> I don't know you, and I don't know who you think you are to demand a topic ban or a block. Admins: it should be noted that the above user was never involved in the Arab-Israeli space, so for him to show up here uninvited is a sign of either [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]] or [[WP:Canvassing]]. [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* Quick note. As the lead to [[Environmental justice]] says, "the term has two distinct uses: the first, and more common usage, describes a [[social movement]] that focuses on the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, while the other is an interdisciplinary body of social science literature that includes theories of the environment and justice, environmental laws and their implementations, environmental policy and planning and governance for development and sustainability, and political ecology." Much of the students editing was actually advocacy in line with the former, instead of describing things in the US through the lens of the latter. This was the key problem (the "live tigers" problem) Am leaning more and more in favor of an indefinite block, not just a TBAN, especially in light of EJustice's response which is the kind of ... difficult interpretation of things that got us all here in the first place; I think a TBAN would just become a source of further turmoil about edges of the topic ban. If we need to move to AN to do that, let's do that. I think that is within the bounds of the DS, however. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 12:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
'''Added - Feb 28:''' |
|||
*Responding to [[User: EdChem]]. I very much hear the reputational issues all around that you raise; this is what I meant when I talked about the awkwardness of all this. My sense is that as people have responded here, they have been aware of that. Considered community action (as we are doing.. and one of the reasons why I chose this venue is that it is optimally structured for careful consideration) was required, and the record of what we have already done here will help others see and understand what happened. |
|||
*Per [[Wikipedia:Reverting]] (emphasis in the original): |
|||
:But what you write doesn't deal with what happened. EJustice arrived here and did what individual advocates always do, but in addition to arriving wrapped in his own truth and committed to his own mission, he wrapped himself in the flag of Education Program as diffs above show (see especially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Undocumented_Farmworkers_in_California&diff=prev&oldid=774144132 this]) and he committed 180 meatpuppets to amplify his mission - he misled the students with regard to what they should do in Wikipedia and drove them there by their need to produce work that would be graded. He gives no sign that he understands this. |
|||
:{{tq|Technically, any edit can be said to reverse ''some'' of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|editing policy]]. Wholesale reversions (''complete'' reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.}} |
|||
:This was the nightmare of the Education Program made real, and the risks of conflict of interest that classroom editing creates, were also made actual here. These students were caught between the policies/guidelines/mission of WP and their external need to do the assignment they were given and get their grades. These unfortunate students... |
|||
:The normal and appropriate course of action here ''is'' a TBAN minimum or as is emerging an indef to prevent future disruption and harm of students, the Education Program, the volunteer community and of course Wikipedia. Any such restriction would be appealable. It would be amazing if EJustice could be resilient and see what they have done and make a successful appeal. Classes like this one in particular ~could~ add a lot of value to Wikipedia and aid the mission. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
#I was not involved in the article around the time the first edit was made by Zakawer, a month ago. |
|||
* Please take care with regard to statements about off-wiki matters. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
#I was not aware that I was actually undoing someone else's edits as part of my changes. As far I was concerned at the time of my editing, I was doing routing editing. So far, NO evidence has been presented that shows that I was aware of this fact at the time (directly or indirectly). |
|||
* Train, there are clerks etc to handle posts that might not be appropriate. Things also tend to be handled in good time at AE, with enough time to reach sound decisions but not allowing things to linger overlong. Both are reasons I wanted to deal with this in this venue. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
#The fact that the admins are split on this indicates that (a) there is no clear definition of reverting, and what properly distinguishes reversions from edits in general, and (2) there is no clear definition of "recent" here. A month old, 6-months old? a year old? I think any admin worth a damn knows what a revert is, and "revert 1" is not one of them. |
|||
#That said, this is [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] of the worst degree. In fact, the originator of the report spells it out here for you guys: {{tq|the definition of revert does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions}}. I have no doubt in my mind, and this is already made clear from the report, that Icewhiz would not have found it an issue to cite a year old edit (if it was available) to support his claims that I partially reverted it. |
|||
#I've had a look around at a few pages, and if that's the rule, then almost every editor is violating the rule many times. I don't really understand the thinking behind this at all. [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 14:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|NeilN}}, you claim that my intent was clear. What was my intent? [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 14:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|NeilN}} Sir, your ignorance is showing. You use the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas interchangeably and I think it's time to clarify a few things. (1) Hamas no longer claims that it is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and made that official in their new charter declared in May 2017. (2) the main [[Muslim Brotherhood]] is not even a 1RR article to begin with. Of the troubling edit that you are using against me, 95% of it revolved around the Brotherhood, ''not'' Hamas. The mention of "Hamas" in the "See also" section is quite tangential and I think you will agree with it. I kindly ask that you re-consider your position in light of the above. [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|NeilN}} That's not a response. Sorry. Your claim that my intent was to "remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas" is demonstrably false. Look at the [[Middle East Monitor#Criticism]] section, and you'll find that I left sourced "pro-Hamas" accusations there. Not to mention, Muslim Brotherhood != Hamas. The diffs speak for themselves indeed. [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 15:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Kingsindian}}. I don't have a problem with self-reverting in this case. This is the very first thing I stated in my statement. I was just waiting for a clear confirmation that my first edit indeed counts as a revert. That said, it is clear that NeilN and GR have made up their minds from day 1, and further discussion would be futile. Their one-sidedness is glaringly apparent. [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 16:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Capitals00==== |
|||
I had resumed watching editing of Al-Andalusi since he came off from a topic ban in December. I could see continued POV editing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_land_without_a_people_for_a_people_without_a_land&diff=814679773&oldid=797907837][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_recognition_of_Jerusalem_as_capital_of_Israel&diff=815588827&oldid=815537034][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_recognition_of_Jerusalem_as_capital_of_Israel&diff=815600733&oldid=815597645] that led the topic ban before, but this time I had decided not to report Al-Andalusi myself. Unfortunately, it didn't helped Al-Andalusi. |
|||
I must say that Icewhiz has made best efforts to mentor Al-Andalusi about his violations,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=822303986&oldid=822300013][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=815237107&oldid=813514143] however Al-Andalusi is not willing to improve. Continued POV editing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_diplomacy_of_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=827625487][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Propaganda_in_Israel&action=history] is concerning. Either a topic ban or a block is warranted. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:It is deceptive of Al-Andalusi to claim that he doesn't know me because he can't really forget these two ARE complaints: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive216#Al-Andalusi][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive216#Al-Andalusi_2] that I had filed, yet he claims that this is a "''sign of either [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]] or [[WP:Canvassing]]''", this alone shows that Al-Andalusi treats Wikipedia to be his [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Icewhiz}} I have his talk page on watchlist as well, I did interacted him before filing a complaint here,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=783487105#Edit_warring_on_List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad] obviously when I said you have "''made best efforts to mentor''" to mentor him, I was referring to your discussions made on his talk page that I read since last December. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 12:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:In the light of above [[WP:IDHT]] from Al-Andalusi[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828095891&oldid=828093374] I believe that indef topic ban is the solution. He already had a 6 month topic ban back in June 2017, which he had violated and was blocked for a week. Even after all that there has been a lack of improvement. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Dennis Brown==== |
|||
I interjected into the discussion only to explain how contacting an admin wasn't "canvassing", and never reviewed the merits of the claim in depth. A cursory glance did show the claims were not so cut and dry; They need to be looked at closer than just the diffs provided. This is the busy time of year for me, so I didn't have time to look further, so I will just stay on this side of the admin line, this time. {{u|EdJohnston}} probably has more information on the merits, and I would welcome his input down below. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 00:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Kingsindian==== |
|||
I don't know if this is 1RR or not, but my general view is that in this area, the rules are so convoluted that nobody knows how they work (including the people who write them). My own practice is to self-revert when asked, whether or not I think the request is right. |
|||
This practice saves time and tedious wikilawyering in which one may or may not prevail. You can always make the edit a day later. Why take the risk? |
|||
Let's put aside the wording and look at the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy. Let's forget the edit made a month earlier. Only look at edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&type=revision&diff=827532709&oldid=827496680 diff1] (by Al-Andalusi), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&type=revision&diff=827534356&oldid=827532709 diff2] (by Icewhiz) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&diff=827534483&oldid=827534356 diff3] (again by Al-Andalusi). All of them happened within 24 hours. |
|||
Diff1 removed the association of MEMO with the Muslim Brotherhood, diff2 restored it (using a bit different wording), and diff3 removed it again. The "spirit" of the remedy is to ensure that between diff3 and diff1 (made by the same person), there should be a bit of time, and ideally some discussion on the talkpage (which is happening on the MEMO talk page). |
|||
I would therefore, ask {{u|Al-Andalusi}} to self-revert voluntarily (they can make the edit a day later if they still think it's justified) and this request be closed as no action. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC) [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 13:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
: What is the "revert 1" cited by {{u|NeilN}} a revert of? [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 09:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{re|NeilN}} May I suggest another approach? If you look at {{u|Al-Andalusi}}'s talkpage, you'll see a couple more instances where {{u|Icewhiz}} asked them to self-revert due to 1RR and they (eventually) did. That suggests that they genuinely thought that this case was not a case of 1RR. The main point is that the first "revert" was of an edit more than a month ago (actually it has been fought over for years). <p>In political areas, it is not unusual for things to be litigated over and over by newer people. One can't immediately consider every deletion a "revert" (by the way, by the same logic, any addition could also be considered a "revert" of some removal in the past).</p><p> To my mind, the main issue is that Al-Andalusi doesn't understand the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy in this area: one shouldn't make the same edit (perhaps paraphrased) twice in 24 hours. This approach doesn't require refererence to a month-old diff unrelated to the main dispute. I suggest that Al-Andalusi be informed of the "spirit" of the remedy, and only warned for now. To Al-Andalusi, I suggest that they follow the practice I mention above: they self-revert when asked, regardless of whether they think it's right or wrong. This approach would require some [[WP:AGF]] which the admins may or may not be willing to extend to Al-Andalusi (considering their past record). [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 17:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC) </p> |
|||
::: {{re|NeilN}} The case you refer to is almost a year old. If you say that "Al-Andalusi doesn't understand 1RR, period", how do you explain the self-revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_land_without_a_people_for_a_people_without_a_land&diff=815385702&oldid=815232561 here] (after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Al-Andalusi#1RR_vio this] discussion) or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irgun&diff=824028357&oldid=824026379 here] (after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Al-Andalusi#1RR_vio_3 this] discussion)?<p> Instead, consider my hypothesis: they don't (fully) understand the "tweaked 1RR" remedy in this area. According to the tweaked 1RR remedy, a person who makes an edit cannot make the same (or similar) edit within 24 hours. In the previous two cases, Al-Andalusi self-reverted after this remedy was pointed out to them. If the same remedy had been pointed to by Icewhiz here, I'd suggest that there would have been less resistance. Instead, a diff from a month ago (which Al-Andalusi claims that they weren't even aware of) was pointed out as the original content which was reverted. In this area, I'm sure you know, people are suspicious of bad faith and wikilawyering. </p> <p>This is why I say above: let's not refer to a diff from a month ago at all. Let's just work with the "tweaked 1RR rule" which already exists, which only looks at diffs within a 24-hour period. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 06:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)</p> |
|||
:::: A more general comment: during the last [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=818380950#Statement_by_Kingsindian ARCA request], I raised this point (of an edit potentially being the revert of an edit indefinitely long in the past) ''multiple times''. My warnings were pooh-poohed by the Arbs who said the scenarios that I was painting were all implausible and the admins at AE will apply common sense anyway, etc. Now, amirite or amirite? I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) in that section that we block a random ArbCom member when my warnings come true. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 06:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::: {{re|NeilN}} Yes, that's what used to be a safe practice to deal with the tweaked 1RR in this area. Unfortunately, with the recent ARCA request, that no longer suffices, because you have to wait 24 hours after the the ''other person's revert'' to be completely safe, and what counts as a revert isn't clear. Yeah, it's stupid, but I warned against it repeatedly and ArbCom passed it anyway. <p>However, your suggestion would work in 95% of the cases, and Al-Andalusi could be asked (or instructed, whatever) that if somebody asks them to self-revert, they do it regardless of whether they think it's right or wrong. This has been my practice for many years, and I have had zero problems. I will also talk to Al-Andalusi on their talkpage. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 23:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)</p> |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Al-Andalusi=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
* This does not appear actionable to me. To begin with, no specific remedy that is to be enforced is cited, but only a whole case, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]], which comprises several remedies. Assuming that the 1RR restriction is to be enforced, the cited diffs don't establish, in my view, clear-cut 1RR violations, but rather situations that can come about in the course of ordinary editing (putting aside the merits of these edits by either side). Because 1RR is a very problematic restriction that is easily violated in the course of even constructive back-and-forth editing, I'm very reluctant to act on it except in the clearest of cases, i.e. repeated direct reverts. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&type=revision&diff=827532709&oldid=827496680 Revert 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&diff=827534483&oldid=827534356 Revert 2]. I'd say that was a 1RR violation. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{u|Kingsindian}}, this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&diff=823132572&oldid=820720891 addition]. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 13:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{u|Al-Andalusi}} You are citing an '''essay'''. '''Policy''' says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Admins look at the ''intent'' of the edits and your intent here was clear. There is also no admin "split" here. Four admins (including {{u|EdJohnston}}) agree you violated [[WP:1RR]]. A three to six month topic ban seems appropriate. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 14:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{u|Al-Andalusi}} To remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas. I'm not saying the removals were not justified (or were justified). I'm saying the intent of your edits is clear. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 14:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=828095891&oldid=828093374 This response] from an editor coming off a six month topic ban in December is not encouraging at all. The diffs speak for themselves. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{ping|Kingsindian}} Looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=784636129#Al-Andalusi this], I would say that {{u|Al-Andalusi}} doesn't understand [[WP:1RR]], period. And looking at the subsequent block, it was again involving Hamas. Is there anything Al-Andalusi brings to the table that would justify always having an extra warning step before reporting? And bear in mind it's pretty easy to duck these self-revert requests by laying low until someone else uses their [[WP:1RR]] opportunity and reverts. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{ping|Kingsindian}} 1) If {{u|Al-Andalusi}} understood [[WP:1RR]] there wouldn't be editors constantly reminding them to follow it. 2) We're not applying [[WP:1RR]] to only content changed within the last 24 hours. That's a non-starter. 3) A month is hardly "indefinitely long" - please don't resort to hyperbole. Bottom line: If you remove some content and another editor adds similar content then don't remove it within 24 hours of your first removal to be safe. {{u|Sandstein}}, do you have any further comments here? --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{ping|Al-Andalusi}} I'm trying to come up with a solution that would eliminate the need for other editors to constantly ask you to self revert. "Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of '''consecutive''' edits per 24 hours on an article" would probably work. What do you think? --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 19:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* If no admin objects I will be implementing a restriction as follows: "In addition to the standard [[WP:ARBPIA]] restrictions, Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of '''consecutive''' edits per 24 hours on an article for six months." --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 00:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't have scads of time to look into this. I don't think we should be insisting that editors bringing complaints here must fill out the form exactly correctly in every respect or we will simply dismiss the complaint; this is not a judicial proceeding and it seems clear enough to me what the complaint is getting at. I agree with NeilN that the diffs he links seem a clear 1RR violation (not to mention that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Monitor&diff=827532654&oldid=827519019 this] also appears to be a revert of a recent edit in the same 24-hour window). And Al-Andalusi's response here is not encouraging. My gut feeling is that spending three to six months away from ARBPIA would be a good thing. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{re|NeilN}} <s>actually I think your first diff is a revert of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/648397838 this] - the original page creation back in 2015. While this perhaps makes that revert a bit more muddy, </s>I still think it's clearly a revert and part of an effort to remove Islamist associations. And even without it, I still count two reverts in 24 hours. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::*{{ping|GoldenRing}} Can you please recheck? I don't see where you're getting that from. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::*<small>{{re|NeilN}} Er, yeah, don't mind me. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 18:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*I agree that the edits cited by NeilN were indeed reverts. I think a few months away from the topic might be a good idea as well. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 02:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==MapSGV== |
|||
{{hat|1=MapSGV is indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action (not an AE action). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning MapSGV=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Elektricity}} 06:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|MapSGV}}<p>{{ds/log|MapSGV}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions]] |
|||
<!---WP:TBAN---> |
|||
The user MAPS should be Topic banned from India-Pakistan articles indefinitely as they have shown that they cannot engage in debate without antagonizing others and attacking others. If disruption continues on other projects , perhaps a site wide ban. |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=prev&oldid=828208089&diffmode=source 04:56, 1 March 2018] This is one of the long list of perosnal attacks from the user. He has made no contributions to the project since his return some months ago (The contributions log shows only some reverts and the rest is very [[WP:POINTY]] content on talk pages etc.) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=prev&oldid=828207713&diffmode=source 04:52, 1 March 2018 ] Along the same lines, accusations, aspersions. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elektricity&diff=827880872&oldid=827880674&diffmode=source 08:02, 27 February 2018 ] More personal attacks. "Keep your agenda driven disruption out" |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826653702&diffmode=source 09:01, 20 February 2018] Another personal attack. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826681169&diffmode=source 13:35, 20 February 2018] A somewhat lengthy perosnal attack. Includes, "You are fooling yourself if you really believe such nonsense", " It's a shame that you waste so much time on Wikipedia yet you don't agree with it core principles for the sake of your POV" etc. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826684301&diffmode=source 13:43, 20 February 2018] More personal attacks. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826690977&diffmode=source 14:25, 20 February 2018] User also dispalys classic [[WP:TRUTH]] attitude. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826697391&diffmode=source 15:09, 20 February 2018] Another personal attack. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826847746&diffmode=source 09:33, 21 February 2018] More of [[WP:POINTY]] comments, which may be considered benign on thie rown, but as a pattern they are clearly disruptive. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826848677&diffmode=source 09:57, 21 February 2018] More personal attacks, like "Quit trolling already. It won't help you". "You need to worry about your disruption which is occurring throughout Wikipedia despite your very bad past that is further going to affect your future in Wikipedia. It is funniest when a disruptive POV pusher is trying to lecture." |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826863595&diffmode=source, 13:13, 21 February 2018] Another personal attack, calling a troll and "I am editing since 2014, but I never saw this much nonsense ever before on Wikipedia" (He has only 100 or so edits in that period and none of them are mainspace green edits, just reverts or comments like these) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=827762795&diffmode=source, 16:04, 26 February 2018] Again, another rude and antagonistic summary. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_India&diff=827878196&oldid=827874900&diffmode=source, 07:26, 27 February 2018] Edit warring (Diffs continue below) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_India&diff=828033474&oldid=828031139&diffmode=source, 04:30, 28 February 2018] Again [[WP:TRUTH]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_India&diff=828175041&oldid=828069781&diffmode=source, 00:13, 1 March 2018] Deleting the RFC template started by another user and accusing them of being a sock. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_India&diff=828207787&oldid=828207609&diffmode=source, 04:53, 1 March 2018] Twice, added the same accusation as well. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_India&diff=828208161&oldid=828208054&diffmode=source, 04:58, 1 March 2018] And then again made the same edit to the RFC. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KA$HMIR&diff=prev&oldid=828210990&diffmode=source, 05:23, 1 March 2018] Another personal attack. |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. |
|||
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=826646175&oldid=826642305&diffmode=source] 20 February 2018 |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
This user has made no contributions to the project and thier presence is just antagonizing others. PErhaps if an experienced editor with thousands of edits messes up and makes a personal attack or pointed remark once in a while, he can be warned about it. But this user has around a hundred or so reverts/comments and out of those this large number is antagonistic. He should be removed from area of conflict. The India-Pak articles are very contentious even to begin with, and antagonizing remarks and personal attacks like this just destroy any chance of collaboration that there may be, causing irreparable harm to wikipedia. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828219182&oldid=828208089&diffmode=source |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEJustice&type=revision&diff=777186963&oldid=777169561 diff] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
===Discussion concerning MapSGV=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by MapSGV==== |
|||
I would like to commend the analysis made by Lorstaking below, that I have been constantly harassed by some editors who are doing nothing but personalizing small and rather easy content disputes. |
|||
===Discussion concerning EJustice=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br/>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by EJustice==== |
|||
Appreciate all the discussion. I will restrict my response to the charge that I violated [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions .281932 cutoff.29]]. Please correct me if there is more at stake in this discussion on this page. |
|||
Every of my comment was a reply to actual personal attack that often included false allegations that I am an SPA, sock,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826848677][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826855755][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&diff=prev&oldid=828034654] and no evidence was ever provided for these claims. |
|||
As this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=777259575 diff] indicates, I have not edited within the sanctions area. There was one sentence in [https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_101_(Spring_2017)/home our course syllabus] that has been the major source of POV claims against me, while the syllabus itself clearly states that the Wikipedia assignments are an exercise in writing neutrally. |
|||
[[WP:CPUSH|Civil POV pushing]] is a huge problem where a person looks to justify his disruption by falsely labelling every kind of opposition to his disruption as "personal attack" while exhibiting clear [[WP:IDHT]], engaging in edit warring, misrepresenting sources, and such disruption is too prevalent here. Finally what degrades the quality of this website is these editors who are socking for a long time or they have been blocked/topic banned still they are insulting other editors (such as me) by calling them a sock/SPA and engaging in disruptive POV pushing, making personal attacks. But when you dispute any of their argument you are misrepresented as someone who is making personal attacks. That is nothing but [[WP:GAMING]]. — [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV|talk]]) 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
It is not clear to me that the syllabus, hosted on Wikiedu.org, is subject to POV rules. If so, would wikipedia editors have the right to alter the readings or other assignments? It is simply a syllabus and its content (POV or not) has no bearing on an assignment in which students were required to write neutral, well supported wikipedia articles to the best of their abilities. |
|||
====Statement by MBlaze==== |
|||
This request should not be entertained as the filer is a blatant sock of a disruptive topic banned editor, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FreeatlastChitchat] and is on the verge of getting site banned himself. —[[User:MBlaze Lightning|<span style="color:#0000f1; font-family:Algerian; text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #CC4E5C">'''<big>MBL</big>''' </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Lorstaking==== |
|||
A key issue here is whether environmental justice is by definition a POV term. It is a field of academic research that is over 30 years old, yet Jytdog above states: |
|||
MapSGV's actions are perfect especially when we recognize the fact that he is a productive editor who is unfortunately dealing with a disruptive wikihounding sock of a topic ban evading user.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FreeatlastChitchat] Elektricity is just trying to take wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and by filing this spurious report, where he deliberately failed to notify {{u|MapSGV}}, he is digging his own grave. [[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]] ([[User talk:Lorstaking|talk]]) 07:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:: '''key comment''' -- comment on draft: Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article. |
|||
as if students' coverage of this issue in an article is somehow wrong. If I insisted in a chemistry class that articles cover chemistry, would I be subject to sanctions? |
|||
{{ping|GoldenRing}} I think you are only reading what MapSGV has said, but you are not reading what he was replying to. Users have engaged in great amount of incivility against him as well as range of false allegations in order to evade their [[WP:CIR]] issues. I can clarify the diffs right here: |
|||
Finally, here is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=776589349&oldid=776584642 just one example of Jytdog's assuming bad faith] on my part. If one understands environmental justice as a field of research, his long complaint above becomes instead a POV itself, arguing against environmental justice as a field of research. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826653702&diffmode=source] was a reply to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826652864] where an editor falsely labelled reliable sources as [[WP:FAKE]] not just once but two times.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826652046][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826652864] Not to mention that WP:FAKE refers to fake/non-existing references, not reliable sources that meets [[WP:VERIFY]]. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826681169&diffmode=source] was a reply to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826681169] where other editor personalized dispute by telling "''80 edits over a 4 year period starts making such POV edits across longstanding war articles out of no where, we have far more to worry about''". |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826848677&diffmode=source] was a reply to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826848677] where other editor called him to "''drop your POV stick, because an SPA whose first edits involve adding contentious OR and POV across several articles doesn't have a very bright future on Wikipedia.'''' Clearly a personal attack because MapSGV is not an SPA but someone who had edited subjects such as [[Libya]], [[Egypt]], [[Hinduism]], [[cuisine]]s, [[India]], [[China]], and more before the other editor made such personal attack in place of discussing the article. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826684301&diffmode=source] was a reply to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826684301] where other editor made false accusations of personal attacks and ignored the discussion about content. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826863595&diffmode=source] was a reply to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826855755], where other editor called him, <nowiki>"You are not only a POV warrior, but an [[WP:SPA]] whose only purpose is to cause disruption. And you are definitely [[WP:SOCK|not a new user]]"</nowiki> (calling him MapSGV a sockpuppet without evidence). |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826697391&diffmode=source] this was a reply to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826696486], where the editor made false allegations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, despite sources supporting the content without any question. |
|||
Above diffs involve interaction with only 2 users, who have a bad block log and history of sanctions for editing in this very same area and even in above diffs you can see clear [[WP:IDHT]]. And this all started only after MapSGV argued that results must show that India won the war because that is what zillions of reliable sources say, but these two editors went to make personal attacks on him in place of providing sources that contradict the sourced content. I think they deserves to be sanctioned for their incompetence if anything. FWIW, 6 people against 3 have agreed with what MapSGV wants on talk page. |
|||
I am sorry if my insistence that the intersection of race, class, gender and other social characteristics with the environment is an important field of research and data, and NOT POV, is interpreted as intransigence on my part. I assure you that it is not. Jytdog's list of complaints across so many articles illustrate the way in which on many topic areas it remains difficult for people to accept the strong research that is available on this subject and instead to treat this work as somehow biased. [[User:EJustice|EJustice]] ([[User talk:EJustice|talk]]) 06:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I wouldn't go on describing rest of the diffs that are either free of ARBPAK coverage or they are a product of wikihounding and other sorts of harassment from the filer, who also was falsely alleging MapSGV to be a "sleeper-esque"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=827895935] and "throw away sleeper"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&diff=prev&oldid=828034654] for days before filing this spurious report. |
|||
====Statement by The Wordsmith==== |
|||
{{ping|Lord Roem}} I intend to make a more substantive comment, but I will request that you grant Jytdog a waiver on his statement length. This issue encompasses a massive number of articles involving many editors, and extra space really is necessary to put this issue in context. The only reason I didn't bring it to AE myself is because of the sheer scope of this. And as always, I consider myself [[WP:INVOLVED]] on 2016 Election-related articles in general and this Berkeley issue in specific. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Talking about personal attacks, I don't see even a single personal attack here from MapSGV or false accusations like rest of others have carried out against him. There is no prohibition on much larger level of incivilities[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&diff=825746231&oldid=825745441] in Wikipedia. Though I understand that this allegation of "personal attack" has been overblown in this report because filer failed to find his way to misrepresent sources, use self-published and non-reliable sources on the article for his POV pushing, hence he resorted to filing a spurious report. You can also have a look at the SPI where Capitals00 shows the evidence of him filing same spurious reports from his main account. |
|||
*I've been dealing with this nonsense since I happened upon one of the articles while browsing AFD. Upon doing some routine research, I was horrified to find the rest of them. A full list (of the ones in mainspace, anyway) is at [[User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles]]. A handful of them, such as [[Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration]], are okay, though that only came about through a large effort involving many editors resulting from a note I dropped on [[Talk:Donald Trump]]. Prior to that, it was a mess of POV pushing and Original Research and Crystal Ballery. Going by the looks of it, roughly half of them have already been deleted or otherwise removed from article space. And through it all, EJustice has maintained that anyone opposing or criticizing the work being done is doing so because of their own biases. I really think there's a fundamental disconnect between what Professor Gelobter thinks Wikipedia is for, and what we actually do here. Many experienced editors and admins have tried to help him understand, but I don't think he's willing to budge. A topic ban for him and his students (many of which have been meatpuppeting on each others' AFDs) is the only way that I know of to end this disruption, short of waiting for the semester to be over and then a massive cleanup. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I would better recommend this report should closed as spurious or the filer should be blocked for his deception and using the noticeboard for battleground. We should let the SPI have its run. [[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]] ([[User talk:Lorstaking|talk]]) 16:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*@Anonymous Students: Let me be clear and state that I do not want you to be punished or banned. Many of you were misled as to what sort of things were appropriate on Wikipedia, and that is not your fault. That is the fault of Professor Gelobter, for being given advice on community norms and ignoring it. A few people here have had the chance to work with you on [[Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration]], and they have good things to say about you. I would like it if at least some of you stuck around, learned the ropes from experienced editors, and used your own knowledge to contribute the correct way outside of the constraints of this class. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
I'll make this short and sweet. |
|||
#I encountered this group's editing also, and found it beyond problematic. |
|||
#The courses are obviously US politics agenda driven and inherently POV. |
|||
#The 10 April diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arctic_resources_race&diff=prev&oldid=774718479] is particularly concerning in that it appears to show students being pushed until they conform to the course's agenda. I don't know how this works at UC Berkeley, but this amounts to [[WP:MEAT]] in our sphere. |
|||
#Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clean_Power_Plan&diff=prev&oldid=775980409 here] he is offering legal advice to his students that are at odds with our norms. |
|||
#The course leader should not be allowed to participate further until they demonstrate that they understand our community processes and norms. |
|||
- [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
=== |
===Result concerning MapSGV=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
I have been involved to a slight extent with EJustice and his students, primarily at one of the articles: [[Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration]]. At that article several of us have been working with several of the students, collegially and with good results, and it is a proper encyclopedia article. I have interacted with EJustice himself on only one occasion, the ANI that Jytdog quoted from above. Speaking as a regular editor (not as an admin because of my involvement), I have two points to make. |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
* I would like to see the outcome of the SPI before taking action here. Otherwise, the evidence presented seems to consist of very low-level incivility, though the sheer volume of it could be a problem. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* I do think this is actionable. Personal attacks are prohibited, irrespective of whether the other user is a sockpuppet. {{ping|MapSGV}} please respond promptly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:*The response by MapSGV is unsatisfactory, as it only attempts to excuse MapSGV's misconduct, rather than convince us that it will not reoccur. Incivility by others is no excuse for incivility of one's own. The scope of the problem as demonstrated by the diffs in evidence requires action. MapSGV has made only 223 edits so far, which of course raises socking questions of its own given the user's fluency in Wikipedia jargon, but it matters here insofar as this means that the 18 diffs reported here constitute close to 10% of the user's total edits. This is an unacceptable signal-to-noise ratio. I am indefinitely blocking MapSGV (as a normal admin action) as a net negative for Wikipedia. If they are unblocked, I anticipate imposing a topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Andrew Davidson== |
|||
* "Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration" is a proper subject for Wikipedia, comparable to other articles about the various policies of various presidents. I was unaware of all the other articles that have been created (180 students? OMG!), and having looked at a few now I am pretty much appalled. Almost none of them are proper subjects for an encyclopedia article. "Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations"? "Environmental impacts of pig farming"? "Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama" for heavens sake?? At most these subjects could be a paragraph in a related article. These are not articles, these are student term papers, and they should have been assigned and graded as such. From the subject matter, to the format, to the neutrality or lack of it, they are completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. This was inherent in the class itself, which is frankly oriented toward a particular political viewpoint. In the future this professor should not assign his students to do their term papers in the form of Wikipedia articles, and steps should be taken at the education project to ensure that this does not happen again. Unfortunately, almost all of these inappropriate articles are going to have to be deleted or redirected. |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Andrew Davidson=== |
|||
* The user EJustice has been very belligerent about attributing any criticism or deletion to bias, rather than to enforcing the guidelines of an international encyclopedia. That's just a defensive reflex on his part; EJustice knows nothing about the political or social opinions of editors here. That's by design; most of us try to edit in such a way that our own beliefs and attitudes are not reflected in our editing. (I personally have been accused of being everything from a flaming liberal to a Trump apologist.) But EJustice has a fixed belief that anyone who disagrees with his agenda must be doing so because of their own biases. That fixed belief, and the [[WP:IDHT]] attitude it generates, are incompatible with being a Wikipedia editor. It appears that EJustice is NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to use it to promote his own viewpoint. IMO action needs to be taken on that basis. |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Sitush}} 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Andrew Davidson}}<p>{{ds/log|Andrew Davidson}} |
|||
I thank Jytdog for this careful research and exposition of this massive problem. Unfortunately AE may not be the proper venue for the problems raised here, and we might have to do it all again at AN in order to take the actions which are called for.--[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 21:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBIPA]] : |
|||
:{{ping|Lord Roem|Sandstein|El C}} You mentioned a topic ban, presumably of EJustice. To be clear, what topic are you considering banning him from? Also a comment: banning User:EJustice himself from editing does nothing to prevent him from sending 180 students here to post POV term papers. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 23:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
What appears to be a long-term fundamental inability to understand the complexities of the Indian caste system leads to often lengthy and wikilawyered discussions such as [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Indian_castes|here]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samra|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism|here]]. There is no easy way to explain the complexities in 500 words, sorry, but, for example, in the last diff AD argues use of sources that simply do not refer in any meaningful way to the subject, in the linked Samra discussion he argued at length to use unreliable sources, causing {{u|Drmies}} to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson&oldid=828292790#Caste_issues issue a sanctions alert], and in the first of these diffs he argued using both unreliable sources and with a clear lack of understanding of how the caste system functions. As some of those diffs infer, they are not the only examples but I'm struggling with the interaction tools at the moment - they keep timing out or simply not returning a result. |
|||
::One final comment: If sanctions or restrictions are applied to EJustice, the statement applying and explaining them needs to spell out clearly, one more time, that the problem is not that we object to this field of study. After all, we have had an article on [[Environmental justice]] since 2005. The problem is that this instructor's approach is unencyclopedic. The assignment given, and indeed the very premise of the class, was not to do scholarly research in the field, but rather to demonstrate that the policies of a particular named politician are destructive and wrong. ("Besides a few individual assignments, students will largely work in small groups to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency."[https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_101_(Spring_2017)/home]) That polemic approach was and is contrary to Wikipedia policies, and is the reason for any future restrictions. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 13:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am grateful to Anonymous student 2 for letting us know that EJustice has been urging his students to come here and defend him, even suggesting what they should say ("Isn't this the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?") It's clear that he was [[WP:Canvassing]] for [[WP:Meatpuppets]] (another area where he either does not understand or chooses to ignore Wikipedia norms), and I commend the two students who have commented here so far, for not doing that. Instead they came here with thoughtful commentary about their experience and Wikipedia. I think they have reflected very well on Cal students and I am impressed. For his part, I would prefer not to think that EJustice is a good or typical example of the Cal faculty. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 18:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::P.S. I have been reminded that I should not always take comments from anonymous IPs at face value, so evaluate this information accordingly. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 18:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
We've currently got [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism (2nd nomination)|this]], where AD is perpetuating his previous stances, again without any apparent understanding of the caste system. In that discussion, he seems even to think that we should keep an invalid statement rather than remove it and so cause an article to be blank. He has also been arguing at length about the validity of the most recent sanctions alerts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson&oldid=828292790#DS_Alert here], indulging in yet more time-consuming litigation of dubious merit. |
|||
====Statement by Seraphimblade==== |
|||
I'll comment here since I've been rather involved in this issue. I fully agree that this is becoming a major problem. Normally, when I've run into issues with class projects, I've found that instructors and students are quite willing to receive and act on feedback, and it doesn't have to go any farther than giving them some advice and being there if they have questions. Unfortunately, that has not been true here. EJustice has seemed fundamentally unwilling to change the approach they've taken, even after having been told repeatedly that it is unacceptable. At this point, I don't know what else we can do but apply sanctions. |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
To the question by {{u|Sandstein}}, many of this class's edits are American Politics related, but there have also been issues with BLP. Discretionary sanctions always are applicable to BLP issues. But something needs to change here, because this is reaching a serious level of disruption, and with the instructor being unwilling to change what they're doing, I don't know what else to do. I warned some time ago that it might come to this if it continues, and, well, here we are. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
None known |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
====Statement by Train2104==== |
|||
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson&oldid=828292790#DS_Alert here], soon after expiry of one issued [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson&oldid=828292790#Caste_issues issue a sanctions here]. |
|||
I encountered this course after seeing the first ENI report linked in the "prior community discussion" section above. Their behavior has been problematic, magnified by the sheer volume of students and articles involved. I echo the comments by the various editors above, and thank Jytdog for bringing this here, for it is sorely needed. The edits are clearly motivated by American politics, and as such, should fall under discretionary sanctions. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
Students look up to instructors as role models, and we expect instructors to demonstrate good behavior to their students. However, here, we are considering sanctions against a particular editor, not against all 180 students. We do not know the behind the scenes processes that occurred leading to this, including the choice of article topics, etc. But we do know that the syllabus was deliberately written with a goal in mind, and thus by extension, the course and assignment have an advocacy goal, one clearly not compatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. Nor do we know whether or not this user has attempted this course in the past (pre-Trump of course). But clearly they have refused to listen to our advice, and instead accuse us of systemic bias and not supporting his cause - when we try to be as neutral as possible. The fact that there are 180 students, far less than 180 articles (thankfully!), and that numerous SPA/meatpuppet votes were cast at the AFD's tell me that role accounts were likely used. This also violates policy, and is a violation the instructor should clearly be aware of, in addition to the copyright matters above. I echo [[User:StAnselm|StAnselm]]'s comment at ANI - we are here only because of the protections (real or imagined) afforded by the Education Program, and if this were a blind meatpuppet army they'd long be blocked. |
|||
I have filed this under the username Andrew Davidson but some past discussions were under another username, {{u|Colonel Warden}}, which he allegedly agreed with ArbCom to stop using but actually has not. The AD account is more active of late. |
|||
It is ok to have an opinion but to tendentiously pursue it can be problematic, as can misrepresenting what sources say even if it is due to a lack of understanding. I'd like to see a topic ban from caste-related matters, broadly construed, because I and probably others feel like we're banging our heads against a brick wall. |
|||
I support the application of sanctions against this instructor, and urge the community to participate in the postmortem analysis and discussion that Wiki Ed has promised will occur over the summer, in response to this and numerous other course-related problems this semester. The semester is almost over, so I'm not sure of their effectiveness, but Wikipedia does not operate according to the calendar of any particular university. – [[User:Train2104|Train2104]] ([[User talk:Train2104|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Train2104|c]]) 00:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with {{reply to|Jytdog}} that a topic ban may not be the best solution - the user's past behavior indicates that protracted disputes over the edges of the topic ban are very likely. – [[User:Train2104|Train2104]] ([[User talk:Train2104|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Train2104|c]]) 14:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:In response to Anonymous Student 2 - wow. It is clear that the instructor is using the students as a meatpuppet army to protect himself and promote his cause. I am going to say firmly and clearly that it is in my belief '''none of the student accounts should be sanctioned''' without specific and clear evidence of misbehavior unrelated to the student assignment, and as of this point, I do not see any of that. – [[User:Train2104|Train2104]] ([[User talk:Train2104|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Train2104|c]]) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Replying to AD's edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=828311386&oldid=828299134 here]. It is nothing specifically to do with one AfD. It is a general pattern of lack of comprehension that, in fact, you are even demonstrating in your comments here. The problem is, you mention expanding your interests into editing caste-related articles but you cannot even demonstrate understanding in the AfDs, throwing in irrelevant sources (the Oxford book being one), unreliable ones and arguments that are non-starters because the caste system does not operate in the manner that you seem to believe. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Wiki Ed==== |
|||
I've just posted a statement about this AE request on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation here: [[Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents#Statement by Wiki Ed regarding AE]]. It's not posted on this page for two reasons: first, it would exceed the word count; second, we wanted to comment on the situation and our role in it, but, of course, would rather not opine on the outcome of this process. --[[User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)|Ryan (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Ryan (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 01:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:<small> Statement was archived and is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents/Archive_6#Statement_by_Wiki_Ed_regarding_AE here]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)</small> |
|||
====Statement by Seraphim System==== |
|||
I agree in large part with the comments above - there have been problems and [[User:EJustice]] has not been responsive to feedback, and has blamed other editors for being motivated by bias (I can only speak for myself, but I am not promoting a POV about this and did not appreciate being accused of racial or gender bias). Is there systemic bias? Yes, absolutely - but as I have said before, that is not a free pass to disregard policies like [[WP:SYNTH]] [[WP:OR]] [[WP:CRYSTAL]] etc. Even if all these policy guidelines are followed, there will still editors who are disruptive and non-neutral - but there is not much room for debate here, the policy violations were clear and routine. |
|||
That said, I'm not convinced AE is the right place for this - from the diffs provided I don't see any evidence that the editor has edited in the sanctions area himself, or that these articles were even in the sanctions area when this conduct took place - maybe they should have been, but for a significant duration of this course they were not. [[Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming]] for example - not in the sanctions area. These pages should have been correctly templated and protected from the start, they were not. This general behavioral complaint should be raised in the correct forum, if only so we don't slide further down the abyss of chaos and disorder. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk]])</span></sup> 03:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{ping|Sandstein}} then you are unwittingly part of the problem. I know that CIR is not a policy but when someone like Andrew Davidson gets involved it just creates a shedload of issues that need to be addressed. Just one example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_General_Caste_in_Sikhism_%282nd_nomination%29&type=revision&diff=828054161&oldid=827932965 this] not only fails [[WP:V]] on the relevant point but makes a grossly incorrect assumption that "important" = something special in terms of [[Reservation in India]]. It doesn't. There are plenty of "important" communities - politically, economically etc - that do not conform to the original research which AD insists makes this impossible list meet LISTN. Yes, AD is a quite extreme inclusionist and, yes, way back he gave me my first barnstar for rescuing an article at AfD, but if people cannot understand that caste-related issues ''need'' understanding then there is no hope, sorry. And when the same easily verifiable point is made again and again but AD refuses to accept it, well ... It is just a timesink and it is a timesink that can have quite peculiar consequence because these articles are not particularly well watched (Catch 22?). In this instance, I strongly suspect that AD's fake references in the first AfD caused it to be determined as not suitable for deletion, yet he protests when the thing is blanked because there is nothing verifiable. Then comes back umpteen years later and says he can make it verifiable but in fact he cannot, as anyone familiar with the topic would know. The same applies to his insistence that unreliable sources are in fact ok to use. |
|||
{{re|EdJohnston}} It could be brought under the scope of discretionary sanctions - American law pages are not part of American politics "broadly construed" - that statement veers into meta-theories of law territory. The widely established understanding is that the judiciary is considered to be independent of the political branches and they don't adjudicate on [[political questions]] - some specific pages may be both legal and political - Statutes passed by Congress could be considered political, because passing legislation ''is'' a political process - but the page on [[Torts]] or [[Marbury v. Madison]] are not pages about politics. Torts is not part of American politics, movements to change the law of torts are part of American politics, as are legislative actions to modify the laws of torts, executive orders, or even agency regulations may be "broadly" construed as being part of American politics in some contexts - I can't deny that Administrative law is part politics "broadly construed", (but litigation challenging enforcement of regulations on legal grounds is not). I want to make this clear going forward - when it comes to torts and cases, x=x and y=y, except when 1,2,3. The whole point of the exercise is that it is not political, it is not democratic, nor based on majority rule or other "political" processes. As for how that applies to the [[Environmental Justice]] page - DS could apply because the page is not only about a general area of law - it does include content that is about politics and political movements, and relies heavily on non-legal sources. No problem, if it is under DS it should have been protected and templated, and the usual editing restrictions should have been in place. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk]])</span></sup> 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I admit that I am struggling to explain here. I know for sure that there are people who think AD is being absurd but this is a topic area where scrutiny is poor and one of the consequences of that is examples such as the current AfD, which comes out of a previous AfD that had no merit other than the fake refs, a complete lack of comprehension, and an admin who presumably saw some mention of sources and thought "that's ok". But, as I said at the outset, this is not a one-off issue. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 00:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{re|Jytdog}} I agree that most of the students work has been more political advocacy then law, and this is likely realated to the syllabus and other issues that have been discussed already. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk]])</span></sup> 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{ping|Sandstein}} I acknowledge your comment about a lack of diffs. I was utterly bemused regarding how I could possibly give specific diffs in such a complex matter but if you can suggest a way to disentangle then that would be great. As it is, I am sort of hoping that common sense could prevail here: if people really cannot see the problem just reading a few example threads then, frankly, I despair and may as well give up. We have two sets of sanctions regims for the topic area for a reason. |
|||
====Statement by DHeyward==== |
|||
:{{ping|D4iNa4}} I have had little involvement in this process and couldn't possibly comment except to say that I used the word ''unwittingly'' on purpose. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 01:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
This type ofabuse threatens to undermine the very core principles of wikipedia. The fact that it seems to be supported by outreach efforts means it needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy. Period. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 05:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by TonyBallioni==== |
|||
I'd been refraining from making a statement here because my experience has been mostly with the copyvio issues, which EJustice's talk page documents his response to and in my opinion is worthy of community sanctions in itself. I'll echo {{u|MelanieN}} in saying that I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the students on the Trump article, but Jytdog's diff concerning the grading standards of this course and EJustice's response to it make it clear that he does not understand why grading students based on introduction of a POV into Wikipedia is wrong, and it also places the urgency students on talk pages have felt to include certain content in context. <p>The course page description mentioning Trump makes it clear that the intent was to edit in the DS area, which combined with the student actions in line with their grading standards makes me believe AE is the right place to deal with this. I think a topic ban from courses involving politics of the United States would be justified, on AE grounds alone, and combined with the blantant defense of plagiarism and copyright violations by a university professor I think makes it the only justifiable outcome if it is taken to another forum. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{ping|Jytdog}} I would support indef or a site ban that can be appealed to AN per the standard option because of their response and the multitude of issues, some of which are outside the scope of DS. I think a tban could be handled within DS, but indef or site ban would probably need to be community imposed. I also agree with MelanieN that it must be made clear that any sanctions must make clear that this in no way has to do with his political views or their topic of research but the fact that he has had no regard for Wikipedia's policies, and actively tried to get around them despite efforts of many of us in the community to help. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 14:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Without responding to the off-wiki issues, I want to say that I think we should have a close on this soon at this venue. If the DS apply and the responding administrators feel that sanctions should apply, let them be applied. If people don't feel the sanctions imposed are enough to prevent future disruption or there is a concern about forum, it can be handled at AN. Prolonging the AE process at this point is not likely to add anything that has not already been said. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 18:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
====Statement by JFG==== |
|||
Notified [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndrew_Davidson&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=828298915&oldid=828292790 here] |
|||
EJustice has demonstrated a [[WP:NOTHERE]] attitude, which can gravely impact Wikipedia's reputation. He has received many warnings and offers for help, and apparently failed to get the point. I see only an indef ban as the correct preventive remedy. No student account should be sanctioned, but the rationale against EJustice should be explained to them. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 07:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion concerning Andrew Davidson=== |
|||
====Statement by OID==== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
As Ryan from wiki-ed points out, this is an unsual case where an instructor has agreed to abide by wikipedia rules then basically turned around and ignored them. Restrict the instructor *and any class/students they teach* from live article edits (restrict them to talkpages, draft & userspace etc) and we can all go stop talking about it. Draftspace etc already have the processes in place to evaluate, amend draft articles, and the instructor will just have to amend his class or learn to do things the wiki-way. (Yes this is hard on the students, but that is entirely the instructors fault. As a process issue, meatpuppets are also considered aware of any sanctions that apply to the hidden hand behind them.) [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 08:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Andrew Davidson==== |
||
What we have here is an [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_General_Caste_in_Sikhism_(2nd_nomination)|AfD]] – note that I have not edited the article in question at any time. I'd be quite happy to stop arguing about the matter and just let the AfD process take its usual course but it's Sitush that keeps coming to my talk page to belabour the matter (8 times already today). There are some content issues and I understand them just fine. What Sitush doesn't seem to understand is our policies and guidelines such as [[WP:PRESERVE]] and [[WP:BLANK]] and he states openly in the discussion that he's not heard of them before. My position is that there's some scope for improvement here and so our policy [[WP:PRESERVE]] would have us prefer this [[WP:ATD|alternative to deletion]]. In the course of discussion, I have produced good sources such ''[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8I0NAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA583 The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies]'' – a respectable and recent work from a university press. I have also pointed to other related pages such as [[List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism]] which no-one else seemed to have noticed. I'd be quite content to have both these pages merged to [[Sikhism#Sikh_castes]] which contains a similar list of Sikh castes and so am quite flexible about the outcome. All that needs to happen now is a period of quiet so that other editors can contribute to the AfD and then the closer can settle the matter in the usual way. Compare, for example, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchu studies (2nd nomination)|Manchu studies]], which is about a similar weak page but for which I have found a good source. I have no strong feelings about these topics but am entitled to my views on them, as is common at AfD, and I contribute usefully to the discussions, arguing from sources and policy, as we're supposed to. Note that the previous AfD referred to ([[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samra|Samra]]) was over two years ago and so these issues don't arise often enough to warrant special measures. What might require attention is Sitush's insulting incivility, for example, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson&diff=828290471&oldid=828290110 how dense can you be ... your incompetence]". In that previous AfD, I noted that Sitush seemed to be violating [[WP:OWN]], [[WP:PA]] and [[WP:BLUDGEON]] and we have the same pattern again here. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Just a note that some of the students chosen topics within the umbrella of environmental justice on the course page fell within [[Organophosphate poisoning|pesticide related]] topics, which are also under DS from [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions|the GMO ArbCom case]]. Ejustice themselves did not edit within those pages, but they were directing people to those topics through the course page. I don't think GMO-Pesticide DS are needed right now (it may be a stretch to apply those DS to Ejustice), but just a heads up that if a future class comes up with this professor even under a political topic ban, there's a decent chance they might end up in yet another DS topic. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{ping|RegentsPark}} should please move their contribution from the section reserved for "uninvolved admins" because, as they recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&diff=826718754&oldid=826714866 discussed the specific topic in question], they seem involved. Note that, when they stated their opinion of the topic, they did not provide any evidence, whereas I provide and cite examples, sources and policy. Note that I don't just google in a crude way, as RP supposes. I have an extensive personal library, including multiple, respectable books on the specific subject of caste. I have good access to research libraries in London which I regularly visit, such as the [[British Library|BL]], the [[Senate_House,_London#Senate_House_Library|Senate House Library]], the [[Wellcome Library]] and more. Through these and other resources such as the [[WP:TWL|Wikipedia Library]], I have good access to online resources such as [[JSTOR]]. I am therefore able to read and quote sources when needed to develop or support a position, as in this case. I fully appreciate the ramifications of this topic area but my general position is that we should explore alternatives to deletion so that topics can make progress, rather than being stuck in an unproductive cycle of creation, blanking, reversion and deletion. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 18:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
I can't really add anything that has not already been said, but I share the opinion that the way the class project was set up was seriously disruptive, that the length of the presentation here is not worth worrying over, and that the instructor is unlikely to become helpful without sanctions. I've taken part in some of the past discussions with EJustice, and it seems to me that EJustice does not intend to change their approach. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry that I gave EdChem an edit conflict, but speaking as another academic who became an editor, I disagree with treating instructors and students differently than other editors. This did not happen in a vacuum: there was plenty of helpful advice from WikiEd and the community, and plenty of time to take that advice on board. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
=== |
===Result concerning Andrew Davidson=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
I've been watching this miss unfold for a while, starting from the problematic new articles and including the discussions with EJustice and Ryan at Wiki Ed, and I've been debating whether to say anything. I have the strong impression that {{u|Ryan (Wiki Ed)}} has worked hard behind the scenes to avoid this becoming a train wreck and that {{u|EJustice}} has not listened to, or not understood, some very good advice. Unfortunately, there have been some unhelpful comments made to students and to EJustice – not just harsh/bitey-unhelpful, but also well intentioned but not useful-unhelpful. As an academic who has assessed student work at both undergraduate and graduate levels, I can see how an on-WP course project can get into a huge conflict between academic goals and encyclopaedic writing. As a Wikipedian, I can see how the goals can mesh and what to avoid, and I can see how EJustice can have made some of the mistakes that he has. Sadly, we are well past the point where much of this course's writings can be salvaged, and the paths from here diverge. EJustice needs to make sure he can do a valid assessment of the student work for credit, WP needs to clean up article space, and the future needs to be considered. So, I suggest the following: |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
#One or more admins who are willing to volunteer for the task can work with EJustice so he can see what he needs to for grading purposes within WP policy. With plenty of necessary deletions having occurred and continuing to occur, providing material off-wiki is likely going to be necessary. Related to this, we know EJustice will share his experiences with colleagues, as will his students. Doing what we can to support the assessment side will hopefully reduce the reputational damage to WP from those discussions, as will helping all to understand that the WP issue is advocacy and encyclopaedic content, not any particular topic. |
|||
*I don't see how this is actionable. To begin with, the request contains no diffs of edits by Andrew Davidson. As to the caste-related discussions linked to in the request, I don't see anything substantial, at first glance, that might amount to sanctionable misconduct by Andrew Davidson. Even if one assumes with Sitush that Andrew Davidson is mistaken or ill-informed with respect to the questions at issue, that is not a violation of Wikipedia conduct policy. I don't see how this is more than a content dispute coupled with strong disagreement on the inclusionism / deletionism axis. Such disputes should be resolved through normal [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than through arbitration. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
#A decision on EJustice should not be taken here at AE. I don't doubt that DS jurisdiction can cover many of the students and the work, as well as some of EJustice's comments, but I think any decisions on bans and blocks will have consequences beyond just EJustice. Such decisions are better taken by the community as a whole, or by ArbCom, rather than by an AE-admin consensus or a unilateral AE action. Yes, a unilateral action is authorised and justifiable, but I do not think it would be wise. In addition, as {{u|Kingofaces43}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=777402933&oldid=777400958 recently and accurately] noted, the articles touch onto other DS areas (like GMO), and I note that it is also possible that some do not fall clearly within any DS area. The AN option avoids the need to craft an action within a DS area, but rather to tailor it to the actual situation. |
|||
*Sitush, AE is a bit strict on policy, evidence, etc for pretty good reasons. To act, we need clear cut diffs that show obvious misconduct. Nebulous patterns of behavior don't fit into WP:AE very well. Keep in mind. AE isn't a consensus board, when an admin acts, they act unilaterally, and they have the authority to ignore everyone else, or take those opinions to heart. We usually work together and often a majority agrees with the outcome, but whichever admin closes and acts, s/he owns those actions, and must be able to articulate the issue via WP:adminaccct. Looking briefly at your case, I don't see a solid case being presented, even while admitting one might exist. My advice is to have actual diffs along with SHORT explanations for each, and take it to ANI, which is better suited for long drawn out ordeals, and allows input from everyone. ARBPIA restrictions can still be issued from there, but if this situation is as you describe, it transcends ARB and would be getting into general policy, which is easier to deal with. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
#We need to know EJustice's future intentions, vis-à-vis running course projects on WP. I think an AN-supported ban on such an action without an outline of goals and methods which is accepted by the WikiEd team and the community as consistent with WP is desirable. WP has the right to protect itself from another situation like this one developing, which may ultimately mean a site ban, but I would prefer to avoid that and a ban on post-1932 politics is a potential minefield of edge-testing, etc. |
|||
*While I don't see anything actionable here, I do see some cause for concern. Looking through the edits, it appears that Andrew Davidson, though editing in good faith, doesn't understand the domain. Caste in India is a complex subject, continuously confounded by interest groups, government action, and poor quality judgements made during the Raj era. It is because of this complexity that we have imposed community discretionary sanctions on this area and most uninvolved admins, like myself, issue warnings and blocks solely based on sourcing, i.e., whether edits are sourced or not and, if sourced, whether there is consensus on the reliability of those sources. Editing by googling the way Andrew Davidson is doing is not going to work very well in this area because it invariably pulls up unreliable sources. Insisting on Raj era sources when consensus is against using them is not going to work very well either. But, like I said, there is probably nothing actionable here right now because Andrew Davidson appears to be editing in good faith. However, if this continues, a topic ban from caste related articles is likely in the future. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 15:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
#We are already seeing some debate on where the edges are – take recent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=777400958&oldid=777392155 comments] from {{u|Seraphim System}}, for example. A page like [[Marbury v. Madison]] is clearly prior to 1932, but leaving that aside: the parts dealing with the limits of original jurisdiction and the powers of judicial review are not political, but lame duck Congressional actions authorising judicial appointments of a single political stripe, with an incoming President taking immediate action to frustrate are clearly in the realms of politics, and those parts of the article would be caught within an American Politics DS – remember that DS applies to the topic, which includes the parts of pages on other topics which are substantially part of the DS-covered topic. The problem we have is not the potential controversy of the topic area, it is the setting of a task which is non-neutral advocacy in its intent. In that sense, a topic ban is a poor fit for addressing the actual problem, and if the advocacy issue can't be resolved, then no topic area will be appropriate for future projects (and a site ban would be the logical enforcement remedy). |
|||
*:AndrewDavidson, I don't consider myself involved because I have no opinion on caste matters and an occasional drive by comment doesn't change that. Also, like I state above, I don't think you're editing in bad faith here. Rather, regardless of the quality of access you may or may not have to sources, you seem to be editing with a shallow understanding of the complexity of the topic area, particularly with your "if we build it the sources and content will come" approach which is practically an invitation to the POV editors out there. Also, if I may point out, the three sources you include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_General_Caste_in_Sikhism_(2nd_nomination)&diff=827816133&oldid=827774785 here] are all google books sources which, unfortunately, do give the impression of being found through a google search rather than through visits to the various libraries you list above. That you are editing against consensus is fairly well borne out by comments from other editors such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_General_Caste_in_Sikhism_(2nd_nomination)&diff=828593239&oldid=828587423 in this edit summary] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_General_Caste_in_Sikhism_(2nd_nomination)&diff=828365968&oldid=828289428 this one]. Regardless, all I am saying is that when you have a shallow understanding of a topic area, it is generally better to edit with a light touch than with an aggressive one.--[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
#EJustice, I have debated whether to post on your user talk page to point out some perspectives, experienced Wikipedian and academic to academic, but I won't unless you are open to the discussion. I know you must be feeling harried by all that has happened. Wikipedia can be a jungle of overlapping policies and guidelines with unexpected pitfalls, and it can also be very unfriendly. I admire your courage in trying to do a 180 student project as your first foray onto WP, it was brave... but, to be frank, it was not wise. The design you chose was always going to conflict with how Wikipedia operates, and I could point out how many of the problems could have been avoided. I would be willing to have the discussion in a sub-page of your user space, because I think what I would say is relevant to others and I prefer open communication... but I would also be willing to ask that other users not comment in the discussion, restricting their views / comments etc to the talk page. I would also be willing to include Ryan from WikiEd, if you like, and to delay it until after the assessment etc is dealt with (Ryan will be very busy until summer anyway). Please let me know what you think. |
|||
*::Actually, since you asked for diffs I looked a little deeper. The AfD in question is a second nomination. In the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_General_Caste_in_Sikhism|first nomination]], you !voted keep with the same three sources that you've listed in the 2nd nomination and with the same "if we build it the sources will come" rationale but, in the three plus intervening years, you have neither edited the article nor done anything with those sources (nor has anyone else). That, it seems to me, pretty much backs up my "shallow editor" hypothesis. A shallow understanding of the content and an aggressive editing style are not a good combination. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 19:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==The Rambling Man== |
|||
'''Short Version''': I '''oppose a topic ban''' as a poor fit for addressing the actual advocacy problem, and I '''strongly advise no AE action''', not for lack of jurisdiction, but because '''AN is a more appropriate forum''' both for widespread community input and for tailoring a remedy to suit the actual problem. The clean up in article space via '''deletions must and will''' continue, but '''EJustice should be supported / assisted to complete the assessments''' for grading etc of the students. This is both fair for the students (who are caught between WP policy and incompatible task design which is not their fault) and will hopefully reduce reputational damage to WP from EJustice and the students sharing their difficult / unpleasant WP experience with others. Finally, the discussion in summer with Ryan and others from WikiEd is vitally important for looking at lessons for WP and future student editing, which continues to provide challenges. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|No action. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning The Rambling Man=== |
|||
====Statement by EJustice==== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|SarekOfVulcan}} 21:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|EdChem}} I would welcome the chance to have the kind of discussion you suggest, particularly bounded as you suggest on a sub-page to keep us focused on my understanding and learning how to contribute more fruitfully. And I'd welcome the help to facilitate our grading. Hope we get to do it! [[User:EJustice|EJustice]] ([[User talk:EJustice|talk]]) 04:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|The Rambling Man}}<p>{{ds/log|The Rambling Man}} |
|||
====Statement by Jusdafax==== |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
I find myself in complete agreement with EdChem. I too '''oppose a topic ban''' and '''strongly advise no AE action''' - if need be, AN is the place to take this. I commend EdChem for his thoughtful reasoning. If Wikipedia is truly to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" then let's take Ed's statement to heart. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 04:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited]] : |
|||
====Statement by Anonymous Student ==== |
|||
{{tq|The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.}} |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
I've stumbled upon this page after hearing what my classmates have been experiencing with their respective projects. (My group's contributions hardly caused a ripple, so I didn't experience any of this myself) I can't speak on behalf of the professor or the other students, but I do fully understand the issues that the community has raised in response to our contributions and agree that the assignment did have some inherent conflicts of interest with the stated goals of Wikipedia. I understand this has taken a lot of time and caused headaches for editors who felt rightfully alarmed by the content they were seeing. I just want to say, for what it's worth, we are all incredibly new to this and it actually has been a valuable learning experience about how to present information in a neutral way. It's a learning curve, and we're just starting to exercise our critical thinking muscles. |
|||
#{{diff|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red|828457460|828444872|TRM asks if anyone in Women in Red has articles to nominate for DYK for March 8}} Not a vio, obviously |
|||
#{{diff|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red|828463867|828460365|"Well, yes, it was just an opportunity to promote women in general. I understand if you're no longer interested in that. Sorry I mentioned it."}} Insulting the motivations of the two editors who declined the offer |
|||
#{{diff|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red|828484267|828483999|"...the fact that no-one here is interested in getting eight women hooks onto the main page for the whole day is clear..."}} Again insulting the editors who'd rather create articles than shepherd nominations they didn't want to make in the first place |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
# Blocked for violating the same prohibition in March and September 2017 - see enforcement log in case |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=828486522&oldid=828481054 |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning The Rambling Man=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by The Rambling Man==== |
|||
====Statement by power~enwiki==== |
|||
I would implore editors to not to be unduly harsh with the student accounts... I'm afraid it would do little except leave a bad taste in 180 impressionable young minds that were just trying to satisfy a rubric. It might be wiser to keep that door open so that those that are motivated to contribute more can come back and develop our awareness of WP ethics. My own group discussed our feelings about this very issue, and it has been eye-opening for me to read along with this whole thread. |
|||
This looks like a complete waste of time. Saying that people aren't interested in DYK isn't insulting their motivations. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 21:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you for all of your time and it is very heartening to see this kind of passion behind the scenes at WP. Keep up the good work! |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/128.32.87.206|128.32.87.206]] ([[User talk:128.32.87.206|talk]]) 06:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by |
====Statement by GreenMeansGo==== |
||
[[User:SarekOfVulcan|Sarek]], please do us all a favor and withdraw this. This is silly. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 21:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Because I think it is relevant, I wanted to let the community know that students from the class have been directed by the professor, in lecture and via email, to this page for comment. The email states "I've activated the link www.bit.do/ejwiki if you wish to weigh in on whether I should be banned from Wikipedia. Please feel no obligation to do so and if you do keep your input substantive (people will try to bait you). Statements like: "Isn't this the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?” are great, and use diffs (see the bonus assignment for how). There's also a new, bonus assignment for documenting extraordinary edits to your articles or talk pages." [[Special:Contributions/2607:F140:400:A024:440:DBDF:46D2:3213|2607:F140:400:A024:440:DBDF:46D2:3213]] ([[User talk:2607:F140:400:A024:440:DBDF:46D2:3213|talk]]) 17:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning The Rambling Man=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=828483463#Revdel?? Revenge nomination much, Sarek]? Can you give me any reason {{em|not}} to haul you off to Arbcom for conduct unbecoming, because I'm not seeing one right now. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 21:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*I'll review soon, but your request is way too long. Please shrink it to comply to the 500-word limit. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 18:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
**I think what's been been presented is more than enough. It's unfortunate that we have to face this with a university course that has the potential to strengthen existing articles w/ better research and sourcing... but the editor in question is very clearly POV-pushing and refusing to listen to feedback. We've sanctioned with less extensive evidence. I believe a '''topic-ban is appropriate''', with the added proviso that the editor should be very wary about asking his students to edit where he can't. They need to understand what WP is for and what's not appropriate. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
***Adding that while I think the above is enough to act on my own, I'd like to hear other admins' thoughts before jumping in. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
****The more I think about it, the more I think AN might be best to handle this if only because this isn't just a potential sanction against one editor, but the entire class, as MelanieN mentions above. I'd feel uncomfortable making such a broad decision on my own, especially when we're not unanimous that DS applies. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 23:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
**I agree with others that the length of the complaint should be overlooked. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 01:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*At first glance we do seem to have conduct issues here that could justify a sanction, but I would like it to be made more clear how this is about the "politics of the United States" and therefore within scope of discretionary sanctions. Apart from a few Trump-related comments, the diffs in evidence are basically about topics related to [[environmental justice]] and environmental protection in the US. This is of course a political matter in a broad sense, but then most controversial public policy issues are. My understanding of the sanctions is that they were enacted to deal with disruption in the topic area of partisan or party politics, such as elections-related content. If they are understood to cover every controversial public issue, they'd cover basically everything related to the U.S., which I don't think was the intention. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 20:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:*Unlike Jytdog, I don't think that, just because EJustice may possibly have had political reasons for their actions, these actions are within the scope of discretionary sanctions about U.S. politics. In my view, it is required that the potentially disruptive edits are themselves related to U.S. politics in order to be sanctionable. I would therefore not take AE action here. However, a request for a community topic ban, which is not limited by topic area, might be made at [[WP:AN]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I tend to agree with Jytdog that, due to the focus of the edits (rather than merely the motivation, as Sandstein claims), it can be seen to fall within the scope of ARBAP2—but a topic ban can work just as well to end the disruption. Clearly, something needs to be done, as the statements by several editors above attest. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:*Perhaps, we ''should'' take this to the wider community (at AN), since the 180 students may also need to be placed under restrictions. Sounds like a plan. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::*I've been [[User_talk:El_C#EJustice_AE.2FAN|informed]] that the students' assignment was done yesterday, so the 180 students may be a non-issue. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I've left a note at AN asking for admin input. |
|||
:If the class is done for this year, the I guess the 180 POV-pushing accounts are no longer a serious problem. Something needs to be done about EJustice though. I'm not entirely convinced that a than from post-1932 American politics will be the answer; aren't we then risking the same types of problems in whatever area their class is assigned next year? I'm frankly tempted to just indef them, on the grounds that indefinite does not mean infinite and if they can demonstrate that they've understood the purpose of Wikipedia and how they can do education programs constructively then they can be unblocked, but I'd like some more support for that idea before trying it. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 01:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::*{{Re|Jytdog}} Exactly. My thinking is that this is someone who shouldn't be here until we see an attitude change. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 01:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::*Well, EJustice has responded, and I'm not seeing a lot of understanding of what the problems are. The next question is what sanction would be appropriate. I'm minded to a topic ban from wikiedu, to prevent them setting assignments, but how would that suit with the scope of DS? If DS don't stretch this far, ought we perhaps to ask the committee to handle this by motion? [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 22:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree that this falls under the US politics sanctions. If the party is over, there is no point in chastising the students, if there was ever a point to that. The instructor's behavior, however, is far from acceptable, and if they don't respond here, they're very likely to get a topic ban from editing or assigning anything remotely political. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*The article on [[Environmental justice]] (which discusses mostly the USA) falls under [[WP:ARBAP2]] since American laws are part of American politics broadly construed. I think that an admin would be acting within our policy if they issued a topic ban of [[User:EJustice]] from everything covered by [[WP:ARBAP2]] as well as an indefinite block under normal admin authority. The block would be appealable at [[WP:AN]] and could be lifted if the user agreed to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. Unless problems from the students continue I don't see a need for sanctions against more than one person. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 13:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*First a couple of quick points. There is no real doubt in my mind that this falls under ARBAP2. Secondly I think the length of the OP's statement can be forgiven given the unusual nature of the case and its history. After looking it over I have to agree with most of the comments and the OPs statement. This appears to be a fairly brazen campaign to [[WP:RGW|right great wrongs]]. This kind of WP:AGENDA oriented editing would be bad enough on one editor's part, but this is a highly aggravated case by virtue of the number of people involved and what I can only describe as an attempt to subvert the project's neutrality. I '''support a topic ban''' from any articles and discussions dealing with post 1932 American politics broadly construed for EJustice and any course/class they may be running. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
== |
==Willard84== |
||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning Willard84=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks| |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Excelse}} 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Willard84}}<p>{{ds/log|Willard84}} |
||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]] |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions]] : |
||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indians_in_Afghanistan&diff=prev&oldid=777096047 25 April 2017] Changed the section title from "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" to "Insurgents and intelligence operatives", like the section includes only proven convictions, when its full of allegations. On edit summary he wrote "+ref", he didn't mentioned he made a misleading title and added a new event. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Capitals00&diff=776966246&oldid=776879100 24 April 2017] Warned the editor the he went "above [[WP:3RR]]", despite he made just 2 reverts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=776964858][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=776963699] See [[WP:BATTLE]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=776964617 24 April 2017] [[WP:CENSOR|Censoring content]] by removing all mention of Pakistan despite [[Kashmir conflict]] refers to conflict of Kashmir in Pakistan, and 4/7 editors on talk page agreed to include Pakistan. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Owais_Khursheed&diff=prev&oldid=777097430 25 April 2017] on SPI, he claims "seems they were not notified about this SPI", when policy is that notifying [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guide_to_filing_cases#Important_notes|"isn’t mandatory"]]. Either call it [[WP:GAMING]], or [[WP:DRAMA|stirring up drama]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faisal_Javed_Khan&diff=776972167&oldid=776887444 25 April 2017] Trying to preserve article about an obviously non-notable person, when the page creator himself requested deletion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faisal_Javed_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=776214999] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1988_Gilgit_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=776959221 24 April 2017] Misrepresenting sources. On edit summary he claims that "source makes no mention of OBL personally involved in the conflict", despite source does back the sentence by saying "led by Osama bin Laden, was inducted by the Pakistan Army into Gilgit and adjoining areas to suppress the revolt"[http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/26raman.htm] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ace_Bhatti&diff=776826536&oldid=771019398 23 April 2017] clear violation of [[WP:BLPCAT]], the person has never identified himself to be Pakistani. Before making such a category, Mar4d had to first source that information on the article body. |
|||
Warned by {{U|EdJohnston}} in July 2017 that: "''If you continue to edit war on any topics related to India or Pakistan you are risking a topic ban.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=790098816] |
|||
Interesting thing is that '''this all comes under 2 days''', and remains continuous for many years. Above diffs show how he [[WP:DE|misrepresents sources]], engages [[WP:BATTLE]], violates [[WP:BLP]], pushes [[WP:POV]], [[WP:CENSOR|censors content]], etc. Given his block log and this amount of disruption in such a small period, it would be best to have him banned from entire South Asia. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 02:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[Template:History of Pakistan]]: |
|||
*[[User:El C|El C]], I hope you have checked his violation of [[WP:1RR]], [[WP:BLPCAT]], [[WP:DE|misrepresentation of sources]] and frequent [[WP:NPOV]] violations in this month alone, you can never expect him to edit without creating tensions in this area. Hounding him on every article just to watch his new ways of [[WP:GAME|gaming]] would be complete waste of time. On a quick look I find some more recent edits that are clear violations. |
|||
:*While undoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Bath%2C_Mohenjo-daro&type=revision&diff=762497452&oldid=761858695 this edit], he removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Bath,_Mohenjo-daro&diff=769244750&oldid=765627895] <nowiki>{{cn|date=June 2016}}</nowiki> tag without inserting source and calling it part of "vandalism", though it wasn't. |
|||
:*refers usual content removal/addition as vandalism,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=750752259&diff=prev][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=742091148&diff=prev][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=775116349&diff=prev] (see [[WP:NOTVAND]]) |
|||
:*while he is abusing,[[WP:ROLLBACK]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=777141433&diff=prev] he re-inserts sentence that is unsourced for 6 years.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=765406832&diff=prev] |
|||
*Back in September 2017 when he was edit warring on [[Template:History of Pakistan]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=802118161&oldid=802013593][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=802127001&oldid=802124158] by [[WP:WIKIHOUND|Wikihounding]] other editor to the template.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan&diff=802117662&oldid=802005823] |
|||
So we have already seen, he would remove <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> tag when it favors his POV[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Bath,_Mohenjo-daro&diff=769244750&oldid=765627895], and he would restore the unsourced sentence with the tag when it favors his POV.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=765406832&diff=prev] Ultimately, since he has been blocked so many times and socked (2009-2015) on this subject, I guess sanctions like topic ban are long overdue. |
|||
:Template ended up getting fully protected due to this edit warring.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=802235377&oldid=802191198] |
|||
[[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*There was a huge discussion regarding his disruption on this template and other namespaces on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_43#Willard84's_conduct EdJohnston]'s talk page. But nothing has improved. |
|||
*Once this protection was removed, he resumed edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=827832012&oldid=827056694][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=828008016&oldid=827849747] against consensus. |
|||
*Claiming there is "no consensus"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=827832459&oldid=827832012] regardless of the majority agreement of 8 editors against the non-consensus version of an editor who was topic banned from the subject and remains blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. |
|||
*Template ended up getting protected again due to his edit warring.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=828023244&oldid=828009293] |
|||
*Misleading an admin that "consensus was actually not reached",[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFerret&type=revision&diff=828243045&oldid=828207301#History_of_Pakistan_template] and continued deception on talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan&diff=828327451&oldid=828326074] where he claimed that there was no consensus because, "Pakistani editors seems to be in unison that these changes were not warranted, though despite this being a template on Pakistani history, Pakistani editors’ opinions are actually in the minority here."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan&diff=next&oldid=828327998] This argument about ethnicity of involved editors is an example of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. |
|||
*The template editor rejected the request and said, "I see a consensus above which contradicts your request".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan&diff=828347134&oldid=828345791] |
|||
[[Nanga Parbat]]: |
|||
*Removes long term sourced content by falsely asserting that there "This has been discussed",[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=827831017&oldid=827265556] regardless of any discussion. |
|||
:Removes it again[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=827836524&oldid=827834511] in middle of new-born discussion. |
|||
*Added an image without explaining the "puffery" he added.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=827855004&oldid=827849787] |
|||
:Edit warring to restore the puffery:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=828241179&oldid=828166462][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=828321681&oldid=828244038] |
|||
:Bludgeoning on talk page for adding the puffery against policies.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanga_Parbat&oldid=828523292#Unnecessary_wording_in_image_caption] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMar4d]. |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AWillard84 From block log]: |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AKS.9955&diff=prev&oldid=734199064 12 August 2016] |
|||
:23:48, 6 July 2017 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 4 days (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: at Godhra train burning per a complaint at WP:AN3) |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
:07:31, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Violation of the three-revert rule) |
|||
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. |
|||
:02:29, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule) |
|||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. |
|||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [http://Difflink1 Date] by {{admin|Username}}. |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willard84&diff=786020710&oldid=786020436] |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. |
|||
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months |
|||
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [http://Difflink1 Date]. |
|||
*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [http://Difflink1 Date]. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
These are the two most recent incidents that I can name. The long term edit warring, stonewalling, civil POV pushing, misrepresentation of consensus, and demonstration of [[WP:INCOMPETENCE]] shows that Willard84 is truly careless about how much disruption he is causing. I believe that a topic ban is clearly warranted now. [[User:Excelse|Excelse]] ([[User talk:Excelse|talk]]) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mar4d&diff=prev&oldid=777249166] |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willard84&diff=prev&oldid=828541329] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Mar4d=== |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Willard84=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Willard84==== |
||
I’m confident the arbitrators will find this complaint to be unwarranted and not done in good faith. This is an editor who engaged me in a heated discussion months ago who now appears to be seeking some sort of discretionary sanctions based upon sour feelings. He’s making accusations essentially on behalf of others who didn’t find my behavior so disturbing that they themselves would file a request. Instead we have an editor with whom I haven’t interacted for many months randomly appearing out of the blue and stalking my edits to build a frivolous case against me. Out of many months of edits, and literally hundreds, if not thousands, of edits, he pulls out a few cherry picked examples to build a case. I think this violates the spirit of collaboration and I find this sort of stalking to be very objectionable - even worthy of sanctioning to be frank. If the arbitrators seriously feel these accusations warrant actual disciplinary measure against me, please ping me back to this page and I can dedicate more time to a rebuttal. So much of what he said is an inaccurate depiction that completely neglects so much, but just as a quick illustration of the sort of details that he neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you [[Talk:Nanga_Parbat#Unnecessary_wording_in_image_caption|that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page]] that he complained about was resolved cordially via discussion with that other editor.[[User:Willard84|Willard84]] ([[User talk:Willard84|talk]]) 08:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
This is a frivolous report filed in [[WP:BADFAITH|bad faith]], compiling its and bits with no substance. The tone in which it is written seems reminiscent of [[WP:HOUNDING]]. I do hope that the user takes note of [[WP:BOOMERANG]], being well aware of their one-sided editing in the past 48 hours. In my defence, I'd like to point out: |
|||
:And as for the issue of consensus on the Pakistani history template page, once the third party declared they had seen consensus, I dropped the issue without further debate. This complainant neglects to mention that fact.[[User:Willard84|Willard84]] ([[User talk:Willard84|talk]]) 11:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indians_in_Afghanistan&diff=prev&oldid=777096047 25 April 2017] This edit, as the summary points out, involved adding a reference on militants. Rather than creating a new section, I combined it into an existing section. I do not see what is misleading about [[WP:COPYEDIT|copyediting]], I do it all the time [[WP:BOLD]]ly. The section title was too long, so I made it concise. Besides, the content below it touches up on the allegations so it's redundant (see [[MOS:SECTIONS]]). |
|||
::In response to [[User:Capitols00]] below - this is a user who has tried and failed to get me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_43#Willard84's_conduct blocked in the past]. His friend [[User:Excelse]], also jumped in that argument to join the witch hunt, and now roles are reversed. These two users act in unison to make these accusations every few months. His list of accusations seems impressive but is a paper tiger. He’s complaining that I removed Sanskrit from the Mt Kailasha page, which isn’t true. As shown on the talk page, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Kailash#Scripts I actually just moved it] out of the lead because a few months back someone had removed this Chinese script and replaced it with Sanskrit, despite this being a Chinese mountain. He also claims claims that I removed Punjabi from a page about “Sikhism” though the Punjabi is still on that page about a temple in Pakistan. What he neglected to mention is that a user had tried to remove the Urdu name, and replace it only with Punjabi script. He also claims I removed a sectio about a Hindu temple - probably in an attempt to convince you of anti-Hindu bias, but he seems to neglect that the page it was removed from was about a fort, and that the temple in question has its own page, [[Prahladpuri Temple]]. Another ridiculous attempt to malign me is when he claims I removed Sanskrit from the Peshawar page, when it was actually changed to [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peshawar&type=revision&diff=788989560&oldid=788959216 the IAST]] version of Sanskrit which is exceedingly commmon practice. He then claims I downplay the number of burushaski speakers in India, despite the fact that the NPR source in the article did indeed say 100. He tried to confuse you by pointing to a different source that says 300-400. That wasn’t the source in the article - but he’s using this new source to make a point.The rest of his list of accusations is similarly misconstrued. That’s probably why he’s scraping the bottom of the barrel for edits from months ago to build his case. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Capitals00&diff=776966246&oldid=776879100 24 April 2017] On this one, you are wrong. Capitals00 made 5 reverts on [[Rape in Kashmir Insurgency]] under the 24 hour window, and they were basically edit warring: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776832049&oldid=776807346] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776835606&oldid=776833663] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776858104&oldid=776854595] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776963699&oldid=776949851] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776964858&oldid=776964617] They were also incorrectly claiming [[WP:CONSENSUS]] while reinstating those edits. The [[WP:3RR]] rule gives no leeway, all editors must not exceed 3 reverts whether involving the same or different material. Instead of filing against Capitals00 at [[WP:AN3]] for 5RR, I chose to leave them a note. |
|||
::That isn’t exactly the same sort of malicious intent Capitols00 tries to portray. Those are two random ones I chose. I can dedicate more time to a point by point rebuttal. But judging by how frequently Capitols00 joins these witch hunts (three cases in just a few days!), it should be no surprise that he’s jumping on the band wagon again. This sort of behavior, and misrepresentation of facts, ought to be themselves sanctioned like [[WP:BOOMERANG]].[[User:Willard84|Willard84]] ([[User talk:Willard84|talk]]) 23:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=776964617 24 April 2017] If you are following the discussion [[Talk:Rape in Kashmir Insurgency|on the talk page]], you would know that multiple editors have expressed concern on that content's suitability for inclusion, given the article's scope. I have no idea where you interpreted the 4/7 figure from. Please go through the most recent discussions in particular. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Owais_Khursheed&diff=prev&oldid=777097430 25 April 2017] This one is laughable actually. It is considered courtesy to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#How to open an investigation|notify someone]] when you start SPI against them, you chose not to do that. The fact that you're unhappy over me doing what you should have done, and accusing me of [[WP:GAMING]] and [[WP:DRAMA]], is quite telling. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faisal_Javed_Khan&diff=776972167&oldid=776887444 25 April 2017] Irrelevant. Feel free to start a section on that talk page if you want to discuss [[WP:NOTABILITY]], or the reason for turning down [[WP:PROD]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1988_Gilgit_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=776959221 24 April 2017] Again, you could've asked about this on the article talk page, or even mine. I stand by the original edit. The source makes no mention of OBL being present in the conflict, or that he ever visited that region. It says militias led by him (or in other words, affiliated). Those two are different things. The lead incorrectly states the former, which I corrected. Also note that the first source is a column/op-ed by a [[Research and Analysis Wing|RAW]] official, so it fails [[WP:RS]]. |
|||
:''Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an admin action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 23:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)'' |
|||
Lastly, the user seems to have enough time for filing SPIs and arbitrations but not enough for talk pages. Please focus on the latter. Adios, '''[[User:Mar4d|<font color="green">Mar4d</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<font color="green">talk</font>]]) 06:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: {{ping|El C}} {{ping|Capitals00}} It is most definitely a revert and disruptive. How on earth does [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776832049&oldid=776807346 blanking a new article] with 82 citations qualify as an "edit"? That too based on a years old merge discussion which is inapplicable, as [[Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency#Redirected_again|two other editors]] pointed out. Please don't extend persistent [[WP:BATTLE]], and justify your edit warring for goodness sake. Further, neither Capitals00 or D4iNa4 have clean block logs (not even going to link them). I don't appreciate the cherry picking and [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] being casted here, so let's leave it there. I have returned to editing in a good standing, and anyone is free to review my contributions. Lastly, D4iNa4 has just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=777274935&oldid=777274503 opened another thread] on {{u|Tyler Durden}}, a neutral editor which is ridiculous. It is obvious both these users are using [[WP:AE]] as their dramaboard to settle a score. '''[[User:Mar4d|<font color="green">Mar4d</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<font color="green">talk</font>]]) 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Raymond3023==== |
|||
:: {{ping|El C}} Could you clarify how you concluded on the 1RR please. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgit-Baltistan&diff=773928280&oldid=773481197 This edit] on 5 April was a revert. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgit-Baltistan&diff=774081184&oldid=774035844 This] (6 April) was an amendment based on a talk page compromise, as my summary states. Also, as you mentioned that I "never responded" to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mar4d&diff=774140547&oldid=773988392 notification], I actually did right after it. It was a content dispute. Please go through the second last section of that article's talk page. '''[[User:Mar4d|<font color="green">Mar4d</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<font color="green">talk</font>]]) 08:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{ping|El C}} {{ping|Capitals00}} Topic banned? FYI, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776964617&oldid=776963887 THIS] remains my first and ONLY edit on that entire article. All my other edits are on the talk page. And this edit was performed due to your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776963699&oldid=776949851 trigger-happy 4th revert] claiming [[WP:CONSENSUS]], barely [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776960257&oldid=776959862 half an hour] into the discussion! And I have yet to be "shown" any source against my argument, in fact I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776961640&oldid=776961498 found a contradiction], hence the reason I commented there. Please stop, you are digging yourself deeper into the cesspit. '''[[User:Mar4d|<font color="green">Mar4d</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<font color="green">talk</font>]]) 08:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Willard84's on-going attempts to deceive others are concerning. He is still misrepresenting incidents and trying to throw mud on OP's report by falsely claiming the existence of the incidents that didn't even occurred when the report was filed. See [[WP:GAMING]]. |
|||
The report was filed at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828541860&oldid=828510012 05:43] (UTC). At [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828554785&oldid=828549905 08:37] (UTC) Willard84 changed timestamp of his 1 hour older response and makes a misleading claim that OP "neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you [[Talk:Nanga_Parbat#Unnecessary_wording_in_image_caption|that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page]] that he complained about was resolved",[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828554785&oldid=828549905] after leaving a message on talk page at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanga_Parbat&diff=828554419&oldid=828523292 08:32] (UTC), despite the report was filed almost 3 hours ago. Willard84 is now attempting to get away from the article by claiming that he "resolved cordially" when he is clearly giving up on the article and he failed to remove the sourced content and failed to get his puffery accepted because his disruption has been highlighted in this report. But I am sure he will resume his disruption on that article for his [[WP:OR]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanga_Parbat&diff=827846482&oldid=827846066] |
|||
Furthermore, edit warring of Willard84 didn't even stopped with this one edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=827831017&oldid=827265556] and one revert,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=827836524&oldid=827834511] because after he failed to remove the content from lead, he still removed it from lead by creating a new section called "Etymology" and moving material there[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=827846306&oldid=827845616] and he provided no reason for his edit. Since his aim was to get rid of the meaning of the word from the lead, I would count it as 2 reverts for removing the meaning of the name, and 2 additional reverts for adding puffery. In total, he made 4 reverts. |
|||
Seeing he is clearly working on deceiving others not only on articles but also here now, he is leaving me with no choice other than to support topic ban which would be still lenient because editors also get indeffed for such shenanigans. [[User:Raymond3023|Raymond3023]] ([[User talk:Raymond3023|talk]]) 10:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by D4iNa4==== |
|||
Willard84 you can't ignore your long term pattern of your nationalistic editing by making false accusations against others. Even if you had never edited the the main [[Template:History of Pakistan]], your behavior on it's talk page has been purely disruptive, though you edit warred enough to get the template protected twice by restoring to a pseudohistorical nationalist version written by an editor who used a sock to notify you recently.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willard84&diff=prev&oldid=827234236] The template should be totally unprotected the way [[Template:History of India]] is, even though it is much more edited and visited than Template:History of Pakistan. But due to your disruption I think we will never reach there unless you are topic banned. I am really seeing no justification for your actions. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 18:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
=====Response to D4Nai by Willard84===== |
|||
Nationalistic editing? The Template discussion revolved around whether consensus had been reached - don’t misconstrue this into a question of competing nationalism. I think the arbitrators here are well aware of how to spot arrogant nationalism - and it isn’t coming from me. The debate has been ongoing since October, yet you made a change in late February after months of stalemate and resurrected a version which was objectionable for its inclusion of minor empires like the Marathas who ruled for not even 2 years and left essentially no trace of their presence,while you suggested that the Indus Valley Civilization (with its major sites in modern Pakistan) be removed from a template about Pakistan. In fact, the changes you made aren’t the changes you put forward for discussion - you made a set of changes that hasn’t been discussed in their entirety. I was pushing for a reversion to status quo - I think you’ll need to do a better job of demonstrating how this was pushing a nationalist viewpoint. Even the comment about Pakistani viewpoints was explained in the debate as a point brought up simply because this fell under wiki project Pakistan. And anyway, once the third party had stated they thought consensus had been reached, I dropped the issue even though I think that third party did not consider the context behind it. |
|||
D4iNa4 has had his own history of belligerent POV editing against me. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Godhra_train_burning/Archive_2#A_review Here another reviewer] had to explain to D4iNai and another user that Washington Post is a reliable source when D4 had sided with another user to ensure the page only reflected claims that the train was burned as a result of a pre meditated “conspiracy” by Muslim passengers, by ensuring that any mention of events prior to the burning which cast other non-Muslim passengers as rowdy were not included. |
|||
[[User:Willard84|Willard84]] ([[User talk:Willard84|talk]]) 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Kautilya3==== |
|||
I would acknowledge that {{U|Willard84}} is a bit quick to hit the revert button, but he is a good productive editor otherwise. Perhaps a warning should suffice for now. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 20:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Lorstaking==== |
|||
I agree with the filer, Raymond3023 and D4iNa4 but I disagree with Kautilya3. Another warning would be a waste of time since he has been already warned and blocked enough times for what he has been doing and he is not still not understanding the serious problems with his editing. According to his own statements here, he still believes that even if none of his edits were accepted they were still correct and also that others are engaging in misconduct by not accepting them. He still believes his edits are correct where he is treating [[princely state]]s and their subdomains ([[Phulra]], [[Khanate of Kalat]], [[Dir (princely state)|Dir]], etc.) during [[British Raj]] as the main power as per his own edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=828008016&oldid=827849747][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&action=history] to paint a wrong picture that Pakistan was never really colonized by British and was mainly ruled by these vassals. Willard84 also wants to mention initial and outdated rumors about [[Godhra train burning]] as facts even after being told otherwise by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willard84&diff=789468668&oldid=789409967 Edjohnston] and not just the involved editors. You just can't expect him to collaborate without creating enough problems. |
|||
His input on talk pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanga_Parbat&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan&action=history] can be also described as mass bludgeoning just like his statements here, some of them have been already removed by Sandstein.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828646697&oldid=828639601] |
|||
I am also noting that his accusations against others of misconduct without giving any evidence constitute personal attacks. |
|||
He is saying in one of his statements here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=828639470] that everyone is allowed to revert but he is now gaming 3RR by not reverting 3 times in 24 hours. Clearly that is how he managed to revert 4 times on [[Nanga_Parbat]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=827836524&oldid=827834511][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=827846306&oldid=827845616][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=828241179&oldid=828166462][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanga_Parbat&diff=828321681&oldid=828244038] In short words this is a clear case of disruptive nationalist POV pushing and [[WP:CIR]]. |
|||
[[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]] ([[User talk:Lorstaking|talk]]) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*Willard84's further deceptive approach can be described by his recent statement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828689983&oldid=828689433 here on this page], falsely claiming that I "had commented on just an hour earlier" before MapSGV reverted him, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=828009293][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan&diff=827848885&oldid=827832638]: seems more than 22 hours to me) despite the fact that I had commented on the template against the problematic version in 6 October 2017.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan&diff=804026695&oldid=804019323] Also that he deceptively cherry picked this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=828386023&oldid=828375734 diff] to claim the request was "was quickly shut down", when I was the one to "shut down" the request.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=828380353] |
|||
:I must also add that Willard84 was edit warring, bludgeoning and misrepresenting consensus on talk page for restoring problematic version of an indefinitely blocked topic banned sockmaster upon the request from his sock.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willard84&diff=827234236&oldid=825770858] Months ago, he was doing this same thing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=802127001&oldid=802124158][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=802118161&oldid=802013593] when this editor was blocked indefinitely for being [[WP:NOTHERE]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=John&page=User%3APAKHIGHWAY&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype=] Willard84 attempted to get his topic ban overturned before,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=822749704&oldid=822573030] despite being the only person to oppose any sanction on him at [[WP:ANI]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=822698527][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#Pakistani_nationalist_editing] |
|||
:Willard84 has really left me in no doubt now. He is a case of [[WP:CIR]] whose deceptive approach is harmful for this project. [[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]] ([[User talk:Lorstaking|talk]]) 04:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
=====Response to Lorstaking by Willard84===== |
|||
:::I don’t have time to rebuke rehashed accusations that were already brought up above, but it’s clear what Salem 1620 must have felt like. |
|||
:::Anyway, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this user, Lorstaking, has been spending an unusual amount of effort to defend [[User:MapSGV]], whose account has been blocked above, by petitioning arbitrator [[User:Sandstein]] above [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828352610&oldid=828351276 to rescind his decision]. The accusation that I tried to downplay British rule is exceedingly ridiculous- as a review of the edits would make very clear. |
|||
:::Lorstaking and MapSGV have an unusually [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828297052&oldid=828294613 deep relationship] that appears to have only developed in the end of February 2018 when MapSGV started making a significant number of edits. He randomly jumped back into editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=MapSGV&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=2015-12-13&end=2018-02-19 after a 2 year hiatus] on 19 February 2017, and seems to have somehow rapidly developed a deep relationship with Lorstaking, who took the unusual step of writing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=828274951&oldid=828274773 a lengthy character defense of MapSGV]. Lorstaking even opened a case to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Block_for_review challenge sanctions against MapSGV], although [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=828386023&oldid=828375734 this was quickly shut down]. |
|||
:::Yet now, Lorstaking finds his way on here to join a witch hunt. Perhaps in retaliation, because MapSGV somehow randomly appeared on the [[Template:History of Pakistan]] that Lorstaking had commented on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan&diff=827848885&oldid=827832638 just an hour earlier], and reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=828009293 my edit] before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=828009803 threatening me with blocks] on the talk page. He also seems to be unusually well-versed in Wikipedia lingo for someone who apparently just parachuted back in after a making a few dozen edits.[[User:Willard84|Willard84]] ([[User talk:Willard84|talk]]) 04:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Capitals00==== |
====Statement by Capitals00==== |
||
Mar4d is misrepresenting my edits here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=prev&oldid=776832049 this is an edit not a revert], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776835606&oldid=776833663 this is not a revert] since it ended up with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=prev&oldid=776838702 self-revert], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776858104&oldid=776854595 is not a revert either] since it ended up with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=prev&oldid=776859658 self-revert]. |
|||
While a number of recent examples of continued disruption have been already provided, I think it is nonetheless worth it to describe the problem to be bigger and continuous. I have observed Willard84’s edits over a long period of time and many of them have proved to be problematic. Here are a few examples of nationalist editing over a broad range of articles: |
|||
Mar4d is evidently a heavily disruptive editor. Just what he wrote here is enough of an explanation. He believes that he can maintain non-notable articles contrary to guidelines and commonsense? |
|||
*Removed "India" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xuanzang&diff=823363136&oldid=818213806 from the Xuanzang article]. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peshawar&type=revision&diff=788989560&oldid=788959216 Removes Sanskrit from article about ancient Indian city in modern-day Pakistan citing a policy that doesn’t exist] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Kailash&diff=803476256&oldid=803254190 Removes Sanskrit word from Mount Kailash]. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fowler%26fowler&diff=800179564&oldid=799718935 Pushes his POV above what reliable sources state] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multan_Fort&type=revision&diff=799754249&oldid=796848495 Removes a section about a Hindu temple from an article] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aror&type=revision&diff=793045950&oldid=731540549 Removes “ancient India” from an article about a city formerly part of the Indian cultural sphere] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peshawar&type=revision&diff=800658013&oldid=800381379 Replaces Puruṣapura with Peshawar] in an article. This is another example of Willard84 purging anything related to India from Pakistani-related articles. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burushaski&type=revision&diff=801983592&oldid=801983370 Edits the Burushashki langauge article to state that only 100 people] in India speak Burushashki when the [https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/munshis96677/munshis96677.pdf source] mentioned around 300-400. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurdwara_Janam_Asthan&type=revision&diff=792038697&oldid=791858053 Removes the Gurmukhi script from an article about Sikhism]. |
|||
Mar4d had also violated 1RR[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mar4d&diff=774140547&oldid=773988392] on [[Gilgit-Baltistan]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgit-Baltistan&diff=774081184&oldid=774035844][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgit-Baltistan&diff=773928280&oldid=773481197] on 6 April while the discussion was on going[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan#Administrative_territory_of_Pakistan] yet he edit warred before joining the discussion. {{ping|El_C}} I mentioned this because Mar4d has gamed 1RR before as well. He had been blocked in November 2015, for abusing socks in order to evade [[WP:3RR]] and [[WP:1RR]] for over 7 years,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Acejet/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_2] and since he was unblocked after heavy conversation, it becomes necessary to put him under strict sanctions or just indef block. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 06:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
These edits show Willard84's problematic editing behavior across many articles. Despite previous warnings and blocks, it has continued and Willard84's own comment indicates that this problem will remain. I would recommend a topic ban on India and Pakistan related articles broadly construed. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 04:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Mar4d==== |
|||
:Yes {{ping|El_C}}, first edit is a revert, an editor made the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgit-Baltistan&diff=773481197&oldid=773480850], Mar4d reverted it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgit-Baltistan&type=revision&diff=773928962&oldid=773481197], then other editor reverted Mar4d[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgit-Baltistan&diff=774035844&oldid=773928962] and Mar4d reverted again.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgit-Baltistan&diff=next&oldid=774035844]. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 07:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* I will second Kautilya3. These are content disputes, not conduct disputes if it all. In the limited time I have known Willard84, he has been an extremely productive editor and the majority of his contributions, particularly to Pakistan topics, have been outstanding and one of the best I've seen on Wikipedia. One only needs to go through his contributions log and his article creations to appreciate this user's presence in this topic area, and his expertise in finding [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to improve under-covered subjects. What I see here is mostly a collection of stale, cherry-picked diffs cobbled together to form a mudslinging contest, by a group of editors who belong to the most controversial topic area on Wikipedia which is riddled with content disputes and nationalist edit warring. The timing, content and structure of this ARE is clearly suspect and in extremely bad faith, as I have [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mar4d|raised below]]. '''[[User:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">Mar4d</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]]) 09:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|El C}} you can see that there's mass disruption by Mar4rd and none of us have enough time to revert and argue just to let him carry on disruptive editing on daily basis, and he fails to stand his own argument. For example he claimed that "some of the events attributed to Pakistani armed groups during the [[47 war]] didn't actually occur inside Pakistani territory"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776960257&oldid=776959862], and when he was shown source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776963538&oldid=776963216] against his argument, he started removing the entire mention of Pakistan on main article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776964617&oldid=776963887] That's why he needs to be topic banned. He also misrepresented my edits and self-reverts as [[WP:3RR]] violation over here, how can someone expect him to edit collaboratively with such long term problems? [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Seems like Mar4rd doesn't understand what is [[WP:REVERT]], since he considers normal edit and [[WP:SELFREVERT|self-revert]], language like "Please stop, you are digging yourself deeper into the cesspit", is just another proof of [[WP:BATTLE]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=777286757&oldid=777286407] [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 09:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Peoples Colony==== |
|||
*{{ping|RegentsPark}} Have you seen the diffs of 1RR violation, gaming with citation needed tags, POV pushing, calling normal edits a vandalism, misrepresenting sources, etc.? such issues are [[WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE|conduct dispute]], not content dispute. It would be tiresome for a user to try content resolution methods when enough amount of concerning user's edits are disruptive. That's why these sanctions are installed, to just seek sanctions against the editor engaged in misconduct. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 14:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|RegentsPark}} He was reverting[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Bath%2C_Mohenjo-daro&type=revision&diff=762497452&oldid=761858695 on Great Bath], which didn't included the removal of ''citation needed'' tag, that's how his removal of citation tag seems intentional. What about [[WP:NOTVAND]]? I went ahead to correct a bunch of his edits that had been pointed as problematic here. We will see how it goes. Although the 1RR violation that I had pointed out, as well as the misrepresentation of my reverts (Mar4rd) claims I "made 5 reverts", when they were 2 (rest were edits or self-reverts), such conduct constitute [[WP:BATTLE]] since he further assured that he is still going to claim them as 5 reverts. I believe that if not sanction, something else would be surely preferred in order to avoid creating a feudal environment. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 14:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|RegentsPark}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/Gilgit-Baltistan&action=history] [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 17:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|RegentsPark}} this seems better, furthermore, it seems that Fowler[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=777329319&oldid=777326626] has suggested a much better proposal and laid out a better argument than what we were having since the article creation, I am sure there is hope for better now. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
||
I endorse Sandstien , a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. Singling out Willard84/ Mard will be un fair. |
|||
===Result concerning Mar4d=== |
|||
===Result concerning Willard84=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*Both in this case and in the one concerning Mar4d below, it appears to me that we have several areas of problematic editing that are probably best addressed with topic bans for a number of editors. However, in both cases the report mixes genuine potentially problematic conduct such as edit-warring and personal atacks with what seem to be mere content disputes, which means that we don't have a clear-cut case. Moreover, a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. I don't currently have time for this. As such, I can't currently propose any specific action, which is not to say that action is not necessary. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*Please note that I have added [[Rape in Kashmir Insurgency]] to ARBIP/Ds. But while it is now subject to [[WP:1RR|1RR]], it wasn't at the time this report was filed. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:*I'm reading [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Acejet/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_2|SPI/Acejet]] with some alarm. Under what conditions was the user unblocked? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::*Looks like discussion was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mar4d/Archive_14&oldid=743149174#July_2016 here]. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 07:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Interesting read. As for the 1RR violation on April 5—can someone demonstrate the 1st edit is a revert (I already made that mistake [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#1RR_violation|once today]]). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::*Looks like there ''was'' a 1RR violation on April 5. I realise it's stale now—however, I also note that, although sanctions are not meant to be punitive, there is the matter of ''deterrence.'' Basically, how do we prevent this user from violating 1RR in the future as he did a few weeks ago? As well, it seems the user never responded to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mar4d&diff=774140547&oldid=773988392 the 1RR notification] (although I don't believe the consensus clause applies to ARBIP/Ds). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*I'm just not really seeing anything actionable, except maybe for the 1RR violation I mention above. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*The issues raised in the request seem to be mostly content disputes. To the extent they have a conduct aspect, I don't see sufficiently serious issues to warrant sanctions. I would take no action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 10:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I suggest closing as no action as well since the list of issues raised are almost entirely content related. I'd also suggest adding a mild reminder to the filer that they shouldn't be bringing content disputes to AE but should seek other mechanisms for dispute resolution. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 13:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{ping|Capitals00}} I went through the list provided by the filer. 1, 3 and 5 are purely content issues that are clearly being already debated. 4 is a neutrally worded message about SPI notification which the filer, incorrectly and improperly - in my opinion, takes umbrage at. 7 would be a blp violation only had Mar4d persisted, which they did not. About the Great Bath, I'm not sure why the cn tag got removed but Mar4d was reverting vandalism that definitely needed to be removed. Lots of editors have biases in they way they edit content but that doesn't mean that everything they do is suspect. In this case, the issues presented look like a list cobbled together with a '.. smoke there must be fire' approach. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 14:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*::About the 1RR ({{ping|Capitals00}}. I'm trying to find when and where this restriction was applied to [[Gilgit-Baltistan]]. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 17:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Thanks {{ping|Capitals00}}. Yes, that is indeed a violation (22 hours) and, since it is in an edit notice, hard to see how it could have been missed. I'd still recommend no action with a warning to Mar4d that 1RR is 1RR regardless of whether they are reinserting a talk page compromise or not. (I'll also add the restriction to the Arb enforcement log for future reference). --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 17:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Agree that a warning would be sufficient. Would take the course proposed by RegentsPark above. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 04:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== |
==Mar4d== |
||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning Mar4d=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks| |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MBlaze Lightning}} 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Mar4d}}<p>{{ds/log|Mar4d}} |
||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]] |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions]] |
||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASiachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=826679891&oldid=826658281 20 February 2018] Falsely accusing other editors of POV pushing "in complete mockery of WP:ARBIPA" instead of rebutting their arguments. This is the first of the many ad hominem comments made by this user on the article's talk page. |
|||
# Prefers to use edit summaries [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_abuses_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir&diff=777158975&oldid=777156297 for discussion] and avoid using the talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_abuses_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir&action=history] More edit warring and use of edit summaries for discussion, while no input on talk page: 1 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple_Talaq_in_India&diff=777097178&oldid=776826463][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple_Talaq_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=777153231] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Triple_Talaq_in_India]) 2 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Kashmir_unrest&diff=776615444&oldid=776595262][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Kashmir_unrest&diff=776776867&oldid=776775874][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Kashmir_unrest&diff=776831514&oldid=776828931] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Kashmir_unrest&action=history] 3 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=773407107] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=773307646] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir_conflict&action=history] (nothing from 16 March - 7 april) |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826681169 20 February 2018] Another ad hominem attack directed against the other editor, and this was after he was told to focus on the content.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826680304] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776965973&oldid=776964858] [[WP:CENSOR|Censoring]] any mentions of Pakistan[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776965973&oldid=776964858], and clear [[WP:HEAR]] found at:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776956131&oldid=776951588][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776965585&oldid=776965334] where he repeats the same rejected argument.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776956863&oldid=776956851][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776956851&oldid=776956461] |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASiachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=826848677&oldid=826848575 21 February 2018] Again launches ad hominem personal attacks on MapSVG with unfounded accusations in place of rebutting his arguments. |
|||
#[[WP:PMW|Page move war]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=777239805&oldid=777152876] despite opposition[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=777180118&oldid=777162714], and claims on talk page that he needs no consensus to make controversial page moves, but others need consensus to revert his page moves.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=777239681&oldid=777180118](see the last sentence) |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASiachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=826855755&oldid=826851416 21 February 2018 ] Doubles down on the personal attacks, calling MapSVG, among other things, a sock without evidence. |
|||
#[[WP:COPYVIO]] violations[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyler_Durden&diff=777019721&oldid=777017073][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyler_Durden&diff=766661025&oldid=766660680] |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India–Pakistan_military_confrontation_%282016–present%29&type=revision&diff=827041959&oldid=827040115 22 February 2018] Deliberately falsified the numbers with a misleading edit summary that he was fixing "per ref" and the "numbers are unsourced", when in actual fact the sources (both in the infobox and in the [[India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)#2018]] section) clearly supported the numbers. |
|||
#Used [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1947_Jammu_massacres&diff=776953172&oldid=776929651] and after getting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1947_Jammu_massacres&diff=776953172&oldid=776929651 reverted] he started to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] the talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1947_Jammu_massacres&diff=777121565&oldid=777116376#April_2017] in place of finding the [[WP:RS]]. |
|||
:*And, the explanation that he gave on the talk page — that there were no figures available for 2016[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndia%E2%80%93Pakistan_military_confrontation_%282016%E2%80%93present%29&type=revision&diff=827049810&oldid=827047691] — gave the impression that he didn't even read the refs because the figures from 2016 were already sourced in the infobox (see refs [20]–[22]), and this was discussed already a couple of months ago.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India%E2%80%93Pakistan_military_confrontation_(2016%E2%80%93present)#Relevant_quotes_from_the_TOI_source,_which_I_had_added] He never replied when I quizzed him asking if he had even read the sources.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndia%E2%80%93Pakistan_military_confrontation_%282016%E2%80%93present%29&type=revision&diff=827050172&oldid=827049810] |
|||
* Added objectionable material on [[Rape in India]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_India&diff=823308056&oldid=823113417] by adding his opinion, "However, in reality", "further exacerbated the crisis", and using unreliable sources. One editor reverted him for using unreliable sources and he reverted that editor saying that his sources are "RS"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_India&diff=823730650&oldid=823498691] and made another controversial edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_India&diff=823737918&oldid=823730650], another editor reverted him pointing out the use of unreliable sources,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_India&diff=823750156&oldid=823737918] he again restored the reverted content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_India&diff=823752154&oldid=823750156] and left a firovolous warning on the talk page of the editor that he didn't provided any reason to revert him,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Capitals00&diff=823751930&oldid=821901446] after that the discussion on talk page was held, where everyone opposed his edits, and in middle of the discussion he again removed the content that was being supported by the involved editors[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_India&diff=823926290&oldid=823842160] though required a little bit of improvement that took no time,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_India&type=revision&diff=823959519&oldid=823938057] but unnecessary edit warring from Mar4d clearly making 3 reverts in such sensitive article is concerning. |
|||
Diffs show that he is already edit warring, censoring, [[WP:POVPUSHING|POV pushing]], violating copyrights across South Asian subjects. It seems he doesn't understand [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] building, he would rather edit war, page move war in order to [[WP:OWN]] the article per his wishes. His problematic attitude has been pointed out in lengths before[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyler_Durden&diff=prev&oldid=769616108#POV_pushing](then known as Vamsee614) as well, but all he does is [[WP:BLUDGEON|repeat himself]], in this diff he went further to claim that "'' I'm very much shocked that you, of all the people, are meaninglessly accusing me of 'POV pushing' and 'endorsing Pakistani deeds', when all I did was merely add relevant and reliable facts. This is outrageous!''". [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*On [[Kashmir conflict]]: |
|||
:*Reverted King Zebu because he made his edits "without consensus"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=823938061&oldid=823917521] |
|||
:*Reverted Kautilya3 because he made his edits without adhering to "WP:NOCON and WP:BRD"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=825047052&oldid=824884257] |
|||
:*RegentsPark criticized Mar4d that his "reversion does not make sense"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir_conflict&diff=825168841&oldid=825114519] |
|||
:*Reverted Kautilya3[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=827385710&oldid=827384471] by disregarding [[WP:NOCON]] and [[WP:BRD]] himself, the content was being discussed and had no consensus. And, it took him ony two minutes to post a request at [[WP:RFPP]] for full page protection of his preferred version,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=827385921] despite that version had no consensus. |
|||
:*Quickly reverted the IP's revert of non-consenus controversial content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=827573244&oldid=827571130] by disregarding the sanctions placed on this page. The first point of the sanctions clearly reads "{{tq|''A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.''}}"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict/Archive_6#Sanctions_reminder] |
|||
:*What's even more concerning is that the content dispute was raised on [[WP:DRN]] on 14 February but Mar4d never commented on it, despite being a party of the dispute.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=828173779&oldid=828080092#Summary_of_dispute_by_Mar4d] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
||
#See Mar4d's <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMar4d block log]</span> |
|||
#[http://Difflink1 Date] Explanation |
|||
#[http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mar4d/Archive_16#ARBIPA_sanctions_reminder]. |
|||
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. |
|||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. |
|||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [http://Difflink1 Date] by {{admin|Username}}. |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. |
|||
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [http://Difflink1 Date] |
|||
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [http://Difflink1 Date]. |
|||
*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [http://Difflink1 Date]. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
Mar4d was adamant in his personal opinion that the Siachen conflict is an "ongoing conflict" and adding a result "is like adding a conclusion on Kashmir conflict",[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=826679685&oldid=826655762] despite multiple reliable sources saying to the contrary that the conflict ended with the ceasefire in 2003. One just has to take a glance at the [[Talk:Siachen conflict#Recent_Edits|talk page]] to notice the outright personal attacks he made on others (including false accusations of socking, SPA, etc), not to mention that he kept engaging in stonewalling, [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] behavior, repeating the same personal opinion over and over again, and resorting to ad hominem strategies in place of refuting the arguments of others. |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
As per discussion with {{U|Sandstein}} on MapSVG's talk page,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMapSGV&type=revision&diff=828402589&oldid=828401334] Sandstein told that he "will take a look" if a separate report is filed against those who also engaged in misconduct. The report <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MapSGV against MapSVG]</span> was filed by a user who was already under a SPI investigation[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FreeatlastChitchat] and the report resulted in sanctions on MapSGV despite much of the diffs were showing his responses to ad hominem personal attacks and false accusations made by Mar4d, despite objections by multiple editors, and Mar4d's misconduct is much more than just incivility because it also concerns edit warring, treatment of Wikipedia as battleground, use of unreliable sources, misrepresentation of sources and lack of collaborative approach to resolve content dispute. For all these factors Mar4d should be sanctioned. —[[User:MBlaze Lightning|<span style="color:#0000f1; font-family:Algerian; text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #CC4E5C">'''<big>MBL</big>''' </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|'''talk''']]</sup> 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyler_Durden&diff=777274767&oldid=777272509] |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
*Mar4d, will you stop beating around the bush and tell us how your ad hominem attacks, false accusations of [[WP:SPA]], socking, etc do not constitute personal attacks and why you should not be sanctioned for them? |
|||
:He has made a lot of baseless accusations and engaged in deception. I will just rebut a few of them: |
|||
:*Mar4d was the one who was actually engaged in "provocative conduct", as evident from the diffs I supplied above. I never defended anyone's "personal attacks", as Mar4d claims. I provided a multitude of reliable sources to back up my claims so did the other editor, MapSVG, unlike Mar4d, who is still [[WP:NOTGETTINGIT]] and repeating his personal opinion. I focused all my comments on the content, unlike Mar4d, who was simply resorting to ad hominem strategies. |
|||
:*Mar4d is simply deceiving, when he says, "MapSGV's additions which MBL later pursued, apart from constituting tendentious editing, contain basic factual inaccuracies including WP:SYNTH." Either Mar4d do not understand what [[WP:SYNTH]] means or he is just deceiving like I said, and if it's the former, he shouldn't be editing in this topic area at all. He is the one who engages in tendentious editing all the time. He really ought to stop making allegations that he cannot substantiate. |
|||
:*The version[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India–Pakistan_military_confrontation_(2016–present)&oldid=826947498] prior to my edit had the death count at "193–201 soldiers killed". Mar4d deliberately changed the numbers, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India–Pakistan_military_confrontation_(2016–present)&diff=827041959&oldid=827040115 this] edit with a misleading edit summary, to 158. His version contained the following refs in the infobox: "[20][21][22][23]c[24][25][26]". These refs clearly supported the death count of 195 (not including the BSF claims). His claim that there were "lack of 2016 figures" is obviously false as demonstrated in the refs. The fact that he did not responded when I quizzed him just strengthens my claim that he didn't even read those refs. |
|||
:*Such deception alone is grounds enough for a sanction, in my opinion. |
|||
:*And, lastly if Mar4d thinks that I'm engaging in "BATTLEGROUND", "problematic editing" etc then he should file an ARE report and present '''evidence''', and if he fails to do so then he should be sanctioned as soon as possible, because such groundless accusations are completely unacceptable. —[[User:MBlaze Lightning|<span style="color:#0000f1; font-family:Algerian; text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #CC4E5C">'''<big>MBL</big>''' </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|'''talk''']]</sup> 12:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:''Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)'' |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
*Notified [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMar4d&type=revision&diff=828686250&oldid=828646971 here] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
===Discussion concerning USERNAME=== |
|||
===Discussion concerning Mar4d=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
||
====Statement by Tyler Durden==== |
|||
====Statement by Mar4d==== |
|||
* Regarding the change of username, its my personal choice. The character [[Tyler Durden]] in the movie [[Fight Club]] is a favourite of mine, and so I changed my previous username to the present one. How is that suspicious? And I will do/stop editing in whichever time-periods I wish. I don't think I have to give any further explanation in this regard. Its quite funny that this's even pointed out. |
|||
As {{u|Willard84}} noted above, this is yet another unsubstantiated, half-baked report with absolutely no substance. Note the same recurrent theme of allegations and accusations by a highly-involved editor(s); and the same, usual pattern of misrepresentation, and near-farcical cherry-pickings. What is deeply regrettable is the constant ''misuse'' of forums like arbitration, ANI, and other noticeboards, for settling personal vendettas and mudslinging over content disputes, to the extent of a [[WP:WITCHHUNT]]. The ultimate objective, it seems, is to drive out experienced, well-meaning editors from a topic area plagued by nationalist edit-warring. MBL has an [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|axe to grind]] over their multiple content disputes and problematic editing, and in my defence below, I'd like to point out why: |
|||
* The rest of the allegations are also filed one-sidedly in [[bad faith]] by the user, taking bits and pieces, out of the contexts of various issues. |
|||
* The article in question is [[Siachen conflict]], where the infobox [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siachen_conflict&oldid=826497543 summarised] the conflict as following: ''Ceasefire since 2003''. This has been the longstanding version of the article as covered by [[WP:RS]], and is predated by three separate discussions on talk (please see [[Talk:Siachen_conflict#Result|this]], [[Talk:Siachen_conflict#Disputed??|this]], and more particularly, [[Talk:Siachen_conflict#Revised_proposal|this]] consensus). It is therefore surprising when MapSGV, an account with barely 80 edits prior to February and no history on the article (yet [[WP:SPA|strangely well-versed]] with editing norms and Wikipedia jargon), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=826596214&oldid=826497543 turns up] and replaces the "ceasefire" on the infobox with "Indian victory". There is no edit summary let alone any explanation. Any admin who is remotely familiar with [[WP:ARBIPA]] knows these sanctions are in place to prevent exactly this type of disruption. This edit was later [[Talk:Siachen_conflict#Recent_Edits|raised on the talk]] by another editor (as it rightfully should be), and MBL was one of the first editors to defend MapSGV's editing and [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. Since a large part of this complaint actually seems to focus on my interactions with MapSGV, I'd like to point out MapSGV has just been [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] for 6 months (which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMapSGV downgraded] from a block). Since MBL apparently wasn't satisfied with that sanction, the timing of this A.R.E. is honestly questionable. Please note that so far as my interactions with MapSGV are concerned, I am not the only user, neither the first one, who raised red flags over his editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lorstaking&oldid=828651178#MSW] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KA$HMIR&diff=828209600&oldid=828201675]. The allegation of "unfounded accusations" holds no ground, and should there be any doubt, please do revisit the provocative conduct which actually led to MapSGV being sanctioned in the first place. . |
|||
:* What happened in the talk page of [[Rape in Kashmir Insurgency]] is all present there,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency] and it is open to be viewed and verified by the committee. I have broadly described what has been happening there and gave reasons for all my actions elaborately in this post of mine.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency#Reasons_for_the_move] The filer is unnecessarily attacking me here for merely taking a position there, in spite of me, reasonably explaining it thoroughly, multiple times on the talk page. |
|||
:* I sincerely appreciate the filer's strenuous efforts to dig up content from my talk page to cherry pick issues to target me, although they come under [[WP:HOUNDING]]. |
|||
* I won't get too much into the nitty-gritties of the content dispute here, but the core of the dispute mainly stems from the issue that MapSGV's additions which MBL later pursued, apart from constituting [[WP:TE|tendentious]] editing, contain basic factual inaccuracies including [[WP:SYNTH]]. The article is on the current, ongoing conflict over the disputed Siachen glacier (part of the [[Kashmir conflict]]), whose status quo has been dicated by a [[ceasefire]] since 2003. Any editor well-versed in [[WP:MILHIST]] knows what a ceasefire means. It is not on the 1984 operation whereby India occupied the glacier (also summarised), which has a separate article under [[Operation Meghdoot]]. There's a difference between both. |
|||
::* Regarding the copyvios pointed out, they are clearly silly issues. One doesn't take action on editors in Wikipedia for being a newbie the first time, and being lazy the other time. That's common sense. Anyways I myself corrected those mistakes and reinstated content, in both the cases.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1947_Poonch_Rebellion&diff=766672134&oldid=766661733]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_abuses_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir&diff=777026951&oldid=777019402]&[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir&diff=777027821&oldid=777019695] |
|||
::* The rest of my conversations on talk pages and edit differences listed out are old stories, and did not take place with the filer or the other user complaining here. One of them was with {{U|Owais Khursheed}} who raised ''no'' issue about the affair, after it was over. The remaining ''all'' of them were with {{U|Kautilya3}}. He also, never has raised a so-serious problem, in any of them. The committee may take his opinion, on whether there is any actionable issue to be dealt with. |
|||
* As for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India%E2%80%93Pakistan_military_confrontation_(2016%E2%80%93present)&diff=827041959&oldid=827040115 this] edit, this took into account the existing references supplied, which cited 138 casualties for 2017 and 20 casualties for 2017. The confusion appeared to stem from the (lack of) 2016 figures, as the sources did not appear to indicate how the updated figure of "206–212" was calculated by MBL. Again, this was perfectly reasonable, and I left a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India%E2%80%93Pakistan_military_confrontation_(2016%E2%80%93present)&diff=827049810&oldid=827047691 query] in regards to this. |
|||
:* On a side note, if I were really here on Wikipedia to censor material related to Pakistan without an [[WP:NPOV]], I wouldn't take time to write and make edits like these — [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Kashmir_unrest&diff=776831514&oldid=776828931]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mirpur_Massacre_of_1947&diff=774003641&oldid=774000818]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1947_Poonch_Rebellion&diff=774712037&oldid=774660392]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1947_Poonch_Rebellion&diff=767589409&oldid=767565005]. |
|||
: That's all I would like to say on this unproductive case. Thank you everyone. Best regards, [[User:Tyler Durden|Tyler Durden]] ([[User talk:Tyler Durden|talk]]) 14:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* Please refer to [[Talk:Rape_in_India#Revert|this discussion]] which, unsurprisingly, MBL is not even part of. There is no foul play here. There were consistency and summary issues with the lead of that article as seconded in that discussion, and if you have any doubt, please refer in particular to the comments and sources there left by admin Vanamonde93. |
|||
* Lastly, you really need to read and understand [[WP:CONSENSUS]] if you want to edit with the "collaborative approach" you talk about. Because as it stands, you visibly have no idea let alone even a fraction of involvement in the discussion on Kashmir conflict. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you had even bothered to read the talk page, you would've at least been informed enough to know what issues around half a discussion editors there are talking about. And thinly-veiled threats/stunts like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=827571130&oldid=827385710] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=828698952&oldid=828698127] hardly qualify as [[WP:CON]]. '''[[User:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">Mar4d</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]]) 09:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:''Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)'' |
|||
====Statement by Capitals00==== |
====Statement by Capitals00==== |
||
His conduct on AfD of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan|Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan]] has been also concerning where he is tirelessly defending an article that is surely going to get deleted. Some of his comments over there are: |
|||
Apart from above and [[WP:CIR]] issues. I should note that I find this account to be suspicious. It was created on November 25, 2016 as Vamsee614. Made no edits in December, January, and started making few edits on daily basis since February this year. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 07:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*"''another disposable !vote for the sake of !voting''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Research_and_Analysis_Wing_activities_in_Pakistan&diff=828685830&oldid=828624824] |
|||
*"''too many users voting on this AfD seem to be involved.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Research_and_Analysis_Wing_activities_in_Pakistan&diff=next&oldid=828541886] |
|||
*"''you acquainted with all these acronyms in your such short time of editing''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Research_and_Analysis_Wing_activities_in_Pakistan&diff=827567176&oldid=827564943] |
|||
These comments seems to be unnecessary assumption of bad faith and attempts to dispute the credibility of the editor who made their vote!, and that is also a violation of [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. These comments had to be made on content or why the article should be kept or deleted. |
|||
:{{ping|El C}} I think original complaint details enough amount of [[WP:CIR]] issues, that the editor is eager to edit war and avoid making discussion. Do you think that he was correct to do page move war and flood the talk page with wall of text[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=prev&oldid=777239681] to claim one needs to gain consensus to revert his controversial page move? |
|||
:He violated [[WP:3RR]] on this article as well.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776965973&oldid=776964858][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=776993814&oldid=776987341][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=777141030&oldid=777131022] |
|||
:Because of his [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU|inability to collaborate]], we are having this mess. He is [[WP:GAMING]] the system, because he first agreed "you can feel free to add any content regarding the conflict-related sexual abuse in Pakistan administered Kashmir"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=prev&oldid=776843110] and then he went to remove the information because he didn't expected it and finally [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|disliked its existence]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=prev&oldid=776965973][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Kashmir_Insurgency&diff=prev&oldid=776854595] [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
While other recent examples of disruption have been already provided, there are also some examples that date a bit earlier, but still relevant enough to show the long term pattern of nationalistic POV editing. |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
* The scenario of [[WP:CENSOR|censoring]] result parameter that mentions "Indian victory" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siachen_conflict&diff=826679685&oldid=826655762](with reliable sources), then making personal attacks on his opponent by calling them an SPA or sock[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASiachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=826855755&oldid=826851416] and using his own personal opinion against tons of reliable sources, such disruption is not new or limited to [[Siachen conflict]]. |
|||
:Just like this he was also removing "Indian victory" on [[Umayyad campaigns in India]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umayyad_campaigns_in_India&diff=806181129&oldid=804091855] and then edit warring the editor[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umayyad_campaigns_in_India&diff=806351347&oldid=806347086] while removing the reliably sourced content and not getting consensus for his edits that were likely never going to be accepted. |
|||
:On talk page, he made personal attacks against the editor such as, "''I haven't asked for a brushdown on [[WP:NPOV]], least of all from an obvious [[WP:SPA]]''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Umayyad_campaigns_in_India&diff=806368349&oldid=806365141], while there was no incivility from this editor and he was not an SPA either. |
|||
:Continued to have [[WP:LASTWORD]] on talk page despite disagreement from 3 editors[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUmayyad_campaigns_in_India&type=revision&diff=807307694&oldid=807240549] who supported what reliable source state, not personal opinions of Mar4d. |
|||
*[[Independence Day (India)]]: Edit warring[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independence_Day_(India)&diff=810602945&oldid=810558365][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independence_Day_(India)&diff=809917272&oldid=808863292] against IPs that were removing the problematic content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independence_Day_(India)&diff=808863238&oldid=808615970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independence_Day_(India)&diff=810558365&oldid=810073441] added by a paid editing sock.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independence_Day_(India)&diff=795703358&oldid=795644931] I reverted Mar4d and opened a section on talk page,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Independence_Day_(India)#Celebration] where he made no response. Point is that why he even defends the problematic content that is not actually defensible or he thinks of stopping only when the objections have been made by one of his common opponent? |
|||
*[[2016–18 Kashmir unrest]]: Invoking [[WP:BANREVERT]] by restoring problematic edits of a paid editing sock [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9318_Kashmir_unrest&diff=801411509&oldid=801233480], he reverted Mblaze Lightning who removed the problematic content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9318_Kashmir_unrest&diff=806073500&oldid=805900472] and then Mar4d restored the same content again[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9318_Kashmir_unrest&diff=806779005&oldid=806230181] without gaining consensus on talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016–18_Kashmir_unrest&oldid=823504704#Not_news] |
|||
If Mar4d had been sanctioned for such disruption earlier, I am sure that we wouldn't be having the problems highlighted by Mblaze Lightning above. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 06:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:''Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)'' |
|||
====Statement by WBG==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
||
*{{tq|And, it took him ony two minutes to post a request at WP:RFPP for full page protection of his preferred version, despite that version had no consensus.}}--This is definitely non-actionable.See [[WP:WRONGVERSION]]. |
|||
*{{tq|What's even more concerning is that the content dispute was raised on WP:DRN on 14 February but Mar4d never commented on it, despite being a party of the dispute}}--DRN is voluntary. |
|||
*I don't see how Mar4D's behaviour at the article and corresponding discussion at [[Talk:Rape in India#Revert]] or at [[2016–18 Kashmir unrest]] is remotely disruptive/sanctionable. |
|||
*I will agree though, that his conduct at [[Talk:Siachen conflict]] could have been somewhat better. |
|||
*At any case, I don't suppport MapSVG's T-ban and will neither support any over-the-top action over here.A reminder to Mar4D to ''<u>comment on content and not on contributors</u>'' will be probably sufficient enough.[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 06:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by NadirAli==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
This looks like the latest effort in MBlaze Lightning's series of spurious reports against opposing editors.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KA$HMIR/Archive] |
|||
None of the diffs show any sort of problematic statements from Mar4d, who is one of our encyclopedia's most productive editors. If there are some statements from him about MapSGV's provocative behaviour that should not be a call for alarm because even the administrator Sandstein is suspicious of that account.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=828328240#MapSGV]. I do wonder why users like MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 are so desperate to support MapSGV and so quick to file spurious reports. Capitals00[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Capitals00&page=User_talk%3AMapSGV&max=500&server=enwiki] left no stone unturned to argue against MapSGV's block and topic ban. Such desperation was in their tone as if it was their own account they were defending. But none of these 2 had any presence on his talkpage before the block. |
|||
===Result concerning Tyler Durden=== |
|||
*Content disputes such as those in [[Talk:Rape in India]] do not belong to [[WP:AE]]. I do not see any wrong done by Mar4d. |
|||
*As for the reverts shown[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=823938061&oldid=823917521][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=825047052&oldid=824884257] on [[Kashmir conflict]] there is nothing wrong with them because there is a policy of reverting contentious new edits while they are being discussed on the talkpage according to [[WP:NOCON]]. |
|||
*Reverting Kautilya3 here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=827385710&oldid=827384471] was not a problem because contrary to MBlaze Lightning's claims, the version Mar4d restored ''did'' have [[WP:CONSENSUS]] from the deeply involved editors.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict#Nehru's_plebiscite_offer] No less than five users wanted it. Only one user, Kautilya3 himself, opposed it and he even refused to explain his objections (He said So, ''if ''and when I come to review the proposed paragraphs, these are the principles I will use. When we run into disagreements, I will take them to WP:DRN. For the time being, let me just say that none of the proposed sections is ready for the mainspace).[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict#General_comments] [[WP:1AM]] does not overturn the [[WP:CONSENSUS]] of everyone else. |
|||
*Reverting this disruptive IP[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=827573244&oldid=827571130] ought be the action of any normal Wikipedian. |
|||
*There was also no 1RR violation. No second reverts within 24 hours. |
|||
I do think a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] should be this case's outcome. Owais Khursheed filed an [[WP:SPI]] last year which the administrators ignored.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kautilya3/Archive] The SPI claimed that the filer was using IP socks to harass opposing editors. Now we saw this behavior from an Indian IP again today at [[Talk:Kashmir conflict]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir_conflict&diff=828691416&oldid=828019289] I translated it and reported it {{to|CambridgeBayWeather}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather&diff=prev&oldid=828698298] I would suggest a full investigation. Enough is really enough.--[[User:NadirAli|NadirAli نادر علی]] ([[User talk:NadirAli|talk]]) 07:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Response to Kautilya3=== |
|||
*I am not surprised by Kautilya3's comment given the content disputes he has. Pakistani editors are receiving threats from Indian |
|||
IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=827571130&oldid=827385710][[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir_conflict&diff=828691416&oldid=828019289][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather&diff=prev&oldid=828698298] in the background of [[WP:WITCHHUNTS]] such as these [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=812816888&oldid=812537571&title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#NadirAli][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=814835389][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KA$HMIR/Archive][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Danish.mehraj26/Archive#19_December_2017] involving false accusations against opposing editors by Kautilya3, MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00. A lot is explained, especially when there are suspicions of [[WP:TAGTEAM]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=820180676][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=820340918] and IP socking[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kautilya3]. No tagteaming from Mar4d who has a long and lengthy involvement in the content dispute at [[Talk:Kashmir conflict]] unlike those who turn up to do reverts and deliver one liners in support of Kautilya3's position with hardly any other talkpage input.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir_conflict&diff=812292450&oldid=812289336][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir_conflict&diff=812385860&oldid=812367575]. |
|||
*I took an analysis of Talk:Siachen conflict. I found Mar4d's side of the discussion very constructive. He was very polite and far more interested in sourcing than the other users whose obsession was sneaking in 'Indian victory'. Granted there were a few times he made comments outside of content but that was in response to incendiary comments from MapSGV[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=826850240&oldid=826848677][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=826871358&oldid=826863595], MBlaze Lightning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=826861033&oldid=826855755] and Capitals00[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=826658021&oldid=826656350].--[[User:NadirAli|NadirAli نادر علی]] ([[User talk:NadirAli|talk]]) 00:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by TripWire==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
Another [[WP:WITCHHUNT]] attempt by MBL ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KA$HMIR/Archive see previous one]), no wonder Capitals00 has also joined the bandwagon. They have become so desperate in casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] that they will [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACapitals00%2FHighstakes00&type=revision&diff=828393863&oldid=827593160 say anything to put across their point] (I dont even know Capitals00). I think there's a dire need to implement [[WP:BOOMERANG]] strictly so that such frivolous reports are avoided in the better interest of WP.—[[User:TripWire|'''<big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip</em></big><big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire</em></big>''']]<sup>[[User talk:TripWire|________ʞlɐʇ]]</sup> 09:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
'''Additional comments''' |
|||
Mar4d shouldn't be compared with MapSGV (even though his banning apparently seems the cause behind this report). Below are some edits by MapSGV (any sensible editor would feel offended at such a tone, a + for Mar4d for not loosing his cool); Mar4d was just trying to bring MapSGV to the table so that the issue(s) could be discussed: |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASiachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=826684870&oldid=826684301 Do you have anything sensible to say?] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=826683514 You are fooling yourself if you really believe such nonsense] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASiachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=826850240&oldid=826848677 Why? You feel hurt? Your problem.] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=next&oldid=826652864 I am not going to bother with your apparent dislike of the results which is evidenced by your laughable claims] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASiachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=826871358&oldid=826863595 Given your own record of blocks and inability to discuss content] |
|||
*He even accused an Admin of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnna_Frodesiak&type=revision&diff=826597534&oldid=826591782 '''helping''' Takeaway (an editor) evade 3RR].—[[User:TripWire|'''<big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip</em></big><big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire</em></big>''']]<sup>[[User talk:TripWire|________ʞlɐʇ]]</sup> 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statements by wearied passers-by ==== |
|||
*How about a 6-month topic ban from AE for everyone involved? [[User:Uanfala's sock|Uanfala's sock]] ([[User talk:Uanfala's sock|talk]]) 16:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Peoples colony==== |
|||
{{collapse top|Blocked sock. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]]}} |
|||
Accusations are over the top to the extent that I started laughing immediately. Come on every one behave like community not rivals. I strongly support Mard for many reasons I observed while reading all relevant contributions and edit history |
|||
* Self less Dedication to wiki cause (Like every good wiki contributor) |
|||
* Dealing with difficult discussions |
|||
* Trying best to avoid few hard nut users. |
|||
At any case, I don't support any ban on Mard. I encourage MBlaze Lightning to cheer up and be sport. [[User:Peoplescolony|Peoplescolony]] ([[User talk:Peoplescolony|talk]]) 17:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
==== Statement by Kautilya3 ==== |
|||
There was a time when Mar4d and I used to jointly defend India-Pakistan conflict pages from going toxic. Those days are long gone. Mar4d's fall from grace began with an atrocious article called [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_and_state-sponsored_terrorism India and state-sponsored terrorism] that he created jointly with another editor. Since then I have been hard put to find any objective edits made by Mar4d. He basically edits along national lines, reverting and name-calling any pro-India editors that he runs into. |
|||
* On the [[Siachen conflict]] article, Mar4d was basically battling reliable sources with [[WP:OR]]. |
|||
* On the [[Kashmir conflict]] article, he is basically tag teaming with {{U|NadirAli}}, who in turn is doing edits for {{U|KA$HMIR}} and {{U|Dilpa kaur}}. All these editors call themselves "deeply involved editors". As MBlaze has pointed out, Mar4d [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=825047052&oldid=824884257 reverted] a fairly innocent edit citing [[WP:NOCON]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&diff=827385710&oldid=827384471 reinstated] a highly problematic edit ''ignoring'' [[WP:NOCON]]. You can just check the amount of reliably sourced content that has been removed in the second edit with not a single word of explanation. |
|||
{{U|Winged Blades of Godric}} states that participation in [[WP:DRN]] is voluntary. That it is. But it would have been polite for Mar4d to mention either on the talk page or at the DRN that he has conceded the points at dispute. Instead, if he just lets the others carry the burden, then I am afraid it reinforces the impresison that he didn't actually dispute anything, he was just [[WP:TAGTEAMING]]. Doing so in a highly contentious subject like Kashmir conflict is very problematic. |
|||
I am afraid, at this point, Mar4d is part of the problem rather than solution. {{U|Sandstein}} has drawn parallels between this case and that of {{U|Willard84}} above. But I don't think there is any comparison. Willard84 is a highly productive editor as I pointed out above. On the other hand, Mar4d has not producing anything worthwhile in the last couple of years. His role seems to be limited to reverting edits and noise-making on the talk pages. A sad fall for a once-great editor. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 21:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by (username) ==== |
|||
===Result concerning Mar4d=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*Both in this case and in the one concerning Willard84 above, it appears to me that we have several areas of problematic editing that are probably best addressed with topic bans for a number of editors. However, in both cases the report mixes genuine potentially problematic conduct such as edit-warring and personal attacks with what seem to be mere content disputes, which means that we don't have a clear-cut case. Moreover, a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. I don't currently have time for this. As such, I can't currently propose any specific action, which is not to say that action is not necessary. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*Again, I'm not seeing anything actionable. Seems like a rather thoughtful editor, actually. What am I missing? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:*The more I look at this, the more it looks like the impetus for these two reports (this one and the one above) is the content dispute at [[Rape in Kashmir Insurgency]]. Hopefully, having applied ARBIP/Ds to the article, will help matters. All the users seem to be involved in discussion on the article talk page. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello admin my blocked friend mapSVG told me edit on his behalf to let all admin know that mard and his friends are isi spy working for pak agencies to spread propaganda against India please unblock mapsvg and block all pak editors on this page. Thanks advance. [[User:KarunArjun|KarunArjun]] ([[User talk:KarunArjun|talk]]) 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
**Hello there, [[User:KarunArjun|KarunArjun]]. Whatever that comment may or may not say about any other editors, it tells me that you are here for no good. Blocked. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 18:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC). Also, as long as I'm here, I might as well inquire of {{ping|Peoplescolony}} whose sock are you, please? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 18:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC). |
|||
*<nowiki>{{checkuser needed}}</nowiki>. Blocked User:PAKHIGHWAY looks interesting. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
** KarunArjun is {{confirmed}} to {{noping|Saltpot99}} and {{noping|Rayanakho}}/{{noping|Hranday8}}. This is Nangparbat. |
|||
** Peoplescolony is LanguageXpert. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rahim_Yar_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=813402580 This edit] restores a version from 2013 that was curated by {{noping|PPPPMLN}}/{{noping|Maria0333}}. The CU log shows LanguageXpert using the same range within the last six months. |
|||
** PAKHIGHWAY looks like {{noping|Mfarazbaig}} and/or another account from the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital/Archive|Liborbital SPI]] that uses an ISP in a country from a different part of the world than one would expect. They edited articles that were created by {{noping|Bk2006}} and {{noping|Faizan}} which may be more than a coincidence. Previous [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PAKHIGHWAY/Archive|PAKHIGHWAY SPI case]].<br /> — [[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 01:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
***I blocked and tagged Peoplescolony. Almost collapsed this SPI like section, but it may be related to the merits, so didn't. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 02:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:03, 5 March 2018
Hyper9
Hyper9 is indefinitely topic banned from all Wikipedia pages and discussions connected with Indian history including languages/linguistic history, and Nagadeepa is indefinitely topic banned from all Wikipedia pages and discussions connected with with Indian languages. Both editors are encouraged to appeal the sanction no sooner than six months from now, with evidence that they have contributed constructively in other parts of Wikipedia or in our sister projects in the meantime. Such appeals are likely to be viewed favorably. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Hyper9
To ban Hyper9 from editing the Malayalam page (and other Indian history pages) where he has been propagating fringe theories not widely accepted by most scholars. Hyper9 has also been repeatedly deleting accurately referenced widely accepted views on the history of the Malayalam language. He has also been brazenly distorting the following accurate source and completely misinterpreting it to suit his fringe theories: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24157306.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Finally, he has refused to engage in dispute resolution procedures on spurious grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_160#Talk:Malayalam I note that this not a new problem and he has been banned in the past for similar disruptive behaviour.
A full argument between Hyper9 and two other editors Cpt.a.haddock and me Nagadeepa can be seen in the talk page. Anyone who reads the whole exchange and particularly the research article by S.V Shanmugam (which I have quoted from extensively in the talk section) can see that Hyper9 has been distorting this source and is being disruptive and obstructive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malayalam#Debates_on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017
Apologies for not attaching correct diff links earlier. I am new to wikipedia editing. I think this is what is requested as a 'diff': https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayalam&type=revision&diff=825503445&oldid=825317310 Nagadeepa (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)-->
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyper9#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Discussion concerning Hyper9Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Hyper9The article under dispute has a problematic regional history to it. It is therefore understandable that it can be controversial - but that is true for a lot of other topics as well. I have searched for sources for these pages and all of the content that I have added are from reputed and estabilshed sources. I have also addressed this filing editor properly, despite his abuses, incivility (I have already been called - 'dishonest', 'charlatan', 'madman' on WP by this editor) and a series of incoherent arguments on the Talk:Malayalam page. Yet, no action has been taken against this editor. Not only this, this other editor was never interested in a discussion, but after one response from me, went ahead and opened a DRN on 10th Feb. The response after which this editor raised the DRN can be viewed here - and only highlights their unwillingness for discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=prev&oldid=824718203 (Only the bottom part where I have signed off is my contribution) This editor, who has filed this complaint, has been resorting to all sorts of tactics to get the version of the page that he wants without any discussion on the Talk:Malayalam page. The first action that he did is to file a DRN even before we had any serious discussion. I would like to point out I have made exactly 5 responses to this editor, which can be viewed here - 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=824981462&oldid=824944902 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825312813&oldid=824983593 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825504100&oldid=825366118 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825548041&oldid=825531524 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825954678&oldid=825879648 I have been extremely polite and restrained in my responses in this stint - and if there is something that the WP administrators would point out as inadmissible in my replies above, I would be surprised. In my previous experience, the Appeal procedure to a ban request on me did not even allow me to respond to accusations. In this instance, I do hope that my case would be considered more carefully by the Admins. I have contributed significantly to improving these pages as any editor who will examine these pages can tell and much of the sources that I had added in my previous Enforcement case have not been removed - even after the disputing editor cross-checked them. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Second Statement by Hyper9I am surprised to know now that it was this same editor who tried to edit Talk:Malayalam using an anonymous IP earlier. There was no attempt by this editor to clarify that it was them earlier, which is obviously some form of deception. User:Francis_Schonken: As I have mentioned somewhere in the talk pages, I am perfectly willing to take part in any process for dispute resolution. I have done so successfully in the past and I have shown that I can maintain decorum. In my defence, I did not know that the 1st DRN case would be closed down because I requested an apology (which this other editor has still not been decent enough to provide). I was under the impression that there would be an apology (as I have done in the past) and we would carry on into the main discussion. Despite this having happened, in the 2nd DRN case, this editor opens a case using words such as "madman" in their opening statement. Obviously, this editor is not interested in having a discussion purely on content as a DRN case ought to be. I must point out that it would be ridiculous if the one editor can launch personal attacks in every alternate sentence in a moderated discussion - and the other editor has to focus on content only. If anything, I have been patient with this immaturity and not responded similarly, but have only asked for such statements to be deleted or an apology given. Hyper9 (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) User:Francis_Schonken - For whatever its worth, in answer to your question - I dont have any problem in participating in a content-only discussion. I have done so once in the past and arrived at a consensus with the disputing editor. Hyper9 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC) The filing editor resurrected their old ID solely for the purpose of disruptive editing and filing a slew of disputes and cases against me. And they still have not shown any sense of basic civility or change in their behaviour. Despite discussing in a wholly reformed manner and being patient with this highly disruptive and uncivil editor, I see that a greater sanction is being called against me with barely any supporting evidence for this. In a sense, I am not surprised by this irrational position by the Admin User:SpacemanSpiff. I have pointed out the biased behaviour of this Admin in the past as well (in July 2017). I am sure that they are a great Admin in other areas but as far as these topics are concerned, unfortunately I have not seen anything but biased and illogical interventions. However, there is probably very little that a contributor can do in this regard and once the Admins conclude the discussions, I am sure I can adhere by whatever decision is reached. Hyper9 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenonThis is not "just a content dispute". It is a content dispute that is compounded by conduct issues. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Malayalam . As you can see, there has been incivility on both sides. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NagadeepaIt is very clear from my extensive comments on the Talk:Malayalam page that I have exhausted all avenues of discussion with Hyper9 (whether moderated or non-moderated) and his claim that I want to edit the page without discussion is an outright falsehood.Nagadeepa (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "While we are at it, it is necessary to look at the conduct of Nagadeepa, who has been frequently repeating himself by copy pasting same messages, [13][14] typing in caps." This message by D4iNa4 has angered me. The only reason why I repeated that message in caps is because Hyper9 had repeatedly ignored it and refused to address it. Hyper9 himself requested me to highlight the quotations from the said scholars to differentiate them from my own words. In fact, this quote alone from the paper by S.V Shanmugam exposes Hyper9 whole argument and shows he has manipulated the paper. He did not directly address any of my critical questions and would instead go on a tangent with his responses. Debate with him was impossible hence why 3rd party mediation was crucial.Nagadeepa (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) I note that D4iNa4 has been tagged as a suspected sockpuppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogesh_Khandke/Archive Nagadeepa (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Nice try MagSGV. That is not sock puppetry by any stretch of the mind. I only searched for my log in details when I needed to open the DRN. There was a gap of many days between my eventual log in. Nagadeepa (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Francis Schonken I accept that my behaviour has not been perfect, and I should have restrained myself from referring to Hyper9's character. I was infuriated by his stone walling and his brazen distortion of S.V Shanmugam's source. Regarding the assertion that Tamilakam refers merely to a political structure, I dispute that strongly. Both S.V Shanmugam and Prof. Sreedhara Menon (Kerala's foremost historian) refer to it as a linguistic/cultural region. For most of its existence it was divided into three warring states all of which spoke Tamil. The internal evidence from the ancient literature also supports this.Nagadeepa (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) MapSGV well that was clearly was not my intention. It was a case of me not bothering to dig out my long forgotten log in details with my initial discussion. You can believe what you want. But that was not my motivation at allNagadeepa (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Francis yes I would be open to take part in a 3rd party mediated discussion. "Hyper9 seems to correctly indicate that some of the scholars quoted by Nagadeepa rather speak about political and other historical splits". Could you please direct me to which scholar I quote says this. S.V Shanmugam, my main source clearly states that ancient Tamil Nadu and Kerala (Tamilakam) was a Tamil linguistic region i.e. region where the Tamil language was spoken. There is no consciousness in the ancient literature of any other language being spoken substantially.Nagadeepa (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Francis I will be willing to take part in a 3rd party meditated discussion and will refrain from making any offensive comments to the other editor.Nagadeepa (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Francis one of my main concerns regarding any 3rd party mediated process, is that will the 3rd parties actually read the source material under scrutiny? There has been blatant untruths said about one reliable source which anyone can see if they can actually read the research paper. If this does not happen then it will degenerate into a "his word against mine" argument which will go no where. Nagadeepa (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
'posting unexplained poetry' @Bishonen: the poetry is self explanatory to anyone who has basic specialised knowledge of the topic (which Hyper9 has). It's an ancient poem from an Old Tamil anthology Pathitrupathu which was composed in Kerala during the early centuries of the Christian era (1st-2nd century AD). It proves that the people from Kerala regarded themselves as being part of Tamilakam, the common Tamil linguistic cultural region.Nagadeepa (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "their jumping from an IP to their account on the talkpage without acknowledgement was beyond nonchalant (if not outright deceptive)". I did not realise it was such a big sin. The whole premise of the talk page in my estimation was based on the merits of the arguments/evidence, not on who says it. I did not think it was huge deal whether I wrote it under my old handle which I had to dig up from obscurity (so i could request the 3rd party meditation) or written under my IP. To call it deception is extreme. To have such an innocent mistake used against me is unfair.Nagadeepa (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Well now the gloves are off, and I'm expecting the inevitable ban, I'm not going to bite my lips. Everything I said about Hyper9's personal character I genuinely believe. Was it uncivil for me to say it out in a public forum? Yes and I should have restrained myself. However, I know I will be vindicated in the future when Hyper9 comes up again in yet another dispute mechanism with yet another editor. As for me I am not going to waste any time with editing Wikipedia anymore and I would prefer if you would give me a permanent ban from all topics (disable my account please). If I could delete my complete account including all online evidence of it that would be preferable. Thanks.Nagadeepa (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by D4iNa4While we are at it, it is necessary to look at the conduct of Nagadeepa, who has been frequently repeating himself by copy pasting same messages, [5][6] typing in caps. Such disruption only creates hostility. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC) "I am afraid talking to you does feel like I'm talking to a mad man."[7] Clear violation of WP:NPA. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC) @Nagadeepa: if my above message really "angered" you so much then I am sure you can't deal with content dispute. You believe that because next one is not agreeing with you that means they are not reading your messages and you can copy paste same messages until next one stops. Your failure to address your bludgeoning, personal attacks, is visible. Talking about a 4 years old block of mine is not going to legitimize your ongoing disruption. Your IP edits seem to be violating WP:NOTFORUM.[8] Nagadeepa has CIR issues and since he came with unclean hands, he needs to be sanctioned as well. Or otherwise close the report as content dispute (per Sandstein) and urge the users to try an RfC. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Nagadeepa could have apologized but this recent comment[9] further confirms that he is going to personalize these incidents and refuse to accept any mistakes. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by MagSGV@Nagadeepa: did you confessed your sock puppetry with IP on talk page? I wouldn't be surprised if Hyper9 was not aware of it. MapSGV (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Francis@Nagadeepa: it seems important you realise that your behaviour has been all but exemplary, e.g. at the DRN, as already mentioned by Robert McClenon: "there has been incivility on both sides" (emphasis added). Yours was at least as much a cause to sinking the DRN as Hyper9's (I even thought yours slightly more offensive). You've edited en.Wikipedia for over ten years now, although apparently not always using the Nagadeepa account. Like for Hyper9 it is a pity you apparently rather stayed away than edit outside your area of interest (an apparently very narrow area of interest). Your latest additions to this AE show little or no improvement regarding the tone of your comments, so I suppose at least a symbolical but firm warning to change your ways would be in place. If needs be in the form of an AE sanction. Re. "... who's right about the content ..." (mentioned by one of the admins below): scholars disagree, classical story, and opponents try to get their preferred scholars in line for being designated as the "mainstream" in the article, thus discussions devolve in a classical fight, and since neither gets the upper hand on content, in a series of insults. From the more interesting content arguments:
So, if scholars don't agree, maybe mention what scholars say in their own name without attempting to distil a "mainstream" indicator for the lead section out of this lack of agreement, which might be a practical application of NPOV instead of this cesspit of a discussion. To me at least Nagadeepa and Hyper9 seem equally lacking in behavioural skills to bring this to a consensus conclusion, and it is a pity that the DRN sank (for which both seem somewhat equally responsible, although Hyper9 should probably have been the wiser one, and Nagadeepa should have been aware that being offensive usually boomerangs), so that the discussion would ultimately have centred around presenting the material in a NPOV way in mainspace instead of being ultimately about editor conduct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyhow, placed an IPA-related ds alert on Nagadeepa's talk page ([10]). Reason: Nagadeepa filed this AE request without mentioning any arbcom case (someone else filled it out for them, linking to the IPA case). Formally, this sort of meant Nagadeepa could have been unaware of the ds system. Thought it better to make this clear. In general I still think it best both editors would resume the discussion about the content (which seems interesting enough) without commenting about each others behaviour. This would be the best solution for Wikipedia I suppose: I'm not convinced the current version of the Malayalam article is unbiased, but I'm sure both editors can help hammer it out (if only they'd concentrate on content, not post vaguely related poetry on the article's talk page, walls of texts, boldface repeats of upper-case text, etc.) For that plan to work Hyper9 should be able to take part in discussions too, so I see less benefit in topic-banning them from anything. Nagadeepa seems wise enough not to need mediation in such content discussions: either they stop commenting on co-editors, or they incur the sanctions foreseen by the IPA ds system. Whether or not the discussion is mediated makes no difference. I'd recommend an RfC instead, which might attract other views instead of just two editors running in circles chasing each other's tails. In other words: close this AE request as content dispute, with a stern warning to both editors that IPA's ds sanctions will be applied if any of the former bad behaviour returns (which applies to both now). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Hyper9
|
Al-Andalusi
In addition to the standard WP:ARBPIA restrictions, Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article for six months. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 4 March 2018 (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 Al-Andalusi
As may be seen here Al-Andalusi talk page I requested Al-Andalusi self revert [12]. This was replied to with a While it may be possible to cast a wider net here, the unwillingness to self-revert on a 1RR warning appears to be straightforward, and Al-Andalusi's final talk-page comment is troubling.
Discussion concerning Al-AndalusiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Al-AndalusiThere is an ongoing discussion regarding this on my talk page involving Icewhiz and 2 admins (EdJohnston and Dennis Brown) here. I have pinged EdJohnston and have not heard back either from him or Dennis Brown, so I assumed this is a non-issue. Had EdJohnston or Dennis Brown replied back and confirmed the alleged violation, I would have gladly self-reverted, as I did in the past. Meanwhile, I continue to disagree with Icewhiz's description of events where he digs up edits that are at least one-month old (Jan 30, Jan 23) and I'm not even aware of, and then conveniently re-interprets some of my changes as being "reverts" of them. What he refers to as "revert 1" would not be called "reverts" on a normal day. Also, notice the use of dramatic sentences like "removal of some 45% of the article's contents". If the content is bad, then it should be removed, doesn't matter how large it is. I think everyone will agree with me on this. In this edit, user Zero0000 (talk · contribs) removed the same exact content from Middle East Monitor on Feb 11 on the same grounds as my removal of it from Middle East Eye. Someone had copy pasted the content to the 2 articles. Icewhiz, who clearly spent considerable time studying the editing history of both articles to construct his narrative, would not have missed this change. One important point: The history of editing on both articles shows that none of the editors treated the article as falling under 1RR. Icewhiz is misleading when he counts edits related to the Muslim Brotherhood as being ARBPIA-related. The Muslim Brotherhood does not even have a 1RR tag. Icewhiz does not explain why he treats Middle East Eye as a 1RR article in his report, and further, why he lists my edits at Middle East Eye before his arrival to the article as being ARBPIA related (point #4 on his list). I fail to see the connection. In the same list, for the other article, he counts my edit here as ARBPIA-related, even though the mention of Hamas is tangential and clearly not the intent of my edit. I ask that the admins not look at this case literally, as this is the angle that Icewhiz wants to focus on. Instead, ask if it is appropriate for a news organizations to be labelled as the "Muslim Brotherhood" based on sources critical of the news organization? Icewhiz restored the problematic Category:Muslim Brotherhood, knowing fully the problems that comes with it (he recently removed Category:Propaganda in Israel from Public diplomacy of Israel arguing that it is "POVish..."). Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Added - Feb 28:
Statement by Capitals00I had resumed watching editing of Al-Andalusi since he came off from a topic ban in December. I could see continued POV editing[18][19][20] that led the topic ban before, but this time I had decided not to report Al-Andalusi myself. Unfortunately, it didn't helped Al-Andalusi. I must say that Icewhiz has made best efforts to mentor Al-Andalusi about his violations,[21][22] however Al-Andalusi is not willing to improve. Continued POV editing[23][24] is concerning. Either a topic ban or a block is warranted. Capitals00 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis BrownI interjected into the discussion only to explain how contacting an admin wasn't "canvassing", and never reviewed the merits of the claim in depth. A cursory glance did show the claims were not so cut and dry; They need to be looked at closer than just the diffs provided. This is the busy time of year for me, so I didn't have time to look further, so I will just stay on this side of the admin line, this time. EdJohnston probably has more information on the merits, and I would welcome his input down below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianI don't know if this is 1RR or not, but my general view is that in this area, the rules are so convoluted that nobody knows how they work (including the people who write them). My own practice is to self-revert when asked, whether or not I think the request is right. This practice saves time and tedious wikilawyering in which one may or may not prevail. You can always make the edit a day later. Why take the risk? Let's put aside the wording and look at the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy. Let's forget the edit made a month earlier. Only look at edits diff1 (by Al-Andalusi), diff2 (by Icewhiz) and diff3 (again by Al-Andalusi). All of them happened within 24 hours. Diff1 removed the association of MEMO with the Muslim Brotherhood, diff2 restored it (using a bit different wording), and diff3 removed it again. The "spirit" of the remedy is to ensure that between diff3 and diff1 (made by the same person), there should be a bit of time, and ideally some discussion on the talkpage (which is happening on the MEMO talk page). I would therefore, ask Al-Andalusi to self-revert voluntarily (they can make the edit a day later if they still think it's justified) and this request be closed as no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Al-Andalusi
|
MapSGV
MapSGV is indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action (not an AE action). Sandstein 22:36, 1 March 2018 (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 MapSGV
The user MAPS should be Topic banned from India-Pakistan articles indefinitely as they have shown that they cannot engage in debate without antagonizing others and attacking others. If disruption continues on other projects , perhaps a site wide ban.
This user has made no contributions to the project and thier presence is just antagonizing others. PErhaps if an experienced editor with thousands of edits messes up and makes a personal attack or pointed remark once in a while, he can be warned about it. But this user has around a hundred or so reverts/comments and out of those this large number is antagonistic. He should be removed from area of conflict. The India-Pak articles are very contentious even to begin with, and antagonizing remarks and personal attacks like this just destroy any chance of collaboration that there may be, causing irreparable harm to wikipedia.
Discussion concerning MapSGVStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MapSGVI would like to commend the analysis made by Lorstaking below, that I have been constantly harassed by some editors who are doing nothing but personalizing small and rather easy content disputes. Every of my comment was a reply to actual personal attack that often included false allegations that I am an SPA, sock,[30][31][32] and no evidence was ever provided for these claims. Civil POV pushing is a huge problem where a person looks to justify his disruption by falsely labelling every kind of opposition to his disruption as "personal attack" while exhibiting clear WP:IDHT, engaging in edit warring, misrepresenting sources, and such disruption is too prevalent here. Finally what degrades the quality of this website is these editors who are socking for a long time or they have been blocked/topic banned still they are insulting other editors (such as me) by calling them a sock/SPA and engaging in disruptive POV pushing, making personal attacks. But when you dispute any of their argument you are misrepresented as someone who is making personal attacks. That is nothing but WP:GAMING. — MapSGV (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by MBlazeThis request should not be entertained as the filer is a blatant sock of a disruptive topic banned editor, [33] and is on the verge of getting site banned himself. —MBL talk 06:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by LorstakingMapSGV's actions are perfect especially when we recognize the fact that he is a productive editor who is unfortunately dealing with a disruptive wikihounding sock of a topic ban evading user.[34] Elektricity is just trying to take wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and by filing this spurious report, where he deliberately failed to notify MapSGV, he is digging his own grave. Lorstaking (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC) @GoldenRing: I think you are only reading what MapSGV has said, but you are not reading what he was replying to. Users have engaged in great amount of incivility against him as well as range of false allegations in order to evade their WP:CIR issues. I can clarify the diffs right here:
Above diffs involve interaction with only 2 users, who have a bad block log and history of sanctions for editing in this very same area and even in above diffs you can see clear WP:IDHT. And this all started only after MapSGV argued that results must show that India won the war because that is what zillions of reliable sources say, but these two editors went to make personal attacks on him in place of providing sources that contradict the sourced content. I think they deserves to be sanctioned for their incompetence if anything. FWIW, 6 people against 3 have agreed with what MapSGV wants on talk page. I wouldn't go on describing rest of the diffs that are either free of ARBPAK coverage or they are a product of wikihounding and other sorts of harassment from the filer, who also was falsely alleging MapSGV to be a "sleeper-esque"[49] and "throw away sleeper"[50] for days before filing this spurious report. Talking about personal attacks, I don't see even a single personal attack here from MapSGV or false accusations like rest of others have carried out against him. There is no prohibition on much larger level of incivilities[51] in Wikipedia. Though I understand that this allegation of "personal attack" has been overblown in this report because filer failed to find his way to misrepresent sources, use self-published and non-reliable sources on the article for his POV pushing, hence he resorted to filing a spurious report. You can also have a look at the SPI where Capitals00 shows the evidence of him filing same spurious reports from his main account. I would better recommend this report should closed as spurious or the filer should be blocked for his deception and using the noticeboard for battleground. We should let the SPI have its run. Lorstaking (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MapSGV
|
Andrew Davidson
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 Andrew Davidson
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Andrew Davidson (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 :
What appears to be a long-term fundamental inability to understand the complexities of the Indian caste system leads to often lengthy and wikilawyered discussions such as here, here and here. There is no easy way to explain the complexities in 500 words, sorry, but, for example, in the last diff AD argues use of sources that simply do not refer in any meaningful way to the subject, in the linked Samra discussion he argued at length to use unreliable sources, causing Drmies to issue a sanctions alert, and in the first of these diffs he argued using both unreliable sources and with a clear lack of understanding of how the caste system functions. As some of those diffs infer, they are not the only examples but I'm struggling with the interaction tools at the moment - they keep timing out or simply not returning a result.
We've currently got this, where AD is perpetuating his previous stances, again without any apparent understanding of the caste system. In that discussion, he seems even to think that we should keep an invalid statement rather than remove it and so cause an article to be blank. He has also been arguing at length about the validity of the most recent sanctions alerts here, indulging in yet more time-consuming litigation of dubious merit.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
None known
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here, soon after expiry of one issued issue a sanctions here.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I have filed this under the username Andrew Davidson but some past discussions were under another username, Colonel Warden, which he allegedly agreed with ArbCom to stop using but actually has not. The AD account is more active of late.
It is ok to have an opinion but to tendentiously pursue it can be problematic, as can misrepresenting what sources say even if it is due to a lack of understanding. I'd like to see a topic ban from caste-related matters, broadly construed, because I and probably others feel like we're banging our heads against a brick wall.
- Replying to AD's edits here. It is nothing specifically to do with one AfD. It is a general pattern of lack of comprehension that, in fact, you are even demonstrating in your comments here. The problem is, you mention expanding your interests into editing caste-related articles but you cannot even demonstrate understanding in the AfDs, throwing in irrelevant sources (the Oxford book being one), unreliable ones and arguments that are non-starters because the caste system does not operate in the manner that you seem to believe. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: then you are unwittingly part of the problem. I know that CIR is not a policy but when someone like Andrew Davidson gets involved it just creates a shedload of issues that need to be addressed. Just one example: this not only fails WP:V on the relevant point but makes a grossly incorrect assumption that "important" = something special in terms of Reservation in India. It doesn't. There are plenty of "important" communities - politically, economically etc - that do not conform to the original research which AD insists makes this impossible list meet LISTN. Yes, AD is a quite extreme inclusionist and, yes, way back he gave me my first barnstar for rescuing an article at AfD, but if people cannot understand that caste-related issues need understanding then there is no hope, sorry. And when the same easily verifiable point is made again and again but AD refuses to accept it, well ... It is just a timesink and it is a timesink that can have quite peculiar consequence because these articles are not particularly well watched (Catch 22?). In this instance, I strongly suspect that AD's fake references in the first AfD caused it to be determined as not suitable for deletion, yet he protests when the thing is blanked because there is nothing verifiable. Then comes back umpteen years later and says he can make it verifiable but in fact he cannot, as anyone familiar with the topic would know. The same applies to his insistence that unreliable sources are in fact ok to use.
- I admit that I am struggling to explain here. I know for sure that there are people who think AD is being absurd but this is a topic area where scrutiny is poor and one of the consequences of that is examples such as the current AfD, which comes out of a previous AfD that had no merit other than the fake refs, a complete lack of comprehension, and an admin who presumably saw some mention of sources and thought "that's ok". But, as I said at the outset, this is not a one-off issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: I acknowledge your comment about a lack of diffs. I was utterly bemused regarding how I could possibly give specific diffs in such a complex matter but if you can suggest a way to disentangle then that would be great. As it is, I am sort of hoping that common sense could prevail here: if people really cannot see the problem just reading a few example threads then, frankly, I despair and may as well give up. We have two sets of sanctions regims for the topic area for a reason.
- @D4iNa4: I have had little involvement in this process and couldn't possibly comment except to say that I used the word unwittingly on purpose. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified here
Discussion concerning Andrew Davidson
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 Andrew Davidson
What we have here is an AfD – note that I have not edited the article in question at any time. I'd be quite happy to stop arguing about the matter and just let the AfD process take its usual course but it's Sitush that keeps coming to my talk page to belabour the matter (8 times already today). There are some content issues and I understand them just fine. What Sitush doesn't seem to understand is our policies and guidelines such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:BLANK and he states openly in the discussion that he's not heard of them before. My position is that there's some scope for improvement here and so our policy WP:PRESERVE would have us prefer this alternative to deletion. In the course of discussion, I have produced good sources such The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies – a respectable and recent work from a university press. I have also pointed to other related pages such as List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism which no-one else seemed to have noticed. I'd be quite content to have both these pages merged to Sikhism#Sikh_castes which contains a similar list of Sikh castes and so am quite flexible about the outcome. All that needs to happen now is a period of quiet so that other editors can contribute to the AfD and then the closer can settle the matter in the usual way. Compare, for example, Manchu studies, which is about a similar weak page but for which I have found a good source. I have no strong feelings about these topics but am entitled to my views on them, as is common at AfD, and I contribute usefully to the discussions, arguing from sources and policy, as we're supposed to. Note that the previous AfD referred to (Samra) was over two years ago and so these issues don't arise often enough to warrant special measures. What might require attention is Sitush's insulting incivility, for example, "how dense can you be ... your incompetence". In that previous AfD, I noted that Sitush seemed to be violating WP:OWN, WP:PA and WP:BLUDGEON and we have the same pattern again here. Andrew D. (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: should please move their contribution from the section reserved for "uninvolved admins" because, as they recently discussed the specific topic in question, they seem involved. Note that, when they stated their opinion of the topic, they did not provide any evidence, whereas I provide and cite examples, sources and policy. Note that I don't just google in a crude way, as RP supposes. I have an extensive personal library, including multiple, respectable books on the specific subject of caste. I have good access to research libraries in London which I regularly visit, such as the BL, the Senate House Library, the Wellcome Library and more. Through these and other resources such as the Wikipedia Library, I have good access to online resources such as JSTOR. I am therefore able to read and quote sources when needed to develop or support a position, as in this case. I fully appreciate the ramifications of this topic area but my general position is that we should explore alternatives to deletion so that topics can make progress, rather than being stuck in an unproductive cycle of creation, blanking, reversion and deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Andrew Davidson
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I don't see how this is actionable. To begin with, the request contains no diffs of edits by Andrew Davidson. As to the caste-related discussions linked to in the request, I don't see anything substantial, at first glance, that might amount to sanctionable misconduct by Andrew Davidson. Even if one assumes with Sitush that Andrew Davidson is mistaken or ill-informed with respect to the questions at issue, that is not a violation of Wikipedia conduct policy. I don't see how this is more than a content dispute coupled with strong disagreement on the inclusionism / deletionism axis. Such disputes should be resolved through normal dispute resolution rather than through arbitration. Sandstein 22:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sitush, AE is a bit strict on policy, evidence, etc for pretty good reasons. To act, we need clear cut diffs that show obvious misconduct. Nebulous patterns of behavior don't fit into WP:AE very well. Keep in mind. AE isn't a consensus board, when an admin acts, they act unilaterally, and they have the authority to ignore everyone else, or take those opinions to heart. We usually work together and often a majority agrees with the outcome, but whichever admin closes and acts, s/he owns those actions, and must be able to articulate the issue via WP:adminaccct. Looking briefly at your case, I don't see a solid case being presented, even while admitting one might exist. My advice is to have actual diffs along with SHORT explanations for each, and take it to ANI, which is better suited for long drawn out ordeals, and allows input from everyone. ARBPIA restrictions can still be issued from there, but if this situation is as you describe, it transcends ARB and would be getting into general policy, which is easier to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- While I don't see anything actionable here, I do see some cause for concern. Looking through the edits, it appears that Andrew Davidson, though editing in good faith, doesn't understand the domain. Caste in India is a complex subject, continuously confounded by interest groups, government action, and poor quality judgements made during the Raj era. It is because of this complexity that we have imposed community discretionary sanctions on this area and most uninvolved admins, like myself, issue warnings and blocks solely based on sourcing, i.e., whether edits are sourced or not and, if sourced, whether there is consensus on the reliability of those sources. Editing by googling the way Andrew Davidson is doing is not going to work very well in this area because it invariably pulls up unreliable sources. Insisting on Raj era sources when consensus is against using them is not going to work very well either. But, like I said, there is probably nothing actionable here right now because Andrew Davidson appears to be editing in good faith. However, if this continues, a topic ban from caste related articles is likely in the future. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- AndrewDavidson, I don't consider myself involved because I have no opinion on caste matters and an occasional drive by comment doesn't change that. Also, like I state above, I don't think you're editing in bad faith here. Rather, regardless of the quality of access you may or may not have to sources, you seem to be editing with a shallow understanding of the complexity of the topic area, particularly with your "if we build it the sources and content will come" approach which is practically an invitation to the POV editors out there. Also, if I may point out, the three sources you include here are all google books sources which, unfortunately, do give the impression of being found through a google search rather than through visits to the various libraries you list above. That you are editing against consensus is fairly well borne out by comments from other editors such as in this edit summary and this one. Regardless, all I am saying is that when you have a shallow understanding of a topic area, it is generally better to edit with a light touch than with an aggressive one.--regentspark (comment) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, since you asked for diffs I looked a little deeper. The AfD in question is a second nomination. In the first nomination, you !voted keep with the same three sources that you've listed in the 2nd nomination and with the same "if we build it the sources will come" rationale but, in the three plus intervening years, you have neither edited the article nor done anything with those sources (nor has anyone else). That, it seems to me, pretty much backs up my "shallow editor" hypothesis. A shallow understanding of the content and an aggressive editing style are not a good combination. --regentspark (comment) 19:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- AndrewDavidson, I don't consider myself involved because I have no opinion on caste matters and an occasional drive by comment doesn't change that. Also, like I state above, I don't think you're editing in bad faith here. Rather, regardless of the quality of access you may or may not have to sources, you seem to be editing with a shallow understanding of the complexity of the topic area, particularly with your "if we build it the sources and content will come" approach which is practically an invitation to the POV editors out there. Also, if I may point out, the three sources you include here are all google books sources which, unfortunately, do give the impression of being found through a google search rather than through visits to the various libraries you list above. That you are editing against consensus is fairly well borne out by comments from other editors such as in this edit summary and this one. Regardless, all I am saying is that when you have a shallow understanding of a topic area, it is generally better to edit with a light touch than with an aggressive one.--regentspark (comment) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man
No action. GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (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 The Rambling Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=828486522&oldid=828481054 Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManStatement by power~enwikiThis looks like a complete waste of time. Saying that people aren't interested in DYK isn't insulting their motivations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by GreenMeansGoSarek, please do us all a favor and withdraw this. This is silly. GMGtalk 21:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning The Rambling Man
|
Willard84
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 Willard84
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Excelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Willard84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Warned by EdJohnston in July 2017 that: "If you continue to edit war on any topics related to India or Pakistan you are risking a topic ban."[52]
- Back in September 2017 when he was edit warring on Template:History of Pakistan: [53][54] by Wikihounding other editor to the template.[55]
- Template ended up getting fully protected due to this edit warring.[56]
- There was a huge discussion regarding his disruption on this template and other namespaces on EdJohnston's talk page. But nothing has improved.
- Claiming there is "no consensus"[59] regardless of the majority agreement of 8 editors against the non-consensus version of an editor who was topic banned from the subject and remains blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.
- Template ended up getting protected again due to his edit warring.[60]
- Misleading an admin that "consensus was actually not reached",[61] and continued deception on talk page[62] where he claimed that there was no consensus because, "Pakistani editors seems to be in unison that these changes were not warranted, though despite this being a template on Pakistani history, Pakistani editors’ opinions are actually in the minority here."[63] This argument about ethnicity of involved editors is an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND.
- The template editor rejected the request and said, "I see a consensus above which contradicts your request".[64]
- Removes long term sourced content by falsely asserting that there "This has been discussed",[65] regardless of any discussion.
- Removes it again[66] in middle of new-born discussion.
- Added an image without explaining the "puffery" he added.[67]
- Edit warring to restore the puffery:[68][69]
- Bludgeoning on talk page for adding the puffery against policies.[70]
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- From block log:
- 23:48, 6 July 2017 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 4 days (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: at Godhra train burning per a complaint at WP:AN3)
- 07:31, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Violation of the three-revert rule)
- 02:29, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- [71]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
These are the two most recent incidents that I can name. The long term edit warring, stonewalling, civil POV pushing, misrepresentation of consensus, and demonstration of WP:INCOMPETENCE shows that Willard84 is truly careless about how much disruption he is causing. I believe that a topic ban is clearly warranted now. Excelse (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [72]
Discussion concerning Willard84
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 Willard84
I’m confident the arbitrators will find this complaint to be unwarranted and not done in good faith. This is an editor who engaged me in a heated discussion months ago who now appears to be seeking some sort of discretionary sanctions based upon sour feelings. He’s making accusations essentially on behalf of others who didn’t find my behavior so disturbing that they themselves would file a request. Instead we have an editor with whom I haven’t interacted for many months randomly appearing out of the blue and stalking my edits to build a frivolous case against me. Out of many months of edits, and literally hundreds, if not thousands, of edits, he pulls out a few cherry picked examples to build a case. I think this violates the spirit of collaboration and I find this sort of stalking to be very objectionable - even worthy of sanctioning to be frank. If the arbitrators seriously feel these accusations warrant actual disciplinary measure against me, please ping me back to this page and I can dedicate more time to a rebuttal. So much of what he said is an inaccurate depiction that completely neglects so much, but just as a quick illustration of the sort of details that he neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page that he complained about was resolved cordially via discussion with that other editor.Willard84 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- And as for the issue of consensus on the Pakistani history template page, once the third party declared they had seen consensus, I dropped the issue without further debate. This complainant neglects to mention that fact.Willard84 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- In response to User:Capitols00 below - this is a user who has tried and failed to get me blocked in the past. His friend User:Excelse, also jumped in that argument to join the witch hunt, and now roles are reversed. These two users act in unison to make these accusations every few months. His list of accusations seems impressive but is a paper tiger. He’s complaining that I removed Sanskrit from the Mt Kailasha page, which isn’t true. As shown on the talk page, I actually just moved it out of the lead because a few months back someone had removed this Chinese script and replaced it with Sanskrit, despite this being a Chinese mountain. He also claims claims that I removed Punjabi from a page about “Sikhism” though the Punjabi is still on that page about a temple in Pakistan. What he neglected to mention is that a user had tried to remove the Urdu name, and replace it only with Punjabi script. He also claims I removed a sectio about a Hindu temple - probably in an attempt to convince you of anti-Hindu bias, but he seems to neglect that the page it was removed from was about a fort, and that the temple in question has its own page, Prahladpuri Temple. Another ridiculous attempt to malign me is when he claims I removed Sanskrit from the Peshawar page, when it was actually changed to [the IAST] version of Sanskrit which is exceedingly commmon practice. He then claims I downplay the number of burushaski speakers in India, despite the fact that the NPR source in the article did indeed say 100. He tried to confuse you by pointing to a different source that says 300-400. That wasn’t the source in the article - but he’s using this new source to make a point.The rest of his list of accusations is similarly misconstrued. That’s probably why he’s scraping the bottom of the barrel for edits from months ago to build his case.
- That isn’t exactly the same sort of malicious intent Capitols00 tries to portray. Those are two random ones I chose. I can dedicate more time to a point by point rebuttal. But judging by how frequently Capitols00 joins these witch hunts (three cases in just a few days!), it should be no surprise that he’s jumping on the band wagon again. This sort of behavior, and misrepresentation of facts, ought to be themselves sanctioned like WP:BOOMERANG.Willard84 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 23:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Raymond3023
Willard84's on-going attempts to deceive others are concerning. He is still misrepresenting incidents and trying to throw mud on OP's report by falsely claiming the existence of the incidents that didn't even occurred when the report was filed. See WP:GAMING.
The report was filed at 05:43 (UTC). At 08:37 (UTC) Willard84 changed timestamp of his 1 hour older response and makes a misleading claim that OP "neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page that he complained about was resolved",[73] after leaving a message on talk page at 08:32 (UTC), despite the report was filed almost 3 hours ago. Willard84 is now attempting to get away from the article by claiming that he "resolved cordially" when he is clearly giving up on the article and he failed to remove the sourced content and failed to get his puffery accepted because his disruption has been highlighted in this report. But I am sure he will resume his disruption on that article for his WP:OR.[74]
Furthermore, edit warring of Willard84 didn't even stopped with this one edit[75] and one revert,[76] because after he failed to remove the content from lead, he still removed it from lead by creating a new section called "Etymology" and moving material there[77] and he provided no reason for his edit. Since his aim was to get rid of the meaning of the word from the lead, I would count it as 2 reverts for removing the meaning of the name, and 2 additional reverts for adding puffery. In total, he made 4 reverts.
Seeing he is clearly working on deceiving others not only on articles but also here now, he is leaving me with no choice other than to support topic ban which would be still lenient because editors also get indeffed for such shenanigans. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by D4iNa4
Willard84 you can't ignore your long term pattern of your nationalistic editing by making false accusations against others. Even if you had never edited the the main Template:History of Pakistan, your behavior on it's talk page has been purely disruptive, though you edit warred enough to get the template protected twice by restoring to a pseudohistorical nationalist version written by an editor who used a sock to notify you recently.[78] The template should be totally unprotected the way Template:History of India is, even though it is much more edited and visited than Template:History of Pakistan. But due to your disruption I think we will never reach there unless you are topic banned. I am really seeing no justification for your actions. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Response to D4Nai by Willard84
Nationalistic editing? The Template discussion revolved around whether consensus had been reached - don’t misconstrue this into a question of competing nationalism. I think the arbitrators here are well aware of how to spot arrogant nationalism - and it isn’t coming from me. The debate has been ongoing since October, yet you made a change in late February after months of stalemate and resurrected a version which was objectionable for its inclusion of minor empires like the Marathas who ruled for not even 2 years and left essentially no trace of their presence,while you suggested that the Indus Valley Civilization (with its major sites in modern Pakistan) be removed from a template about Pakistan. In fact, the changes you made aren’t the changes you put forward for discussion - you made a set of changes that hasn’t been discussed in their entirety. I was pushing for a reversion to status quo - I think you’ll need to do a better job of demonstrating how this was pushing a nationalist viewpoint. Even the comment about Pakistani viewpoints was explained in the debate as a point brought up simply because this fell under wiki project Pakistan. And anyway, once the third party had stated they thought consensus had been reached, I dropped the issue even though I think that third party did not consider the context behind it.
D4iNa4 has had his own history of belligerent POV editing against me. Here another reviewer had to explain to D4iNai and another user that Washington Post is a reliable source when D4 had sided with another user to ensure the page only reflected claims that the train was burned as a result of a pre meditated “conspiracy” by Muslim passengers, by ensuring that any mention of events prior to the burning which cast other non-Muslim passengers as rowdy were not included.
Willard84 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Kautilya3
I would acknowledge that Willard84 is a bit quick to hit the revert button, but he is a good productive editor otherwise. Perhaps a warning should suffice for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Lorstaking
I agree with the filer, Raymond3023 and D4iNa4 but I disagree with Kautilya3. Another warning would be a waste of time since he has been already warned and blocked enough times for what he has been doing and he is not still not understanding the serious problems with his editing. According to his own statements here, he still believes that even if none of his edits were accepted they were still correct and also that others are engaging in misconduct by not accepting them. He still believes his edits are correct where he is treating princely states and their subdomains (Phulra, Khanate of Kalat, Dir, etc.) during British Raj as the main power as per his own edits[79][80] to paint a wrong picture that Pakistan was never really colonized by British and was mainly ruled by these vassals. Willard84 also wants to mention initial and outdated rumors about Godhra train burning as facts even after being told otherwise by Edjohnston and not just the involved editors. You just can't expect him to collaborate without creating enough problems.
His input on talk pages[81][82] can be also described as mass bludgeoning just like his statements here, some of them have been already removed by Sandstein.[83]
I am also noting that his accusations against others of misconduct without giving any evidence constitute personal attacks.
He is saying in one of his statements here [84] that everyone is allowed to revert but he is now gaming 3RR by not reverting 3 times in 24 hours. Clearly that is how he managed to revert 4 times on Nanga_Parbat[85][86][87][88] In short words this is a clear case of disruptive nationalist POV pushing and WP:CIR. Lorstaking (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Willard84's further deceptive approach can be described by his recent statement here on this page, falsely claiming that I "had commented on just an hour earlier" before MapSGV reverted him, ([89][90]: seems more than 22 hours to me) despite the fact that I had commented on the template against the problematic version in 6 October 2017.[91] Also that he deceptively cherry picked this diff to claim the request was "was quickly shut down", when I was the one to "shut down" the request.[92]
- I must also add that Willard84 was edit warring, bludgeoning and misrepresenting consensus on talk page for restoring problematic version of an indefinitely blocked topic banned sockmaster upon the request from his sock.[93] Months ago, he was doing this same thing[94][95] when this editor was blocked indefinitely for being WP:NOTHERE.[96] Willard84 attempted to get his topic ban overturned before,[97] despite being the only person to oppose any sanction on him at WP:ANI.[98][99]
- Willard84 has really left me in no doubt now. He is a case of WP:CIR whose deceptive approach is harmful for this project. Lorstaking (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Response to Lorstaking by Willard84
- I don’t have time to rebuke rehashed accusations that were already brought up above, but it’s clear what Salem 1620 must have felt like.
- Anyway, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this user, Lorstaking, has been spending an unusual amount of effort to defend User:MapSGV, whose account has been blocked above, by petitioning arbitrator User:Sandstein above to rescind his decision. The accusation that I tried to downplay British rule is exceedingly ridiculous- as a review of the edits would make very clear.
- Lorstaking and MapSGV have an unusually deep relationship that appears to have only developed in the end of February 2018 when MapSGV started making a significant number of edits. He randomly jumped back into editing after a 2 year hiatus on 19 February 2017, and seems to have somehow rapidly developed a deep relationship with Lorstaking, who took the unusual step of writing a lengthy character defense of MapSGV. Lorstaking even opened a case to challenge sanctions against MapSGV, although this was quickly shut down.
- Yet now, Lorstaking finds his way on here to join a witch hunt. Perhaps in retaliation, because MapSGV somehow randomly appeared on the Template:History of Pakistan that Lorstaking had commented on just an hour earlier, and reverted my edit before threatening me with blocks on the talk page. He also seems to be unusually well-versed in Wikipedia lingo for someone who apparently just parachuted back in after a making a few dozen edits.Willard84 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Capitals00
While a number of recent examples of continued disruption have been already provided, I think it is nonetheless worth it to describe the problem to be bigger and continuous. I have observed Willard84’s edits over a long period of time and many of them have proved to be problematic. Here are a few examples of nationalist editing over a broad range of articles:
- Removed "India" from the Xuanzang article.
- Replaces Puruṣapura with Peshawar in an article. This is another example of Willard84 purging anything related to India from Pakistani-related articles.
- Edits the Burushashki langauge article to state that only 100 people in India speak Burushashki when the source mentioned around 300-400.
These edits show Willard84's problematic editing behavior across many articles. Despite previous warnings and blocks, it has continued and Willard84's own comment indicates that this problem will remain. I would recommend a topic ban on India and Pakistan related articles broadly construed. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Mar4d
- I will second Kautilya3. These are content disputes, not conduct disputes if it all. In the limited time I have known Willard84, he has been an extremely productive editor and the majority of his contributions, particularly to Pakistan topics, have been outstanding and one of the best I've seen on Wikipedia. One only needs to go through his contributions log and his article creations to appreciate this user's presence in this topic area, and his expertise in finding reliable sources to improve under-covered subjects. What I see here is mostly a collection of stale, cherry-picked diffs cobbled together to form a mudslinging contest, by a group of editors who belong to the most controversial topic area on Wikipedia which is riddled with content disputes and nationalist edit warring. The timing, content and structure of this ARE is clearly suspect and in extremely bad faith, as I have raised below. Mar4d (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Peoples Colony
I endorse Sandstien , a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. Singling out Willard84/ Mard will be un fair.
Result concerning Willard84
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Both in this case and in the one concerning Mar4d below, it appears to me that we have several areas of problematic editing that are probably best addressed with topic bans for a number of editors. However, in both cases the report mixes genuine potentially problematic conduct such as edit-warring and personal atacks with what seem to be mere content disputes, which means that we don't have a clear-cut case. Moreover, a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. I don't currently have time for this. As such, I can't currently propose any specific action, which is not to say that action is not necessary. Sandstein 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Mar4d
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 Mar4d
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 20 February 2018 Falsely accusing other editors of POV pushing "in complete mockery of WP:ARBIPA" instead of rebutting their arguments. This is the first of the many ad hominem comments made by this user on the article's talk page.
- 20 February 2018 Another ad hominem attack directed against the other editor, and this was after he was told to focus on the content.[100]
- 21 February 2018 Again launches ad hominem personal attacks on MapSVG with unfounded accusations in place of rebutting his arguments.
- 21 February 2018 Doubles down on the personal attacks, calling MapSVG, among other things, a sock without evidence.
- 22 February 2018 Deliberately falsified the numbers with a misleading edit summary that he was fixing "per ref" and the "numbers are unsourced", when in actual fact the sources (both in the infobox and in the India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)#2018 section) clearly supported the numbers.
- And, the explanation that he gave on the talk page — that there were no figures available for 2016[101] — gave the impression that he didn't even read the refs because the figures from 2016 were already sourced in the infobox (see refs [20]–[22]), and this was discussed already a couple of months ago.[102] He never replied when I quizzed him asking if he had even read the sources.[103]
- Added objectionable material on Rape in India[104] by adding his opinion, "However, in reality", "further exacerbated the crisis", and using unreliable sources. One editor reverted him for using unreliable sources and he reverted that editor saying that his sources are "RS"[105] and made another controversial edit[106], another editor reverted him pointing out the use of unreliable sources,[107] he again restored the reverted content[108] and left a firovolous warning on the talk page of the editor that he didn't provided any reason to revert him,[109] after that the discussion on talk page was held, where everyone opposed his edits, and in middle of the discussion he again removed the content that was being supported by the involved editors[110] though required a little bit of improvement that took no time,[111] but unnecessary edit warring from Mar4d clearly making 3 reverts in such sensitive article is concerning.
- On Kashmir conflict:
- Reverted King Zebu because he made his edits "without consensus"[112]
- Reverted Kautilya3 because he made his edits without adhering to "WP:NOCON and WP:BRD"[113]
- RegentsPark criticized Mar4d that his "reversion does not make sense"[114]
- Reverted Kautilya3[115] by disregarding WP:NOCON and WP:BRD himself, the content was being discussed and had no consensus. And, it took him ony two minutes to post a request at WP:RFPP for full page protection of his preferred version,[116] despite that version had no consensus.
- Quickly reverted the IP's revert of non-consenus controversial content[117] by disregarding the sanctions placed on this page. The first point of the sanctions clearly reads "
A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
"[118] - What's even more concerning is that the content dispute was raised on WP:DRN on 14 February but Mar4d never commented on it, despite being a party of the dispute.[119]
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- See Mar4d's block log
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [120].
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Mar4d was adamant in his personal opinion that the Siachen conflict is an "ongoing conflict" and adding a result "is like adding a conclusion on Kashmir conflict",[121] despite multiple reliable sources saying to the contrary that the conflict ended with the ceasefire in 2003. One just has to take a glance at the talk page to notice the outright personal attacks he made on others (including false accusations of socking, SPA, etc), not to mention that he kept engaging in stonewalling, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, repeating the same personal opinion over and over again, and resorting to ad hominem strategies in place of refuting the arguments of others.
As per discussion with Sandstein on MapSVG's talk page,[122] Sandstein told that he "will take a look" if a separate report is filed against those who also engaged in misconduct. The report against MapSVG was filed by a user who was already under a SPI investigation[123] and the report resulted in sanctions on MapSGV despite much of the diffs were showing his responses to ad hominem personal attacks and false accusations made by Mar4d, despite objections by multiple editors, and Mar4d's misconduct is much more than just incivility because it also concerns edit warring, treatment of Wikipedia as battleground, use of unreliable sources, misrepresentation of sources and lack of collaborative approach to resolve content dispute. For all these factors Mar4d should be sanctioned. —MBL talk 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Mar4d, will you stop beating around the bush and tell us how your ad hominem attacks, false accusations of WP:SPA, socking, etc do not constitute personal attacks and why you should not be sanctioned for them?
- He has made a lot of baseless accusations and engaged in deception. I will just rebut a few of them:
- Mar4d was the one who was actually engaged in "provocative conduct", as evident from the diffs I supplied above. I never defended anyone's "personal attacks", as Mar4d claims. I provided a multitude of reliable sources to back up my claims so did the other editor, MapSVG, unlike Mar4d, who is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT and repeating his personal opinion. I focused all my comments on the content, unlike Mar4d, who was simply resorting to ad hominem strategies.
- Mar4d is simply deceiving, when he says, "MapSGV's additions which MBL later pursued, apart from constituting tendentious editing, contain basic factual inaccuracies including WP:SYNTH." Either Mar4d do not understand what WP:SYNTH means or he is just deceiving like I said, and if it's the former, he shouldn't be editing in this topic area at all. He is the one who engages in tendentious editing all the time. He really ought to stop making allegations that he cannot substantiate.
- The version[124] prior to my edit had the death count at "193–201 soldiers killed". Mar4d deliberately changed the numbers, in this edit with a misleading edit summary, to 158. His version contained the following refs in the infobox: "[20][21][22][23]c[24][25][26]". These refs clearly supported the death count of 195 (not including the BSF claims). His claim that there were "lack of 2016 figures" is obviously false as demonstrated in the refs. The fact that he did not responded when I quizzed him just strengthens my claim that he didn't even read those refs.
- Such deception alone is grounds enough for a sanction, in my opinion.
- And, lastly if Mar4d thinks that I'm engaging in "BATTLEGROUND", "problematic editing" etc then he should file an ARE report and present evidence, and if he fails to do so then he should be sanctioned as soon as possible, because such groundless accusations are completely unacceptable. —MBL talk 12:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. Sandstein 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Notified here
Discussion concerning Mar4d
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 Mar4d
As Willard84 noted above, this is yet another unsubstantiated, half-baked report with absolutely no substance. Note the same recurrent theme of allegations and accusations by a highly-involved editor(s); and the same, usual pattern of misrepresentation, and near-farcical cherry-pickings. What is deeply regrettable is the constant misuse of forums like arbitration, ANI, and other noticeboards, for settling personal vendettas and mudslinging over content disputes, to the extent of a WP:WITCHHUNT. The ultimate objective, it seems, is to drive out experienced, well-meaning editors from a topic area plagued by nationalist edit-warring. MBL has an axe to grind over their multiple content disputes and problematic editing, and in my defence below, I'd like to point out why:
- The article in question is Siachen conflict, where the infobox summarised the conflict as following: Ceasefire since 2003. This has been the longstanding version of the article as covered by WP:RS, and is predated by three separate discussions on talk (please see this, this, and more particularly, this consensus). It is therefore surprising when MapSGV, an account with barely 80 edits prior to February and no history on the article (yet strangely well-versed with editing norms and Wikipedia jargon), turns up and replaces the "ceasefire" on the infobox with "Indian victory". There is no edit summary let alone any explanation. Any admin who is remotely familiar with WP:ARBIPA knows these sanctions are in place to prevent exactly this type of disruption. This edit was later raised on the talk by another editor (as it rightfully should be), and MBL was one of the first editors to defend MapSGV's editing and personal attacks. Since a large part of this complaint actually seems to focus on my interactions with MapSGV, I'd like to point out MapSGV has just been topic banned for 6 months (which was downgraded from a block). Since MBL apparently wasn't satisfied with that sanction, the timing of this A.R.E. is honestly questionable. Please note that so far as my interactions with MapSGV are concerned, I am not the only user, neither the first one, who raised red flags over his editing [125] [126]. The allegation of "unfounded accusations" holds no ground, and should there be any doubt, please do revisit the provocative conduct which actually led to MapSGV being sanctioned in the first place. .
- I won't get too much into the nitty-gritties of the content dispute here, but the core of the dispute mainly stems from the issue that MapSGV's additions which MBL later pursued, apart from constituting tendentious editing, contain basic factual inaccuracies including WP:SYNTH. The article is on the current, ongoing conflict over the disputed Siachen glacier (part of the Kashmir conflict), whose status quo has been dicated by a ceasefire since 2003. Any editor well-versed in WP:MILHIST knows what a ceasefire means. It is not on the 1984 operation whereby India occupied the glacier (also summarised), which has a separate article under Operation Meghdoot. There's a difference between both.
- As for this edit, this took into account the existing references supplied, which cited 138 casualties for 2017 and 20 casualties for 2017. The confusion appeared to stem from the (lack of) 2016 figures, as the sources did not appear to indicate how the updated figure of "206–212" was calculated by MBL. Again, this was perfectly reasonable, and I left a query in regards to this.
- Please refer to this discussion which, unsurprisingly, MBL is not even part of. There is no foul play here. There were consistency and summary issues with the lead of that article as seconded in that discussion, and if you have any doubt, please refer in particular to the comments and sources there left by admin Vanamonde93.
- Lastly, you really need to read and understand WP:CONSENSUS if you want to edit with the "collaborative approach" you talk about. Because as it stands, you visibly have no idea let alone even a fraction of involvement in the discussion on Kashmir conflict. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you had even bothered to read the talk page, you would've at least been informed enough to know what issues around half a discussion editors there are talking about. And thinly-veiled threats/stunts like this [127] [128] hardly qualify as WP:CON. Mar4d (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. Sandstein 22:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Capitals00
His conduct on AfD of Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan has been also concerning where he is tirelessly defending an article that is surely going to get deleted. Some of his comments over there are:
- "another disposable !vote for the sake of !voting"[129]
- "too many users voting on this AfD seem to be involved."[130]
- "you acquainted with all these acronyms in your such short time of editing"[131]
These comments seems to be unnecessary assumption of bad faith and attempts to dispute the credibility of the editor who made their vote!, and that is also a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. These comments had to be made on content or why the article should be kept or deleted.
While other recent examples of disruption have been already provided, there are also some examples that date a bit earlier, but still relevant enough to show the long term pattern of nationalistic POV editing.
- The scenario of censoring result parameter that mentions "Indian victory" [132](with reliable sources), then making personal attacks on his opponent by calling them an SPA or sock[133] and using his own personal opinion against tons of reliable sources, such disruption is not new or limited to Siachen conflict.
- Just like this he was also removing "Indian victory" on Umayyad campaigns in India[134] and then edit warring the editor[135] while removing the reliably sourced content and not getting consensus for his edits that were likely never going to be accepted.
- On talk page, he made personal attacks against the editor such as, "I haven't asked for a brushdown on WP:NPOV, least of all from an obvious WP:SPA"[136], while there was no incivility from this editor and he was not an SPA either.
- Continued to have WP:LASTWORD on talk page despite disagreement from 3 editors[137] who supported what reliable source state, not personal opinions of Mar4d.
- Independence Day (India): Edit warring[138][139] against IPs that were removing the problematic content[140][141] added by a paid editing sock.[142] I reverted Mar4d and opened a section on talk page,[143] where he made no response. Point is that why he even defends the problematic content that is not actually defensible or he thinks of stopping only when the objections have been made by one of his common opponent?
- 2016–18 Kashmir unrest: Invoking WP:BANREVERT by restoring problematic edits of a paid editing sock [144], he reverted Mblaze Lightning who removed the problematic content[145] and then Mar4d restored the same content again[146] without gaining consensus on talk page.[147]
If Mar4d had been sanctioned for such disruption earlier, I am sure that we wouldn't be having the problems highlighted by Mblaze Lightning above. Capitals00 (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. Sandstein 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by WBG
And, it took him ony two minutes to post a request at WP:RFPP for full page protection of his preferred version, despite that version had no consensus.
--This is definitely non-actionable.See WP:WRONGVERSION.What's even more concerning is that the content dispute was raised on WP:DRN on 14 February but Mar4d never commented on it, despite being a party of the dispute
--DRN is voluntary.- I don't see how Mar4D's behaviour at the article and corresponding discussion at Talk:Rape in India#Revert or at 2016–18 Kashmir unrest is remotely disruptive/sanctionable.
- I will agree though, that his conduct at Talk:Siachen conflict could have been somewhat better.
- At any case, I don't suppport MapSVG's T-ban and will neither support any over-the-top action over here.A reminder to Mar4D to comment on content and not on contributors will be probably sufficient enough.~ Winged BladesGodric 06:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NadirAli
This looks like the latest effort in MBlaze Lightning's series of spurious reports against opposing editors.[148]
None of the diffs show any sort of problematic statements from Mar4d, who is one of our encyclopedia's most productive editors. If there are some statements from him about MapSGV's provocative behaviour that should not be a call for alarm because even the administrator Sandstein is suspicious of that account.[149]. I do wonder why users like MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 are so desperate to support MapSGV and so quick to file spurious reports. Capitals00[150] left no stone unturned to argue against MapSGV's block and topic ban. Such desperation was in their tone as if it was their own account they were defending. But none of these 2 had any presence on his talkpage before the block.
- Content disputes such as those in Talk:Rape in India do not belong to WP:AE. I do not see any wrong done by Mar4d.
- As for the reverts shown[151][152] on Kashmir conflict there is nothing wrong with them because there is a policy of reverting contentious new edits while they are being discussed on the talkpage according to WP:NOCON.
- Reverting Kautilya3 here[153] was not a problem because contrary to MBlaze Lightning's claims, the version Mar4d restored did have WP:CONSENSUS from the deeply involved editors.[154] No less than five users wanted it. Only one user, Kautilya3 himself, opposed it and he even refused to explain his objections (He said So, if and when I come to review the proposed paragraphs, these are the principles I will use. When we run into disagreements, I will take them to WP:DRN. For the time being, let me just say that none of the proposed sections is ready for the mainspace).[155] WP:1AM does not overturn the WP:CONSENSUS of everyone else.
- Reverting this disruptive IP[156] ought be the action of any normal Wikipedian.
- There was also no 1RR violation. No second reverts within 24 hours.
I do think a WP:BOOMERANG should be this case's outcome. Owais Khursheed filed an WP:SPI last year which the administrators ignored.[157] The SPI claimed that the filer was using IP socks to harass opposing editors. Now we saw this behavior from an Indian IP again today at Talk:Kashmir conflict.[158] I translated it and reported it To editor CambridgeBayWeather:.[159] I would suggest a full investigation. Enough is really enough.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Response to Kautilya3
- I am not surprised by Kautilya3's comment given the content disputes he has. Pakistani editors are receiving threats from Indian
IP [160][[161][162] in the background of WP:WITCHHUNTS such as these [163][164][165][166] involving false accusations against opposing editors by Kautilya3, MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00. A lot is explained, especially when there are suspicions of WP:TAGTEAM[167][168] and IP socking[169]. No tagteaming from Mar4d who has a long and lengthy involvement in the content dispute at Talk:Kashmir conflict unlike those who turn up to do reverts and deliver one liners in support of Kautilya3's position with hardly any other talkpage input.[170][171].
- I took an analysis of Talk:Siachen conflict. I found Mar4d's side of the discussion very constructive. He was very polite and far more interested in sourcing than the other users whose obsession was sneaking in 'Indian victory'. Granted there were a few times he made comments outside of content but that was in response to incendiary comments from MapSGV[172][173], MBlaze Lightning[174] and Capitals00[175].--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TripWire
Another WP:WITCHHUNT attempt by MBL (see previous one), no wonder Capitals00 has also joined the bandwagon. They have become so desperate in casting WP:ASPERSIONS that they will say anything to put across their point (I dont even know Capitals00). I think there's a dire need to implement WP:BOOMERANG strictly so that such frivolous reports are avoided in the better interest of WP.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 09:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Additional comments
Mar4d shouldn't be compared with MapSGV (even though his banning apparently seems the cause behind this report). Below are some edits by MapSGV (any sensible editor would feel offended at such a tone, a + for Mar4d for not loosing his cool); Mar4d was just trying to bring MapSGV to the table so that the issue(s) could be discussed:
- He even accused an Admin of helping Takeaway (an editor) evade 3RR.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statements by wearied passers-by
- How about a 6-month topic ban from AE for everyone involved? Uanfala's sock (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Peoples colony
Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢
|
---|
Accusations are over the top to the extent that I started laughing immediately. Come on every one behave like community not rivals. I strongly support Mard for many reasons I observed while reading all relevant contributions and edit history
At any case, I don't support any ban on Mard. I encourage MBlaze Lightning to cheer up and be sport. Peoplescolony (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
Statement by Kautilya3
There was a time when Mar4d and I used to jointly defend India-Pakistan conflict pages from going toxic. Those days are long gone. Mar4d's fall from grace began with an atrocious article called India and state-sponsored terrorism that he created jointly with another editor. Since then I have been hard put to find any objective edits made by Mar4d. He basically edits along national lines, reverting and name-calling any pro-India editors that he runs into.
- On the Siachen conflict article, Mar4d was basically battling reliable sources with WP:OR.
- On the Kashmir conflict article, he is basically tag teaming with NadirAli, who in turn is doing edits for KA$HMIR and Dilpa kaur. All these editors call themselves "deeply involved editors". As MBlaze has pointed out, Mar4d reverted a fairly innocent edit citing WP:NOCON and reinstated a highly problematic edit ignoring WP:NOCON. You can just check the amount of reliably sourced content that has been removed in the second edit with not a single word of explanation.
Winged Blades of Godric states that participation in WP:DRN is voluntary. That it is. But it would have been polite for Mar4d to mention either on the talk page or at the DRN that he has conceded the points at dispute. Instead, if he just lets the others carry the burden, then I am afraid it reinforces the impresison that he didn't actually dispute anything, he was just WP:TAGTEAMING. Doing so in a highly contentious subject like Kashmir conflict is very problematic.
I am afraid, at this point, Mar4d is part of the problem rather than solution. Sandstein has drawn parallels between this case and that of Willard84 above. But I don't think there is any comparison. Willard84 is a highly productive editor as I pointed out above. On the other hand, Mar4d has not producing anything worthwhile in the last couple of years. His role seems to be limited to reverting edits and noise-making on the talk pages. A sad fall for a once-great editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Mar4d
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Both in this case and in the one concerning Willard84 above, it appears to me that we have several areas of problematic editing that are probably best addressed with topic bans for a number of editors. However, in both cases the report mixes genuine potentially problematic conduct such as edit-warring and personal attacks with what seem to be mere content disputes, which means that we don't have a clear-cut case. Moreover, a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. I don't currently have time for this. As such, I can't currently propose any specific action, which is not to say that action is not necessary. Sandstein 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello admin my blocked friend mapSVG told me edit on his behalf to let all admin know that mard and his friends are isi spy working for pak agencies to spread propaganda against India please unblock mapsvg and block all pak editors on this page. Thanks advance. KarunArjun (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello there, KarunArjun. Whatever that comment may or may not say about any other editors, it tells me that you are here for no good. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC). Also, as long as I'm here, I might as well inquire of @Peoplescolony: whose sock are you, please? Bishonen | talk 18:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC).
- {{checkuser needed}}. Blocked User:PAKHIGHWAY looks interesting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- KarunArjun is
Confirmed to Saltpot99 and Rayanakho/Hranday8. This is Nangparbat.
- Peoplescolony is LanguageXpert. This edit restores a version from 2013 that was curated by PPPPMLN/Maria0333. The CU log shows LanguageXpert using the same range within the last six months.
- PAKHIGHWAY looks like Mfarazbaig and/or another account from the Liborbital SPI that uses an ISP in a country from a different part of the world than one would expect. They edited articles that were created by Bk2006 and Faizan which may be more than a coincidence. Previous PAKHIGHWAY SPI case.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)- I blocked and tagged Peoplescolony. Almost collapsed this SPI like section, but it may be related to the merits, so didn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- KarunArjun is