WikiEditor1234567123 (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
Line 306: | Line 306: | ||
:::Tryptofish, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZionism%2C_race_and_genetics&diff=1166961096&oldid=1166957112 this] is a personal attack - stating that my asking 'What's the problem?' bears a 'tone' you find offensive - by your own criterion, as is the inference that I have a ‘‘chronic ..aggressive disdain for other editors’. You are using the very language you find evidence for deploring in me. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC){{od}} |
:::Tryptofish, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZionism%2C_race_and_genetics&diff=1166961096&oldid=1166957112 this] is a personal attack - stating that my asking 'What's the problem?' bears a 'tone' you find offensive - by your own criterion, as is the inference that I have a ‘‘chronic ..aggressive disdain for other editors’. You are using the very language you find evidence for deploring in me. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC){{od}} |
||
I used the word ‘stonewalling’. I had in mind Drsmoo's repeating for an entire month, the same opinion, with variations, regardless of considerable efforts to disabuse him of his belief that evidence ''from '' researchers amounted to a disparaging attack on both the researchers '''and Israelis'''. He made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1164901363 this claim first here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1165013873 then here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1164850180 and here] (the innuendo is that the very article is antisemitic). See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1167477590 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169001168 here],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169164483 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169185747 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169167321 and here]. |
I used the word ‘stonewalling’. I had in mind Drsmoo's repeating for an entire month, the same opinion, with variations, regardless of considerable efforts to disabuse him of his belief that evidence ''from '' researchers amounted to a disparaging attack on both the researchers ('genetic studies on Jews are 'Zionist' etc)'''and Israelis'''. He made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1164901363 this claim first here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1165013873 then here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1164850180 and here] (the innuendo is that the very article is antisemitic). See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1167477590 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169001168 here],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169164483 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169185747 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169167321 and here]. |
||
A full month later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169675049 he was still repeating it] to [[User:Pharos| Pharos]], ignoring every disproof or request for evidence in the interim. Apparently it is I who bludgeons people. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 04:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC) |
A full month later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1169675049 he was still repeating it] to [[User:Pharos| Pharos]], ignoring every disproof or request for evidence in the interim. Apparently it is I who bludgeons people. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 04:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1169924294 Whoa?] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1164850180 See here] [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 05:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC) |
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1169924294 Whoa?] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism,_race_and_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=1164850180 See here] [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 05:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
====Statement by Andrevan==== |
====Statement by Andrevan==== |
||
I know Nishidani writes a lot of brilliant prose but they can be abrasive, and should rein it in. See [[User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_30#You_wrote...|here]]. This has a similar look - accusing their interlocutor of being too dense to understand what complexities lie within their expertise. That's bullying, and it's not appropriate. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) |
I know Nishidani writes a lot of brilliant prose but they can be abrasive, and should rein it in. See [[User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_30#You_wrote...|here]]. This has a similar look - accusing their interlocutor of being too dense to understand what complexities lie within their expertise. That's bullying, and it's not appropriate. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:22, 12 August 2023
Petra0922
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 Petra0922
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Petra0922 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 23:10, 24 July 2023 Personal attack against محرر البوق, accusing them of
persistently and unjustifiably go after Amhara and related articles that cover the ethnic violence in Ethiopia
and describing their edits asdestructive
, which appears to be baseless - 15:48 25 July 2023 Repetition of the "destructive" comment toward محرر البوق.
- 14:33, 27 July 2023 continued personal attacks against محرر البوق.
- 20:25, 4 August 2023 Restoration of "Amhara genocide" in wikivoice in the lead, despite extensive recent discussion on the talkpage finding that nobody else but Petra0922 supports the inclusion of this.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
User is aware of the contentious topics sanction per this comment from May 2022, responding to a discretionary sanctions notice given by Beeblebrox on 19:17, 10 May 2022 regarding the Horn of Africa topic area.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Their old username "AmharaWAAGpublish" suggests that they are associated with the advocacy group "Amhara Women Association Against Genocide". I think that they are too emotionally invested in this topic to contribute to it in a neutral manner, and I think their comments and edit warring above above show that they are not capable of collaborative editing regarding this issue. At the very least, they need to be firmly told not to engage in personal attacks.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Petra0922
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 Petra0922
I like to start by saying that my edits are international and not limited to Ethiopia, and you will notice that I am focused on global human rights and war articles.
- For the allegation that my edits represent an organization, that is not true. As an incoming newbie editor in January 2022, I had no idea about the rules of individual accounts, and due to their inspiration related to the women's group, I randomly (naively) picked that name. Then as soon as I learned this was a misrepresentation of the group while I was actually putting in edits as an individual, I understood that was misleading, and completely removed the irrelevant account name. Another experienced editor helped me understand that, and the history can be seen on my users page. Stating again, my edits are the work of mine alone per Wikipedia guidelines and don't represent any organization.
- Giving some background on the early dialogues between myself and Hemiauchenia
As far as I can tell, Hemiauchenia stated inaccurate information in discussions dismissing what was disclosed on sources as the work of Amhara activists. At the same time, the editor was persistent in aggressively modifying the article in the middle of active discussions as it was also witnessed by @Random person no 362478479. Here is the link for the details of the discussion where I pointed out that Hemiauchenia was giving misleading information. The edits that I called destructive related to محرر البوق were manifested in the form of:
- shaping narratives (especially for Tigray) without adding edit summaries discussing them first or without providing verifiable sources. This was also demonstrated with patterns of modifying fatality numbers and removing victim groups (those who were reportedly killed by Tigray forces)
- demonstrated patterns of "cleaning up" contents that list the Tigray People Liberation Front as the perpetrator of Amhara and other civilians in Ethiopia, and sections that captured the dark histories of Tigray. At the same time, the editor consistently removed many war, ethnic, and violence-related non-Tigray contents in nature- providing misleading edit summaries (framed them as "not sourced.")
- rushes to nominate Ethiopian and HOA notable articles for frequent deletion without notifying contributors and making an effort on diligent. I noticed most of them were voted to keep
- provoking other editors who work on Ethiopia or other non-Tigray articles and ended up getting blocked- for getting caught up in the altercation with the same editor
- others include adding multiple tags on Amhara materials to the point of making them difficult to manage and engaging in a persistent edit warring and tendentious editing- demanding others to provide sources to disprove the editors' point of view.
Please note that I just removed a list of 13 separate examples in order to meet the 500-word limit. They can be accessed here Petra0922 (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Petra0922 These accusations are completely baseless and unfounded. Its pretty obvious that you are trying to deflect this on me, by going through my history and cherrypicking my edits from months ago. Like I said before, if you have a problem with my "destructive edits" then file a report on the ANI, I would love to explain my reasoning behind those edits. However, you persistently accusing me of being biased and attacking my edits as being "destructive" on a talk page discussion exclusively about content is indeed a personal attack (WP:WIAPA and WP:ASPERSIONS) and seems to be the reason why this enforcement request was opened. Take accountability instead of trying to drag other users into this. محرر البوق (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Random person no 362478479
The edit summary for the restoration of "genocide" in wiki-voice includes "Discussion still active." I agree with Petra0922 that the discussion is still active (there is an RfC now). On the other hand the discussion currently trends towards not using "genocide" in wiki-voice and therefore Hemiauchenia's removal was justified and reasonable. I don't think that Petra0922 should have reverted, but I also don't think that this revert was completely unjustified. The accusations against محرر البوق are serious and if there is evidence for them should have been raised at the appropriate noticeboard. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Please bare with me.
@Petra0922 That's a bit outside my comfort zone. But I'll bear with you.[Humor] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)- @Random person no 362478479, Thank you! I am beginning to add more information now. It may be some sections at a time. Petra0922 (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural question Should the criticism of محرر البوق brought forward by Petra0922 be discussed in a separate section or should the two related issues be treated together? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Petra0922
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Hemiauchenia:, please clarify why the reported editor is aware of the CTOP protocols. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- (Or at least remove the laundry list of reasons someone can be aware and place the actual reason in that place. Courcelles (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Petra0922: Your current statement is 1,297 words long. Please bring it down to 500. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Lettashtohr
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 Lettashtohr
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Lettashtohr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Contentious topic designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 30 June POV edit, removing information that Malevich is considered to be central figure of Russian Avantgarde;
- 7 August POV, community consensus is to use Kiev for this historic period
- 7 August Removal "Russian and French painter", replacing this with "Ukrainian painter"", non-RS
- 7 August Still the same problem; sources are better now, though mainly partisan ones.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- N/A
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- The user made about 150 edits and are not extended-confirmed. They were given a CT alert but continued to introduce POV edits in contentious areas. All their edits in July were reverted. Today they started edit-warring in Alexandra Exter, and I gave them a warning saying that the community does not allow non-extended-confirmed users to edit on topics related to Russian-Ukraine conflict (note that this is GS, not AE, though closely related). They responded without addressing the issue, basically a textbook example of RGW. So we are here.
- The edits are clearly part of WP:GS/RUSUKR. There is an ongoing process which spills out to Wikipedia, when Ukrainians attempt to define everyone who is somehow related to Ukraine (e.g. born in what is now Ukraine) as part of Ukrainian culture. Since this is typically controversial, it became the subject of propaganda wars, prominently used by both sides.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Lettashtohr
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 Lettashtohr
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Lettashtohr
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- No comment yet on the CTOP side, but since the GS aspect is related, I will note: Please actually link to WP:GS/RUSUKR, preferably with an explanation of what extendedconfirmed is, when notifying someone of those general sanctions. While awareness is not strictly required for RUSUKR blocks, I would not be comfortable blocking someone who had only been told
Please note that the community decided that non-extended-confirmed edits (such as you) may not edit articles on topic related to Russian-Ukrainian conflict
with no further context. Here, I have elaborated on Lettashtohr's talk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)- I don't think those edits fall under the topic restriction in WP:GS/RUSUKR anyway, she died in 1949. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hm, I thought I'd spotted something looking at this last night, but now all I see is [1], which predates the GS regime and isn't about article content besides.Anyways, to the matter at hand, @Lettashtohr: You should not be making edits anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially in a CTOP area, that you know will likely be reverted. If you can acknowledge that, and agree to seek talkpage consensus for edits about the labeling of people and things as Russian/Ukrainian/etc., or in Kiev or Kyiv, I don't see a need for sanctions at this time. If you can't agree to that, I would favor an editing restriction—probably not a full topic ban, but something tailored specifically to these labeling disputes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think those edits fall under the topic restriction in WP:GS/RUSUKR anyway, she died in 1949. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Melechha
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 Melechha
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- SamX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Melechha (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#Contentious topic designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 13:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC): Restoring Battle of Sangamner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to preferred version, characterizing another user's edits as "vandalism" after I'd advised them not to
- 14:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Reverting sourced material with the edit summary
Give your citation dude else you will be banned by disrupting this article for no reason
- 18:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Polemics:
You are so ignorant regarding Maratha history
- 19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Essentially the same comment as above
- 19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Another revert on Battle of Sangamner, again describing another user's edits as "vandalism"
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- None that I am aware of
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 21:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Admins: Please note that, while this section is titled "Melechha", I am requesting an investigation of and potential enforcement against all three editors mentioned in this report.
Melechha requested assistance on my talk page after I warned them for adding a copyright violation to Siege of Ponda, possibly under the mistaken impression that I'm an administrator, saying that they were "tired of these vandalists like @ThePakistanihistorian and others for their external interests". I wasn't sure what they mean at first since they didn't link to the article under dispute or provide diffs, but a quick look at the editor interaction analyzer revealed a dispute on Battle of Sangamner. I explained to them that TPH's edits weren't vandalism and advised them to resolve the issue on the talk page or at an appropriate dispute resolution venue. Since several other parties appeared to be involved in that dispute, I posted contentious topic notifications on their talk pages. I also noted that they also seemed to be using the account Melechha2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and advised them of WP:SOCK, to which they replied Yes I have been using my alt for editng with PC.
Shortly afterward, two other parties to the dipsute (ThePakistanihistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Aryan330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) began commenting on my talk page. It's worth noting that Aryan330 is indefinitely p-blocked blocked by Black Kite from Mughal–Maratha Wars and has been warned by Abecedare for disruption on Draft:Battle of Umberkhind (an article at the time) and Battle of Pavan Khind. I repeatedly advised the two editors to instead discuss the matter on the article's talk page or at appropriate dispute resolution venues and refrain from accusing each other of vandalism, with little success. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also revert-warred on the article, although, to their credit, they engaged in discussion on the article's talk page without accusing anyone of vandalism. I only alerted them to the contentious topics procedures just now, which is an oversight on my part.
Since I'm not just requesting enforcement against Melechha, I've compiled diffs from the two other editors below. These diffs might not be exhaustive.
- Aryan330
- 17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Incivility:
did you have common knowledge about history atleast?
- 02:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Calling another user's edits "vandalism" after I'd warned them not to
- ThePakistanihistorian
- 05:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Accusing Meleccha of vandalism and stridently called for them to be sanctioned
- 8 August 2023 (UTC) Personal attack/WP:OWN:
don't you ever dare to rechange it again, like even the amateurs know that it's a mughal victory
- 8 August 2023 Personal attacks:
why are you being so sensitive about it, you are trying to be the victim here while you started this entire argument, do better.
I'm at my wit's end here. It's obvious that there's an intractable dispute going on that I don't have the necessary experience to deal with. It's very late in my timezone and I'll be fairly busy tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to reply here until 18:00 UTC. This is my first time participating at AE so I apologize if I've screwed up here. I'd also welcome feedback on my haphazard attempts to get the parties to resolve the dispute amongst themselves. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging Abecedare and Black Kite since I bungled the pings earlier. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Melechha
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 Melechha
Statement by Aryan330
First of all I had to say that there are some false allegations made by user samX as he said warned by Abecedare for disruption on Draft:Battle of Umberkhind (an article at the time) and Battle of Pavan Khind,which is untrue & I had told him at his talk page now,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169307732. I had started the discussion as the topic name "Vandalism" thought I apologise even after not knowing what my mistake was!I just reported @samX that :- user عبدالرحمن4132 is voilating three revert rule,nothing more than that. thought I shouldn't use the word like "Vandalism" as I already apologized about that in talk page of SamX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SamX I will not repeat the same. Thought the query I had raised,nothing wrong in that as user عبدالرحمن4132 had made 4 reverts in less than 48 hours https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sangamner&action=history this user is also warned by samX previously,see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169256728, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169300167. & It was my first & last edit on that page,I had neither edited further nor engaged in edit war as user عبدالرحمن4132 engaged. Now he is also making articles on by one by sticking to only one source jadunath sarkar which is pretty dated source & can't be used as citation.The senior Wikipedia users also said same the user Abecedare & RegentsPark also said the same,see :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1163841364. If one source is not considered as reliable & the user is creating articles one by one using that only source then as a Wikipedia user I had to raise a query & that what I done. Note:- I had not Disrupted the page seige of basavapattan as the user accusing me on false claims https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169305568. you can see that page where I even don't edited single time:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Basavapatan. He is adding wrong word "Disruption" as I just told him that his edits Is seems to be unconstructive & I will edit it soon & please don't distrib talk page of other user as he disturbed the talk page of Materialscientist & I just said to him that we can discuss it on that respective article & that's why I told him to come at page of basavapattan,see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169297504. About ThePakistanihistorian :- I had just commented that he had used abusive language for personal attack which was addressed by samX himself here. The issues raised by samX which are familiar with the issues I raised https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169288983https:/ ,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169292668, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169289164. Even after that I addressed him on his talk page,but rather than correcting a mistake,he warned me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169292668 Thank you
- @Abecedare First of all I was blocked for the things I do in past on the page mughal maratha wars which is only because of not knowing Wikipedia policies that time & thats over there.but that doesn't mean you can judge me on that basis!
- No one is completely neutral in whole Wikipedia because even on that page mughal maratha wars those two users Capitals00 & aman.kumar.goel were pro mughals or anti Maratha but black kite had blocked only me because that time I didn't know about Wikipedia policies.But now I am aware of that. You said about WP:RS applied
- to history articles, I wonder how you are saying that even by knowing that after that I was discussed about battle of Pavankhind in talk page without harming main article pag e? Even at last I didn't Edited if after knowing my mistake & realising what WP:RSis, especially releted to history articles
- Thats why I am convincing user عبدالرحمن4132 about his mistake in his latest created articles. that's other point that he is accusing me for Disruption rather than working on that or thanking me.
- My Condition Now :- I am totally aware of Wikipedia Policies,WP:RS especially releted to History articles.
- So think next time before talking about that.
- My role in this discussion:- This discussion is mainly because of 2 reasons.
- 1) Disruption on page Battle of Sangamner :- I had edited or reverted article section of that page only single time,while in talk page I written more than 3 comments.
- 2) Unnecessary Discussion on talk page of samX :- though I only reported about Disruption of user عبدالرحمن4132 because of violating Wikipedia three revert rule as he had made 4 reverts in less than 48 hours which is true & you can check this on article section of page of Battle of sangamner.The only mistake in whole I committed is I started the discussion with wrong topic name Vandalism as I should had write it as Disruption.this is the only mistake I done & speaking honestly this is not that very wrong thing I done as I accept my mistake but thats not that very wrong same as عبدالرحمن4132 done by violating that rule. Aryan330 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Editorkamran The word which you are claiming to be descrimnery is Mleccha. But that user is having the name Melechha which is not appearing to be related or as same as the word you mentioned Aryan330 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by ThePakistanihistorian
Statement by عبدالرحمن4132
Hello!
First of all, the user seems to have removed my sources, which prove that the Battle of Sangamner was a Mughal victory, and used a source that says otherwise. I fixed the article according to the source, but still to no avail. I've taken this to the talk page to discuss until the user, Melechha, accused me of being vandalistic and ignorant, assuming I'm committing bad faith on the article. He also assumed that one of the sources I've provided was not only that but said that one of my sources, which is Jadunath Sarkar, claimed he corrected his mistake in his fifth edition, and I've asked him to show me that fifth edition but never replied till now.
The other user, @Aryan330 had also begun disrupting my articles by removing the source in Battle of Shivneri Fort and Siege of Shivneri Fort, he also attempting to disrupt my article in future which I created Siege of Basavapatan , which is Jadunath Sarkar, who provides great military details about battles, claiming it is a dated source I don't know what that means, but you cannot remove sourced content just because you find an issue with him; otherwise, the reasoning he provides doesn't really make up for it, claiming the following in Battle of Pavan Khind talk page: & about this battle it should not as his works are primarily depend on persion sources and sardesai said that persion sources remained silent on this Battle for reputation.
Due to his bad English, I'm assuming he's talking about Persian sources, which he seems to have an issue with.
Statement by Editorkamran
Melechha should be blocked for username violation alone. His username is a slur used for foreigners. See this and also our page on Mleccha. Editorkamran (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Abecedare
Haven't taken a look at the current dispute that sparked this AE report although I have been pinged several times by various parties in the past few hours when I was offline.
Placing myself here since I have previously interacted with Aryan3000 (see here and here) and Melechha (see here) regarding sources/content and, IMO, neither seem to have an adequate grasp of WP:RS especially as applied to history articles. This combined with their obvious pro-Maratha leanings in the centuries old Maratha-Mughal wars (which unfortunately have relevance to religio-cultural wars in contemporary India and Pakistan) makes them somewhat of a time-sink in this topic area. This is not to absolve the other editors involved in the fracas whose conduct I haven't taken a look at. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by TB
A plague-on-both-your-houses-approach is needed, except for Editorkamran. Melechha needs an username-ban, as argued. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Result concerning Melechha
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Melechha is problematic in both username and editing. Indeffed them and their sock. This does not resolve this filing, though, despite its naming. Courcelles (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if a sourcing restriction would be beneficial on some of these Mughal–Maratha Wars articles. No restoring non-academic sources without consensus, something like that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Nishidani
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 Nishidani
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Nishidani (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/Palestine-Israel articles
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 15:49, 10 August 2023 "That is rubbish, a gross distortion, that's beginning to look deliberate."
- 06:08, 9 August 2023 "an insidiously obscure allusion to private interests motivating the former's work"
- 15:18, 6 August 2023 "It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote."
- 16:32, 1 August 2023"That innuendo in the title is the careless consequence of not thinking about, or even grasping, what the article writes up."
- 10:37, 8 August 2023"Whoops, there I go again, making a classical allusion that no one will understand. (]Wilamowitz once berated Lachmann for treating the Iliad as if it were "ein übles Flickwerk", a 'wretched patchwork'. There's nothing epic about this article, as opposed to the epical length of the talk page discussion."
- 09:30, 8 August 2023"Every day I talk for an hour, socially, with local tradesmen mates about how to fix things, any common piece of household technology. Mention some problem with the washer, or TV, or antennae, and they put their heads together and nut out one or two solutions. Some people at tables nearby use the occasions, as they listen in, to keep complaining about the cost of laundry, the taxes on televisions, the change in antennae frequency due to the incompetence of the group controlling transmissions."
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 14:33, 14 April 2019 "banned for a week...they are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others"
- 19:48, 13 March 2017 "Nishidani clearly violated the consensus required sanction placed by the Committee on all ARBPIA articles."
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Edit:I want to note that I'm not seeking any sort of ban. What I would like, in fact, is for the bludgeoning and hostility to cease so that editors on the talk page can make progress.
Nishidani has been making personal attacks, assuming bad faith, and casting aspersions on the talk page of Zionism, race, and genetics. Nishidani has also been intensively bludgeoning discussion. Of the last 50 talk page edits, Nishidani has added 76% of the content. While many of these edits are meaningful, a large number are strictly WP:FORUM, off-topic, non-sequiturs, or comments on their own comments that have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. Along with the personal attacks, the amount of noise and disruption caused by the WP:Forum talks and incessant bludgeoning has greatly increased the difficulty of organizing/working through information on the discussion page.
Another note, Nishidani was requested to stop bludgeoning by another editor a week ago. "you need to stop bludgeoning this discussion and leave room for other editors to participate."
The claims of "Stonewalling" have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. In fact the opposite is true. After I spent hours writing a detailed, 18 point list of article issues, Nishidani's response was as follows: "I don't know whether there's any point in replying to your points."
Yesterday I posted two concrete examples of article issues, Nishidani's response was first "Don't invent stuff that in rebuttal and counterrebuttal will jam this article with useless argufying.", and then ""That is rubbish, a gross distortion, that's beginning to look deliberate." Nishidani completely refuses to engage with any argument they have no interest in, and then claims that the person who has been making the argument is "stonewalling", which is absurd and demonstrably false. I do AGF though, because the talk page is so incredibly, overwhelmingly, muddled, that it is very hard to follow who has said what where. And yes Iskandar323, when editors refuse to engage with your points, and then have the audacity to accuse the users making the points of "stonewalling", it is reasonable to conclude that there is an impasse and request additional comments.
Edit: Whoa, at no point whatsoever did I accuse ANYONE of being antisemitic or of attacking Israelis. Full stop. I am more than tired of his false claims that I am making "innuendo" or an "insidiously obscure allusion" or whatever hidden message Nishidani chooses to read into my edits. Drsmoo (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Your reposting the link doesn't change the fact that I never accused anyone of being antisemitic or attacking Israelis. Full stop. Also, why are you linking to posts by Onceinawhile and attributing them to me? Drsmoo (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: I see I've gone well over 20 diffs. I wasn't aware of that rule, and over replied. I take umbrage at the repeated assertions that I'm transmitting "insidious" and "obscure allusion"(s). Drsmoo (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Nishidani
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 Nishidani
Josiah Ober recently published a very important book on the microfoundations of social order. In the overture he wrote that the ground on which our social intercourse is anchored consists of:-
'the self-conscious, deliberative use of reason as an instrument for the strategic pursuit of truth.'Josiah Ober, The Greeks and the Rational:The Discovery of Practical Reason, University of California Press 2022 ISBN 978-0-520-38017-2 p.1
The talk page from which Drsmoo's quotes are taken is intimidatingly long, and I apologize to Arbs that they are now obliged to read it. On it, I am responsible for 195,534 bytes. The evidence for my being severely sanctioned consists of 1184 bytes. Of which 801 (points 5 and 6) are immaterial (barrel-scraping). The gravamen of evidence consists of 380 bytes, ripped from context, but still technically, could be interpreted as indications that, in a dialogue imposed by WP:Consensus, I have lapsed in very rare moments from the strictest rules governing Wikipedia talk page dialogue. An editor must earnestly strive, whatever the differences, to find shared ground with those who disagree with them and not resort to snarky terminology, however frustrated by an intransigent stonewalling (that is what is going on, in my view) insouciant of all attempts to use logic and evidence to validate erratic claims. I take this obligation to engage very seriously. If someone disagrees on what I might think patently obvious, factual or logical, I will go to any length (unfortunately) to show at least why I think the refusal to find common ground in each instance is unreasoned. So we have 380 bytes of 195,335. If someone who is searching for a ban combs hard enough, they will find that there is fine grit for ridding Wikipedia of me in 0.194% of what I wrote there.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Drsmoo. I noticed from reading your latest diff that you quoted a statement of mine, whose meaning in context is clear, but 'garbled' (I plead fatigue). I've corrected it now. You may like to tweak your diff to allow arbs to read it as corrected. I have several diffs to show why that statement was truthful, going back to 8 July. But I will withhold them for the moment, unless they are requested.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- A further point. Scruple demanded I examine my edits for any evidence that might lend itself to the charge you are laying. I found one piece you missed. I used the word 'balderdash' in replying to Bobfrombrockley here. Bob might disagree, but I am under the impression our wiki relationship has been sufficiently productive and cordial to allow that kind of remonstrative exclamation. He's welcome to correct me if I err.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, this is a personal attack - stating that my asking 'What's the problem?' bears a 'tone' you find offensive - by your own criterion, as is the inference that I have a ‘‘chronic ..aggressive disdain for other editors’. You are using the very language you find evidence for deploring in me. Nishidani (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, this is a personal attack - stating that my asking 'What's the problem?' bears a 'tone' you find offensive - by your own criterion, as is the inference that I have a ‘‘chronic ..aggressive disdain for other editors’. You are using the very language you find evidence for deploring in me. Nishidani (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- A further point. Scruple demanded I examine my edits for any evidence that might lend itself to the charge you are laying. I found one piece you missed. I used the word 'balderdash' in replying to Bobfrombrockley here. Bob might disagree, but I am under the impression our wiki relationship has been sufficiently productive and cordial to allow that kind of remonstrative exclamation. He's welcome to correct me if I err.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I used the word ‘stonewalling’. I had in mind Drsmoo's repeating for an entire month, the same opinion, with variations, regardless of considerable efforts to disabuse him of his belief that evidence from researchers amounted to a disparaging attack on both the researchers ('genetic studies on Jews are 'Zionist' etc)and Israelis. He made this claim first here, then here, and here (the innuendo is that the very article is antisemitic). See also here, here,here, here, and here.
A full month later, he was still repeating it to Pharos, ignoring every disproof or request for evidence in the interim. Apparently it is I who bludgeons people. Nishidani (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Andrevan
I know Nishidani writes a lot of brilliant prose but they can be abrasive, and should rein it in. See here. This has a similar look - accusing their interlocutor of being too dense to understand what complexities lie within their expertise. That's bullying, and it's not appropriate. Andre🚐 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- To response to Nableezy: I did not seek to upbraid or sanction Nishidani. I simply attempted to engage with them on their objection, to which they questioned my literacy and competence in a way that was incivil. That is my concern and it is certainly repeated here. Andre🚐 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just want to reiterate that I have great respect for logical debate. But Nishidani too frequently departs from the abstract nature of the discussion into the realm of accusation and of characterization of the opponent's ability to read, their ability to understand, and in dismissing others' views in an uncharitable and incivil way. It's quite reasonable to delve into a complex and rational argument and attack an opposing viewpoint, even aggressively. It is not reasonable to say something along the lines of, hey man you don't even seem to be able to read. The line being crossed is not one of tone. Nobody is being the tone police or punishing long-windedness. It's about crossing a line where you say I think you're being deliberately dense and I'm asking if something is wrong with you. Andre🚐 04:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Iskandar323
There is no explanation above of how the diffs presented violate anything, neither any behavioural policy, far less CT sanctions. Mildly abrasive responses about people's editing are not personal attacks, and this has nothing to do with WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Given that this page is already under discussion at ANI, that would have been the place, if anywhere, to raise this rather low-level complaint. In the context of that discussion being ongoing, this filing has the taste of an attempted punitive/retributive action and if anything should boomerang as a waste of community time. Given that the OP is very actively and self-evidently stonewalling discussions on the page, the overall lack of respect for community time is becoming an issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo: The second diff is not even on a CT page, but is simply the post on ANI, which is already visible to anyone who cares, and any administrator considering it sanctionable is already able to act upon it there. However, the burden for personal attacks is somewhat higher at ANI, as that is precisely the venue where editors got to lay their complaints, making it different from off-topic griping on an article talk page, because at ANI the topic is gripes. Per the first diff, I would say that "beginning to look deliberate" is an accurate characterization of many of your behaviours on the talk page, including your refusal to provide the feedback on what you think merits a POV tag - a bare minimum level of input about which you have been largely unforthcoming, e.g.: here, where instead editors have to follow you on the logically circuitous journey of you refusing to provide feedback, accusing others of failing to respond to your feedback and attacking you for it (and themselves being the problem), then declaring there is an impasse (here because you refuse to provide feedback), before concluding that the only way to get any feedback (in the absence of any from you) is via RFC. This was basically where I gave up on the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier
Before this turns into an ANI page, responders should keep their comments within their own sections. For the sake of good order, filer is subject of a complaint at ANI filed by Nishidani here. I do not see where any complaint has been raised by filer at Nishidani talk page? Atm, this appears a tit for tat filing and the charges without merit or at the very least any such charges can be leveled at least equally at the filer.Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
Andre, seems odd to bring that up when Nishidani was indeed correct that you were misconstruing what he said, despite his repeated attempts to explain it. See here for you accepting how you had so blatantly misunderstood what he said, took offense based on your misunderstanding, and then attempted to upbraid him on the basis of that misunderstanding. So yeah, seems similar indeed. Nishidani attempts to explain his position, citing a plethora of sources, somebody takes offense to something that he didnt say, and then seeking to sanction them based on their misconstrual, purposeful or otherwise, of what he did say. nableezy - 13:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish
To get this out of the way first, let me stipulate that a couple weeks ago I posted this: [2], but then quickly did this: [3], and said this: [4].
This AE thread will rapidly become a wall of text, so per WP:2WRONGS, I suggest that any complaints about Drsmoo be handled in a separate AE section. I also suggest seeing the ANI thread that Swarm links to below.
I've been thinking for a while about taking Nishidani to AE myself. I've held back, largely because Nishidani has been doing some very good content work on the page itself, and I didn't want to step on that. But I think those revisions are largely done now, and based upon Nishidani's repeated disruption of the article talk page, I'm inclined to think that either a page ban or a logged warning are warranted.
Here are diffs of my own, all from the article talk page:
- [5] "It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote."
- [6], [7] "Proposing titles that suggest different articles is pointless." In a discussion by multiple other editors brainstorming in good faith about a possible page rename, where Nishidani alone is repeatedly trying to shut the discussion down.
- [8] "Have you read Alice in Wonderland? Just wondering."
- [9] After accusing me and other editors of "That innuendo in the title is the careless consequence of not thinking about, or even grasping, what the article writes up", he claims that he is merely exercising "a right to reason with the editor concerned."
- [10] It's everyone else's fault, not his.
- [11] "If you can't grasp the point, fine."
- [12] Sarcasm.
- [13] "Frankly, Bob, that's balderdash".
Nishidani is an experienced editor, and he knows that there are two Contentious Topics in effect (the other one is Race and Intelligence), and being "right" on the content issues is no excuse. I don't mind a one-off loss of temper, but this is a chronic pattern, and the aggressive disdain for other editors is getting in the way of finding consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Onceinawhile
Nishidani has a unique communication style, which doesn’t work for everyone, but for many of us brings a thought provoking, fresh and enjoyable editing environment. Not least because the vast majority of his edits and talk comments are thorough and source-based, and one almost always learns something new from reading them. Drsmoo has a very different style, often making short comments with thematic claims and rarely with specific evidence. Wikipedia has many editors of both types, and it is natural that these two extremes will struggle to see eye-to-eye.
I do think Drsmoo should have held the same lens up to his own comments in this month-long article discussion before opening this thread. For example, each of these four statements from earlier in the same discussion seem materially more abrasive that the diffs he provided: The entire article is… synthd together to push a POV. // And this is why the article is WP:SYNTH, first comes the opinion, and then search for keywords in Google scholar to try to support it… then slop it into the article; rinse, repeat.. // article is a collection of cherry picked sources WP:SYNTHd together to push a POV narrative // Were you sitting there pressing refresh and waiting to undo? If so, this takes tag-teaming to a new level. (the second sentence of this last one was struck through after I pointed it out).
Uninvolved editors are better placed than me to judge the merits of the competing claims (per Tryptofish and Swarm’s reference to the earlier ANI thread claiming stonewalling by Drsmoo). What is clear though is that only one of the two parties to these two disagreements has so far shown signs of introspection, reflection and consideration for the other’s perspective. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000
Concerning Drsmoo's second diff, "insidiously obscure allusion to private interests motivating the former’s work", that was 100% Drsmoo's own fault. Twice Drsmoo claimed that Onceinawhile and SelfStudier are not allowed to remove tags due to a "conflict of interest". Nishidani reasonably assumed that a highly experienced editor like Drsmoo would know what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia and that Drsmoo was accusing one or both those editors of "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". That would indeed be an insidious allusion to private interests and would deserve a rebuke. I don't in the least blame Nishidani for this misunderstanding prompted by Drsmoo's ignorance. Zerotalk 08:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Result concerning Nishidani
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Zionism, race and genetics, which contains a write up of the situation, and a formal complaint that Drsmoo is the hostile actor on that article who is endlessly propagating the dispute after failing to have the article deleted. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmoo and Nishidani: You're both past the word limit. I'll grant an extra 250 words each, which puts Nishidani just barely under and leaves Drsmoo still 150 over. But as a matter of equity, Drsmoo, if you don't make any further replies, I won't enforce the word limit against what you've written so far.As to the merits, this is the second time this in a month that this same article has wound up here. Last time I removed Drsmoo's comment for casting aspersions. So I don't have a lot of patience for this dispute, personally. Right now it looks to me like the best approach would be a one-month page-ban (article and talk) for both Drsmoo and Nishidani. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Wikieditor1234567123
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Landkomtur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- WikiEditor1234567123 (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:ARBEE
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- First He removed every single mention of this clan/society being Chechen without consensus in the talk page with other users.
- second He removes this clan from the teip list of Chechen clans without any explanation .
- third After his previous edit was undone he again removes the clan from the teip list of Aukh Chechen clans, again without any explanation not consensus.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Wikieditor1234567123 engages in nationalistic POV pushing, he was warned for doing this while using folklore in the previous wp:ae. What the previous wp:ae didn't discuss in detail was his removal of Chechen related information like I have posted above. He seems to think that he can delete information related to Chechens without consensus, recently almost a month ago right after the previous wp:ae case he deleted an entire section about Chechens in the Fyappi article without asking anyone in the talk page. Previously he has TWICE removed information about this Chechen clan from the teip list. He acknowledged that he is in the wrong here but this seems to be a common theme. He tries to twist articles into his POV but when he gets called out he apologizes and tries to play it off, playing the good faith of the moderators. It is important to note that he did this TWICE after another user undid his edit, the more recent change was undone just 4 days ago here. Now after an admin suggested I make this wp:ae report Wikieditor apparently changed his mind and brought back the Chechen mention here I am not sure how much I can write in here but previous WP:AE cases against him paints a clear picture of his intentions. I can not fit everything in here, but you can even check his contribution history, this user clearly is engaging in sort of nationalistic POV pushing. This person even goes as far as swapping Chechens with Ingush name positions (!), regardless of the alphabetical order, nor population sizes of those nations. Doesn't this behavior warrant a sanction or a ban?
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion about WikiEditor1234567123
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 WikiEditor1234567123
- I removed the section "Aukh Fyappiy" because I was thinking of making a separate article, as I made it clear with the quote: "This will need it's own article". I was literally the one who added the section in the article (see here) and at the time I had removed it temporarily to make an article for it, there was no other ppl who contributed to the article so who should I have first discussed the matter with?? For now didn't have the time to make the article so it was like that for a while. I literally didn't see a problem with separating the two terms--Fyappin society and teip Vyappiy (which originated from the former as indicated by it's name)--because after this there wouldn't be any confusion. Landkomtur, on the other hand, is trying to make it seem as if I removed this section temporarily because it mentions Chechens and is villainizing me. I added it back after discussing with an other user, but also realizing that if the section is that small, then it wouldn't be a proper article. I didn't add it back because admin suggested WP:AE or anything. Regarding the teip list, I had forgot I had removed it, I deeply apologize that I removed it and explained myself in my talk page. I most likely removed it in haste because I thought the Fyappiy (society) were mentioned as Chechen. Similarly I recently, in a haste, accidentally reverted user Muqale's edit, when I thought he added a biased source (here reverted back when I realized I made a mistake). Either way, I wouldn't remove the Vyappiy teip from the list because I thought it wasn't also Chechen, when in the earlier existed section "Aukh Fyappiy" I made it clear that it's a Chechen-Ingush teip. Furthermore this removal happened in March-April, 4–5 months ago, I don't think it's fair to pull up mistakes from very far ago and then punish a person for them. People make mistakes and change. (WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC))
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Wikieditor1234567123
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.