Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive293) (bot |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |
||
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} |
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} |
||
==Boodlesthecat== |
|||
{{hat|Boodlesthecat is indefinitely topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (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 Boodlesthecat=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Gwennie-nyan}} 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boodlesthecat}}<p>{{ds/log|Boodlesthecat}}</p> |
|||
<!--- 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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Remedies]] (primarily) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Remedies]] (secondarily) |
|||
<!--- 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 : |
|||
<!-- 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 You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs.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.--> |
|||
{{A note}} All times provided for diffs are in CDT, not UTC |
|||
#[[Special:Permalink/1042997061|15:47, September 7, 2021]] first disruptive talk comment, claims individuals using the term [[TERF]] to describe others as "people who barely have a clue what they are talking about and know nothing about feminist history". Then compares situation to Palestine and Zionism. (Note, reasons for previous blocks in how they relate to Israel-Palestine.) |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043017030|18:02, September 7, 2021]] reply to admin {{u|TheresNoTime}}, beginning escalation in harsh, disruptive tone |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043029432|19:42, September 7, 2021]] accuses other editors of [[WP:POVPUSH|pov-pushing]] due to reverting their contentious edit |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043030662|19:51, September 7, 2021]] again, comparison of those who use "TERF" to "Iranian government propagandists often attack anyone who criticizes them as 'Zionists'" |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043043628|21:28, September 7, 2021 ]] calls into question reliable sources because based on initial information, they reported on the possibility that the incident was a hoax, which they refer to as an "apparently false narrative". Goes on the mock radical feminist and right-wing group comparisons despite reliable sourcing discussing the two groups in tandem (both online and in-person). Accuses other editors to trying to perpetuate "the hoax angle, by using the TERF slur", trying to setup opposition to Christianity and cisgender women. |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043063453|00:11, September 8, 2021]] harsh slippery-slope response to good-faith question regarding the usage of the term [[TERF]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043132889|09:19, September 8, 2021]] continued harsh replies from previous diff |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043134852|09:33, September 8, 2021]] continued harsh strawman arguments not conducive to constructive discussion |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043137421|09:49, September 8, 2021]] personal attack against me after unrelated reply to {{u|Crossroads}} who I was thanking for agreeing with my proposal and noting, as he did, how the talk page could use less [[WP:SOAPBOX]]/[[WP:FORUM]], accusing me of trying to own the page and rigidly-control editing to suit my own biases |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043141534|10:15, September 8, 2021]] purveying a strawman argument in response to a [[Special:Diff/1043104596|reply of mine to another user]] for why I don't really think we should try to utilize/cite specific subsections of a social media platform which the article's RS state contributed to the spread of the incident itself, again calling our RS fabrications and calling a deprecated source more credible than our current ones |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043345624|11:35, September 9, 2021]] calls this AE request itself "gratuitous", claims current wording based on RS pushes false narratives, ignores RS, tries to pin blame to a specific group ("the Antifa camp") while ignoring we have RS specifically discussing that faction's actions, claiming it's probably related to the groups who stormed the Capitol, specifically calls me (Gwennie-nyan) out and casts aspersions (added 02:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)) |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1043955386|16:28, September 12, 2021]] claims this AE is "specious" and a personal attack alleging that I am trying to trick them into edit warring (added 23:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)) |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive22#User:Boodlesthecat|2008 AE Block]] Boodles was blocked (at 04:11, December 23, 2008) for 1 year due to "heavily flaming and creating a disruptive, uncivil environment" |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/245078019|16:07, October 13, 2008]] they were previously blocked for personal attacks and incivilty |
|||
# User has other blocks due to edit warring, disruptive editing, and hostility |
|||
;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. --> |
|||
* [[Special:Diff/1043008172|16:53, September 7, 2021]] {{u|AntiCompositeNumber}} informed them of [[WP:GENSEX]] D/s on user's talk page |
|||
* [[Special:Permalink/1042976839|13:36, September 7, 2021]] At time of first post on [[Talk:Wi Spa controversy]], D/s alerts for both GENSEX and AP2 were clearly visible |
|||
* [[Special:Diff/1043011952|17:22, September 7, 2021]] admin {{u|TheresNoTime}} commented in-section to make everyone aware of D/s |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
Boodles appears to be an editor that used to be [[xtools:ec/en.wikipedia.org/Boodlesthecat#year-counts|primarily active in 2008]]. After review of considerable complaints logged against them on talk pages, ANI, and eventually AE, of which resulted in multiple blocks and restrictions, I felt in the community's best interest to file this report. Since their return to active status, it appears to me, as much as I try to assume good faith, that the prior behavior patterns have not changed. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">🐈</span></span>]]⦅[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]⦆ 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[[Special:Diff/1043248248|22:51, September 8, 2021 (CDT)]] - Notified. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">🐈</span></span>]]⦅[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]⦆ 03:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Boodlesthecat=== |
|||
<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 Boodlesthecat==== |
|||
Happy to have all my cited edits reviewed in this specious complaint, as well as any review of my actions 13 years ago when I (practically single-handedly, and successfully) battled a cabal of antisemitic editors who had turned multiple articles on Eastern European Jewry into cesspools of Jew hatred. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 20:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:PS: Despite poring through my every utterance, where I've never once ever stated or hinted at my gender, {{u|Gwennie-nyan}} managed to misgender me in this jeremiad. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Above, quite clearly. "''19:42, September 7, 2021 accuses other editors of pov-pushing due to reverting her contentious edit.'' I wonder what led you to the conclusion that I was a her. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Reply to {{u|Isabelle Belato}}: Seems you and a few others equate "I disagree with you" with [[WP:SOAPBOXING]]. Oh well. |
|||
*You say most academics don't consider "TERF" a slur. Therefore, some do. As well, many non-academics consider it a slur. Academics aren't the arbiters of what is or isn't considered offensive by a group of people. My argument that some who it's directed at consider it a slur is reason for not using it as a descriptor. If I had to keep repeating that, it's due to the [[WP:IDHT]] attitude you accuse ''me'' of. And if TERF is considered a slur against a group of people, by definition, it's entirely valid to compare it to other slurs. |
|||
*I 100% stand by my comment that this entry was "subtly trying to discredit the women who made the complaints." |
|||
*No one asked me for sources. Feel free to ask. |
|||
reply to {{u|WanderingWanda}}: What exactly is "inflammatory rhetoric" about giving an example of ''"an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be"''? How you would phrase her POV? Is she to be treated as a racist for having an aversion to penises while she is naked? Even is she has PTSD from rape? Is she to be considered mentally ill, the way some try to treat trans people? |
|||
Is the problem saying "biological woman?" What should I call her? Would a different term make her a different person? She's still who she is. Or are we trying to erase her? [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Reply to {{u|Isabelle Belato}} Google TERF SLUR. It's a lively debate in the ''real world.'' It wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't opposing camps. It's not for academics, WIKI, you, or I to decide for some women what they consider to be a slur when directed at them. That's ugly patriarchal authoritarianism. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 04:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Reply to {{u|Deepfriedokra}} |
|||
You write ''I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable WP:COI in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an encyclopedia. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both'' |
|||
I find this attribution to some supposed emotional state on my part offensive. I have made fact based arguments for every edit I have made, discussed at length on the talk pages, and have engaged with editors who are obstinate in preferring their POV rather than simple facts. |
|||
My offending "penises" comment, if you read what I wrote in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy#TERF_is_considered_by_some_to_be_derogatory|in the talk page], was in the context of the use of the term "TERF" as being seen as a slur by some. I gave the example of it being tossed at ''an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be.'' Are you saying such women don't exist? Or if they exist, we cannot describe them in simple English because the very words used to describe this woman is somehow offensive to some? How would you describe such a woman? Perhaps one who is a rape survivor who is triggered by penises/male genitalia? |
|||
Similar, ideological/personal biases of ''other'' editors insist on blocking simple, factual mention that the LAPD has both considered the suspect to be a male, and cannot confirm their gender identity. So, due to biases of editors, we supposedly cannot say something like "the LAPD has described the suspect as male" even though it is a naked fact, and entirely pertinent to the police claim that the suspect pretends to be trans to commit sex crimes in women's spaces, and likely hints at what the prosecution will be claiming. I've simply countered, through discussion, the reality that we can't change actual salient facts (LAPD is claiming the suspect is male) simply because someone doesn't like that. That's something to take up with the LAPD. Changing facts in WP is not the way to for these "emotionally engaged" editors to deal with their feelings. |
|||
I would appreciate it if people commenting on this case and recommending some sort of sanctions would deal with the facts, rather than their own "visceral" "emotionally engaged" responses before supporting arbitrary, one side actions. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 21:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Gwennie-nyan==== |
|||
A reply to {{u|Johnuniq}}. Regarding the facts of the incident, as our sources say, the spread both online and developments of ensuing protests of the incident were specifically noted repeatedly as right-wing and trans-exclusive feminist spaces online. The explainer, which you said you felt is gratuitous, was supported by a few other editors in lieu of directly linked {{tq|trans-exclusive feminists}} to [[TERF]], which was seen as insulting by Boodles and a couple others, so it was changed. In interests of NPOV, the akas are include specifically to link and explain common synonyms for the ideological group. TERF and gender-critical feminists are the two [[WP:COMMONNAME]]s for the group. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">🐈</span></span>]]⦅[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]⦆ 11:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Re {{u|Boodlesthecat}} on misgendering. Where? I default to they/them pronouns. The people in your last AE referred to you as he. However I don't know your gender or pronouns. I did mention "he" in regards to Crossroads, however. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">🐈</span></span>]]⦅[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]⦆ 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: Ah I see that typo. Has been fixed. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">🐈</span></span>]]⦅[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]⦆ 16:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I would also submit the uncivil behavior of Boodles at this venue, specifically [[Special:Diff/1043448643|at 23:31, September 9, 2021 (CDT)]] in which they assert that a fellow editor is not living in the {{tq|real world}} and does not in any way AGF in said editor's comments. Also, in the same keystroke to negate the role of academics in understanding things is expressly contrary to a foundational aspect of the wiki, that is quality, reliable sourcing, as well as a NPOV, which academics often provide as secondary and tertiary sources. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">🐈</span></span>]]⦅[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]⦆ 00:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|Johnuniq}} given it has been a few days, I am curious if your current comment is your final word on this matter. Boodles [[Special:Diff/1043945974/1043948316|has taken your initial comment]] as permission to begin modifying the page to suit their wishes over the current page consensus, calling this request "without merit" and claiming I filed it for the purposes of "harassment and intimidation", claiming I've made no responses or modifications in light of your comment. I find the continual aspersions being cast very hurtful. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">🐈</span></span>]]⦅[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]⦆ 21:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
(Responding to {{u|GorillaWarfare}}'s request for feedback regarding proposed sanctions.) I feel that currently the page would be served best by individual user sanctions (per this request) and also page-based sanctions at [[Wi Spa controversy]]. Regarding user sanctions, I support the proposed topic ban, broadly construed. Regarding the page sanctions, I think to minimize battleground and edit-warring, 1RR should be implemented and, should that not work, GW's proposed consensus-only modification can be then put in place. [[User:Gwennie-nyan|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~'''Gwennie'''<span style="margin-left:3px">🐈</span></span>]]⦅[[User_talk:Gwennie-nyan|💬]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwennie-nyan|📋]]⦆ 10:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by TheresNoTime==== |
|||
Responding solely to acknowledge the mentions above - I am probably [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] at this point, so I will make no further comment than to remind everyone that ''[[WP:CIVIL|civility is required and expected]]'' ~[[User:TheresNoTime|TNT]] (she/they • [[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]]) 20:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Isabelle Belato ==== |
|||
{{u|Boodlesthecat}} continuous [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and [[WP:IDHT]] attitude have turned the talk page of the article into a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Despite most participants agreeing on suggestions to improve the wording (first by removing TERF, then by adding "a.k.a."), Boodlesthecat continued on their [[WP:SOAPBOXING]]. The diffs cover mostly the parts of the conversation where I was involved. After the last diff, I decided to bow out. |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=1042997061&oldid=1042992162] Despite two users (myself and {{u|Firefangledfeathers}}) agreeing with the removal of TERF while maintaining "trans-excluding feminist", Boodlesthecat decides to keep [[WP:SOAPBOXING]] with anecdotes about the usage of TERF. |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=1043017030&oldid=1043011952] Boodlesthecat complains about false equivalences to TNT, while doing the same themselves: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=1043063453&oldid=1043058537 equating TERF to "nigger" and "tranny"] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=1043134852&oldid=1043132889 to any number of slurs against non-straight, non-white, non-male folks]; |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=1043029432&oldid=1043026576] Boodlesthecat cites the [[TERF]] article to affirm that {{tpq|many consider [TERF] derogatory}}, ignoring that the article also says most academics do not believe the word can be classified as a slur, which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=1043036627&oldid=1043034159 I pointed to them (as well as explaining terms like this need to be sourced, which is the case)], and they ignored for the remainder of the discussion; |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=1043043628&oldid=1043036627] Boodlesthecat proceeds to question the reliability of the sources and begins casting aspersions on the major contributors (mostly Gweenie-nyan) by saying that {{tpq|this article as also subtly trying to discredit the women who made the complaints and subtly perpetrate the hoax angle, by using the TERF slur, by making a point that the main complainant was "Christian" (wink wink, we know how hateful they can be!), pointing out that they are "cis" (to subtly set up an opposition to transwomen)}}, ignoring the fact that those are all supported by sources (and is no different than pointing any other group of a person in the case of a hate crime or similar cases); |
|||
At no point do they provide any sources to whatever it is they are trying to argue. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🔔]]</sup></small> 21:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Boodlesthecat}}: See [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[Wikipedia:Talk dos and don'ts]], specifficaly {{tpq|Present evidence}}. Repeating "many people think this" is not evidence. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🔔]]</sup></small> 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by WanderingWanda==== |
|||
Note this inflammatory rhetoric from Boodlesthecat about trans women in the restroom: {{tq|an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=1043132889] |
|||
''Slate'' magazine [https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/11/anti-trans-bathroom-propaganda-has-roots-in-racial-segregation.html once wrote] that scaremongering about trans people in bathrooms echos racist rhetoric about how Black men supposedly pose a {{tq|sexual danger for white women in bathrooms}}. |
|||
The new [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct Universal Code of Conduct] forbids {{tq|discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are}}. [[User:WanderingWanda|WanderingWanda🐮👑]] ([[User talk:WanderingWanda|talk]]) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Colin M==== |
|||
I just want to respond to {{u|GorillaWarfare}}'s comment about the reversions on this article. I think the recent work on the article has fallen in line pretty well with the pattern of [[WP:BRD]], and editors have been good about voluntarily bringing disputes to talk rather than edit warring (though some incivility has sometimes crept into talk discussions, which is unfortunate). I guess there have been a lot of reverts, but each one has generally been concerned with a different piece of content, rather than there being any specific content that's being repeatedly added and removed back and forth. I don't personally see a [[WP:CRP|CRP]] restriction as being necessary at this time. [[User:Colin M|Colin M]] ([[User talk:Colin M|talk]]) 01:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by FormalDude==== |
|||
Boodles disruptive behavior is growing and they need to be banned from gender related topics as they clearly cannot maintain a neutral point of view with their editing in those topics. This is evidenced by their numerous [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]-like disputes at [[Talk:Wi Spa controversy]] where they refuse to [[WP:IDONTGETIT|get the point]]. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';font-size:100%">FormalDude</span>]] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2px 3.5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span> 04:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Boodlesthecat=== |
|||
:''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. --> |
|||
*Possibly I need to be re-educated but I find it hard to understand the concerns raised in this request. The lead at [[Wi Spa controversy]] currently has a completely gratuitous "({{Aka}} [[gender-critical]] feminists or [[TERF]]s)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Not going to comment on the "TERF" vs. "gender critical" vs. [whatever other options were suggested] dispute, since that's a content question that should be left to the article talk page.{{pb}}There is definitely some [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior from Boodlesthecat here, which appears to be worsening over time. I am also somewhat concerned with Boodlesthecat's attitude towards source reliability shown in the 10:15, September 8 diff and edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=1043932309&oldid=1043932069]. However I'm not sure anything here rises to the level of sanctions, so I would just warn Boodles to try not to let their personal opinions influence their evaluation of sources, encourage them to provide reliable sources for any content arguments they're going to make (specifically avoiding unsourced comments like 11:35, September 9; no one should ''have'' to ask you to provide sources on Wikipedia as you've suggested above), and ask them to stop with the accusations of dogmatism and bad faith against other editors on the page.{{pb}}Besides the specific conduct complaint here, I am seeing a ''lot'' of reverting happening on that page<s>—nothing passing 3RR as far as I can see, but certainly getting close.</s> I am inclined to introduce a [[WP:CRP|consensus required]] discretionary sanction there to try to force discussion over reversion, but would be interested to hear from both the involved parties and any other admins about whether they think that would be beneficial. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 23:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:I see Boodles was actively editing the article as I wrote that, and I note two instances where they appear to be attempting to insert references to the suspect as male wherever possible: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=1043974111&oldid=1043971100&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wi_Spa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=1043974111&diffmode=source]. Perhaps a gender topic ban would be in order. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 00:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::I am placing a 24-hour [[WP:PBLOCK|partial block]] on [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] to stem the ongoing edit warring, since they don't seem willing to discuss changes and achieve consensus ''first'' before reimplementing contested content. This is just a temporary action while I wait for more admin input here, and should not be taken to be the final outcome of this AE. The pblock applies to the [[Wi Spa controversy]] article, but does not prevent them from participating at the talk page. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::As I have noted at [[User talk:Boodlesthecat#Unblock]], it concerns me that the battleground conduct appears to be escalating (including bad faith and aspersions against the AE filer, against ColinM, and now against an uninvolved admin who weighed in here), and with no apparent understanding that there are any issues with their own conduct. I'm still thinking that a topic ban might be most appropriate here, though I am concerned that the battleground behavior might just reoccur in whichever topic area they find next. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 22:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: {{yo|GorillaWarfare}} Boodles has been here a long time and has thousands of edits. She should be fine in areas that are less upsetting. We can always revisit if needed. But I'd like not to lose a constructive editor if possible. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 01:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Right, the last bit is more of a musing—I don't think a broader sanction is justified at this point. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 01:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:Closing this with an indefinite topic ban from the standard gender topic area ("all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people", broadly construed), given general agreement among the admins who've weighed in. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable [[WP:COI]] in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an ''encyclopedia''. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 17:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&type=revision&diff=1044125880&oldid=1044118684&diffmode=source Yeah. IMHO, a lot of emotional engagement about the subject in question. Again, might need to try editing in other areas]. I'll defer to the judgement of other uninvolved admins, but this is how I see it. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 19:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::For some reason they copied that message to my talk page just now. Just noting that I've advised them to leave any AE-related comments at AE: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare&type=revision&diff=1044134337&oldid=1044130227&diffmode=source] [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 19:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Their behavior in this area is clearly well below the standards an area under discretionary sanctions is held to. They have been on Wikipedia long enough to know this is not appropriate so I don't think education is going to change the situation. I suggest that they should avoid this area so that they may focus in area that they are less problematic in. I agree with Deepfriedokra that they will not be able to do this without outside help so I think a topic ban for at least some duration is in order. As to the scope of that ban, I am not entirely sure how broad it would need to be. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 10:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==TheGunGuru73== |
|||
{{hat|TheGunGuru73 blocked indef as a normal admin action by Tedder. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 09:25, 14 September 2021 (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 TheGunGuru73=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|FDW777}} 09:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|TheGunGuru73}}<p>{{ds/log|TheGunGuru73}}</p> |
|||
<!--- 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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control]] |
|||
<!--- 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 : |
|||
<!-- 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=National_Firearms_Act&diff=prev&oldid=1043277831 08:12, 9 September 2021] Adds claim that the [[National Firearms Act]] is unconstitutional, this apparently refers to a lower court ruling that was struck down by the Supreme Court |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Firearms_Act&diff=prev&oldid=1043283222 09:00, 9 September 2021] Edit warring to reinstate the prior edit |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Firearms_Act&diff=prev&oldid=1043283604 09:03, 9 September 2021] Edit warring to reinstate the prior edit |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15_style_rifle&diff=prev&oldid=1043280179 08:35, 9 September 2021] Adds selective claim to lead, there are numerous stats cited at [[AR-15 style rifle#Use in crime and mass shootings]] regarding their use in mass shooting |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15_style_rifle&diff=prev&oldid=1043282992 08:58, 9 September 2021] Reinstates the edit despite it being a violating of the page restrction at [[Template:Editnotices/Page/AR-15 style rifle]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGunGuru73&diff=prev&oldid=1043283695 09:04, 9 September 2021] {{tq|How about just leave it alone? I know more about gun laws than you do}} |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
n/as |
|||
;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:TheGunGuru73&oldid=1043282455 Notified] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
Editor was given two opportunities at [[User talk:TheGunGuru73]] to self-revert, but refused. Their username is obviously problematic. |
|||
:Note that since their block the editor has continued their disruption at a new article, claiming that the [[Firearm Owners Protection Act]] was unconstitutional [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1043782747 here] then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1043785749 edit warring] after that change was reverted. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 08:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheGunGuru73&type=revision&diff=1043284693&oldid=1043283695 Notified] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning TheGunGuru73=== |
|||
<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 TheGunGuru73==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
====Statement by (slatertsteven)==== |
|||
I agree we should not bite the Newbies, but their edits, their attitude and their user name all scream [[wp:nothere]]. So I agree we should wait, I also think they will end up getting sanctioned or leave when they do not get their way.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning TheGunGuru73=== |
|||
:''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. --> |
|||
*I'm reluctant to sanction a new editor (account created 9 September 2021) but something will have to happen if similar problems continue. {{ping|TheGunGuru73}} It should not be a surprise that the topic is controversial. At Wikipedia, that means disagreements '''must''' be calmly discussed on the article talk page with arguments based on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If there is any continuation of edit warring or [[WP:OR|original research]] you will be sanctioned. That might be a topic ban or possibly just an administrator's indefinite block. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* As an aside, the editor in question received a two-day edit-warring block earlier today from {{noping|PhilKnight}}. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm rather concerned that {{u|TheGunGuru73}} came off of a block for edit warring and went immediately back to the same edit warring, and seems to have ignored the advice of other editors in terms of reviewing policy. I'm also rather concerned by this diff in particular ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGunGuru73&diff=prev&oldid=1043283695]), as it seems TheGunGuru73 seems to think it is acceptable to edit the article based upon one's personal knowledge or views rather than the best available sources. An inability or unwillingness to listen to other editors combined with a rather aggressive attitude may indicate a poor fit either in that particular topic area, or with Wikipedia in general, but I hope that can be moderated. I certainly would encourage this editor to comment here at some point to indicate if any of this is getting through (if you're unsure how to do that, leave the comment you'd like to make on my talk page and I'll move it here). [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't see where anyone educated them about unsourced/poorly sourced edits. I'll see what I can do. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 01:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:Did what I could. They do look [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 01:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Iskandar323== |
==Iskandar323== |
Revision as of 04:18, 22 September 2021
Iskandar323
Iskandar323 receives a logged warning to take into account page and other restrictions due to discretionary sanctions--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Iskandar323
The user was given a chance to self-revert and he still can but he refuses to do so[5]. The user also violated WP:NPA when he was told that he broken the rules. For me it seems that this editor is uncapable to edit is such area and should take a break to learn our polices. --Shrike (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra:,@HighInBC: The user still in his WP:battle mode calling me an "antagonist" [6] The user clearly here to WP:RGW --Shrike (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: I don't think I said that the user is "partisan" If yes could you please show me. Maybe you confusing my statement with Iscander[7] --Shrike (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Iskandar323Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Iskandar323I made one revert, and then, within the same 24-hour period, made a second, modified edit following on from a discussion in the talk section of the page, where the consensus was that the content I had added had been given undue weight. Duly noted, the modified edit reduced the weight of the content. This discussion was civil and did not involve the accusing editor in the slightest. The other editors involved in the discussion have not voiced their opposition or made further reverts, though one has made further edits that have not affected the modified content, suggesting that, for that user at least, the content produced as a result of discussion towards consensus was appropriate. I maintain that the accusing editor appears to have a shallow grasp of Wikipedia's good faith principles, and I mean this in no way as a form of personal attack, but as a call-to-action for the individual to learn and engage in more civil and less belligerent forms of dialogue on the platform. It is also worth noting that the accusing editor applied WP:PIA arbitration status to this article only after the discussions and edits in question, making the rather specific nature of his complaint somewhat retroactive in nature, but I personally do not think my good faith actions run afoul of the rules either way. I hope you will agree.
@Johnuniq: What is the difference between accusing someone of WP:RGW and of being partisan? The very notion of WP:RGW is that someone is taking a partisan approach. It is bureaucratic to imply that one is a personal attack and the other is not simply because one is couched in technical language. I am not implying that you are intentionally being bureaucratic, but that the distinction is a bureaucratic one. WP:RGW is just a sub-category of WP:TEND, which defines partisanship. If an AE, outside of the context of normal talk pages and user talk pages, is not the suitable forum for raising the issues of the WP:TEND tendencies of certain users, where is? @Johnuniq: But thank you for your clarification on the principle of concrete outcomes in criticism sections. Though I would ask if divestment (where actual sums are withdraw) is not, in of itself, a concrete outcome? You are also quite correct that I had not fully absorbed the implications of the alert notice posted on my talk page. @Johnuniq: In answer to your specific questions about the Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot articles, I am not hugely vested in it and do not particularly care about the outcome, and I will not be trying to re-add a fully fledged 'criticism' section header or 'Involvement in Israeli settlements' section sub-header, because I now better understand the point about weighting relative to the article as a whole. I did not come up with these section headers spontaneously, but merely replicated the format from other similar sections on other articles, trusting that the editors who placed them there knew what they were doing, but where, in hindsight, the relative weighting may have been a little different. It still seems to me that a divestment by a large fund, as reported by Reuters, is a concrete outcome, and my tendency would still be to include a sentence on it, but I am not emotive about it. I merely made an addition that I thought was notable, based on sources that I thought were notable, in a format that I replicated from the work of other editors on other pages. All that I objected to was the wholesale deletion of material, by and large without discussion, by other editors. @Johnuniq: If you haven't already, please do look at the edits involved in the twinkle episode yourself to decide whether I was undoing good faith edits or not. The title of that talk section is a highly leading one. I believe I was undoing disruptive edits that had re-instated information that was clearly incorrect by the standard definition of the infobox templates - a position another user quickly attested to. However, following the subsequent discussion, I undid the last revision all the same following the criticism and left it to others to edit out the demonstrably incorrect information if they so chose, which they did. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC) @HighInBC: Yes, I now realise the distinction between what I thought a revert is, and what a revert is in the technical definition you have mentioned. I had though that a partial re-edit of some of the same material in a different format and location, arrived at as a result of efforts to move towards consensus as per a discussion, was not a simple 'reversion'. But I now realise that the definition is quite broad and that its interpretation can be quite ironclad, particularly on articles perceived to be IP-related, even if they don't contain an edit notice. I also don't think it was totally unreasonable for me not to have understood absolutely all of this prior to this arbitration referral. @HighInBC: I'm getting the hang of the 'comment on the content not the editors' mantra as well. I had assumed that personal attacks meant actual insults, defamation or slander, but not the questioning of motives or truthfulness, but clearly, here too the Wikipedia definition is either very broad or very open to interpretation. I'll admit to getting a little emotive on the subject of my own persecution. But is it also not a problem for editors to demonstrably falsify formal statements in an arbitration forum? NB: Let me once more state plainly that, while I was not aware of and certainly did not fully comprehend the 1RR rules with respect to this conflict area prior to this AE being called, I do now understand the 1RR rules quite clearly, as well as the general principle behind the 1RR and its general merit as a means of de-escalation in all circumstances, as well as the benefits of pursing a more thoughtful, civil and WP:BRD-informed editing approach. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by 11Fox11The edit notice is a technicality, and Iskandar323's conduct is sanctionable without the 1RR. They are edit warring in the face of talk page consensus against them and engaging in personal attacks and commentary. On Zakaria Zubeidi they reverted three times: [9][10][11] (and some reverts of IPs). On Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot they also reverted multiple times: [12][13][14], when consensus was against them at Talk:Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot#Hugely undue addition. To this one must add the personal attacks: [15] and [16] against Shrike when notified of 1RR. They also think the 1RR rule doesn't apply to them. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by SelfstudierUsually we give newer editors the benefit of the doubt, I think an informal warning is sufficient in this case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000To editor Shrike: According to WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, an editnotice is required for the General Sanctions to be enforced but Iskandar323 does not have the technical ability to add one. Zerotalk 13:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC) @Shrike: Of course he should obey the rules, but nobody is obliged to add ARBPIA notices. I don't see what you want to take to ARCA as the rule about editnotices has been discussed by ArbCom before and they are unlikely to change it. Zerotalk 13:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by GeneralNotabilityI'm very tangentially involved here, but wanted to add an observation (not specifically related to the AE violation in question). On 12 September, Iskandar bulk-added a "criticism" section to 30ish company articles (see here, look for the edit summary "Added section"). The bulk of these were added within the span of about half an hour. They were later mass-reverted as "Undue weight" by Mike Rothman2, whom I temp-blocked for undiscussed mass reversion and obvious attempts at permissions gaming. My concern is this: mass addition of "criticism" sections in this manner smacks of WP:RGW/POV-pushing, and I am concerned about whether Iskandar can neutrally in the topic area. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Inf-in MDI'd like to draw your attention to recent comments by Iskandar323, where he describes this request against him as a "technicality", and despite the clear language used by Johnuniq below which says the criticism section is undue for the bank's article, that it is due and that there no "hard and fast rule" against it.[20][21]. Maybe a warning is not enough. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Deepfriedokra I think a ban is taking it a bit too far. My comment above notwithstanding, I find Iskandar323 to be one of the more reasonable editors with whom I disagree on most things. A formally logged warning coupled with his acknowledgment that he understands what he did and will not do it again should suffice. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by NableezyWhether or not something is UNDUE is a matter for the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard, not AE. A user is free to engage wider input on a content dispute, what is needed here is the user acknowledging and agreeing to abide by our edit warring policies. This group of editors that all happen to be on one side of an editing dispute (mustnt call them partisans of course) agitating for a content ruling on a conduct board is a bit troubling, as is their insistence that said content dispute be used to remove an opposing editor. nableezy - 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Iskandar323
Here since 2014 with 1672 edits is "newish"? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Xoltron
Indefed as an admin action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Xoltron
Discussion concerning XoltronStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by XoltronI am not sure what the purpose of this on-going attack, mostly on my talk page, against me is. All I did was start a discussion on a talk page in the Indo-Aryan Languages article: A long mislabeled article for a language group known correctly in Linguistics studies around the globe as Indic, as also mentioned in the same article. The next thing I know, several Indian editors start attacking me on my talk page instead of continuing the discussion on the article's discussion page and then this Arbitration request, for what? I do make a point to respond to editors that make personal attacks and threats (like Deepfriedokra , and numerous others) meant to intimate. Is that what this is about or ?Xoltron (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by TrangaBellam
Statement by (username)Result concerning Xoltron
|
Iskandar323
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 Iskandar323
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- 11Fox11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Iskandar323 (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/Index/Palestine-Israel articles-1RR
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 08:17, 21 September 2021 Revert of this edit
- 12:37, 21 September 2021 This "massive rewrite" reverts many edits, including this recent edit. Iskandar323's edit completely removed Daniel J. Schroeter's article in the The American Historical Review.
- 02:57, 20 September 2021, canvassing at page of like minded editor and personal attack ("it constitutes vandalism")
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 19 September 2021 Consensus among admins to log a warning against Iskandar323 for 1RR and other issues.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Alerted and stated at AE on 17:15, 16 September 2021 that they "did not fully comprehend the 1RR rules with respect to this conflict area prior to this AE being called, I do now understand the 1RR rules quite clearly,"
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a blatant 1RR violation. The page has an edit notice. This is coupled by canvassing and a personal attack, an issue at the last AE as well.
In addition, Iskandar323's talk page has a 20 September warning against edit warring on a whaling article and from 21 September a copyright/copying warning on a food article.
- While I do agree with some aspects of Iskandar323's edit such as removing the demographic information, the removal of Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries from the lead (left only in the body with the newly coined euphemism "ultimately left" in a pipe link) is objectionable. Furthermore, Iskandar323 edit contained reverts of several bits that were contested between himself and other editors on the article and talk page:
- Short description: Iskandar323 was reverted a few times, including here on 21 September, yet they removed "contested political" from "term".
- Likewise, in the first sentence of the lead Iskandar323 removed "contested political" from "term", a revert of this edit from 19 September.
- In the third paragraph of the lead, Iskandar323 was already reverted on 19 September which they now changed to "Reflecting the academic origins of the term, Jews with origins in Arab-majority countries do not often self-identify as Arab Jews" - while sources are quite explicit in that most Mizrahi Jews reject this term. Iskandar323 removed "The term is controversial, as the vast majority of Jews with origins in Arab-majority countries do not identify as Arabs, and most Jews who lived amongst Arabs did not call themselves "Arab Jews" or view themselves as such."
- If needed, there are probably more reverts hidden in this large edit that can be pointed out.
- This "massive rewrite", while containing some positive aspects, also reverted away material against the consensus of all other editors on the page. These highly POV reverts were hidden in the midst of this large edit 4 hours and 20 minutes after iskandar323's previous revert.--11Fox11 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- notified
Discussion concerning Iskandar323
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 Iskandar323
This is totally inaccurate. In the first example provided, I attempted to restore the infobox to the page after it had been deleted along with a host of other edits two days prior. This was reverted by 11Fox11, and I left it be. The second edit referenced is something completely different altogether and in no way a revert of prior edits. It was something I was working on in the background and is totally unrelated to prior edits on the page. I rewrote the page from the ground up, using academic book and journal sources to provide the beginning of an accurate, sourced background to the origin and use of the eponymous term of the page. It is just a beginning and more work and sourcing needs to be done, but it was a page rescue to push the content back towards the well-documented, peer-reviewed material on the nature of this term and the the academic framework that birthed it. It is possible that as part of this endeavour, some materials may have been removed or misplaced, but not maliciously. Wherever possible I have re-used and re-located all available sources to appropriate sections. Following the edit, I created a talk page entry explaining the rewrite and its purpose and inviting input and comment, so thank you to 11Fox11 for their engagement, although I wish they have simply pointed out any omission on the talk page, as my post invited. As of this moment, I have gladly re-included the source mentioned, and the section it concerns, "Politicisation of the term" is better for it. I still have not had much time to review this section and it still needs cleaning up. In contrast to the claim that I have set about to revert edits on this page, I have actually taken the page further in the direction that 11Fox11 was pushing when they removed the 'inappropriate' infobox. On reflection, I agreed that 11Fox11 was correct and also removed the related demographic information from the article. My edit was precisely aimed at steering the article away from the demographics of Jewish communities originating from the Arab World, which is covered in other articles, and back towards the topic of the specific term that this article addresses.
@Free1Soul: I had thought that books/journals without either a url or a doi constituted dead links. If this is not the case, it is possible that I used the dead link template inappropriately. I do now see that I tagged two archived links incorrectly, but you also removed at least one dead link tag from the definitely dead Voice of America story, as well as removed unaddressed citation needed tags, and removed the infobox again (without explanation). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
To editor Deepfriedokra: Hi again, and sorry for the trouble. I wasn't informed by 11Fox11 that they believed I had broken the 1RR rule prior to them raising this fresh AE, and Free1Soul has already rolled back that edit, along with others, so I cannot self-revert. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
To editor Deepfriedokra: Yes, I have been warned. I did not expect to get reported again before I had been warned, and it is playing havoc with the section redirects on this page, but yes, logged warning duly acknowledged. And had I been informed that someone believed I had broken 1RR again and been told to revert, before being reported, I would of course have reverted immediately. No questions asked. No administrators troubled. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
To editor Deepfriedokra: While we are on the subject of POV, and people taking offense, can I just draw you attention to where Free1Soul, in this talk page discussion that I raised to try to broach the subject of their more disruptive edits, such as deleting a stable infobox, not only used the N word in a deeply inappropriate and out of context manner (and frankly I find it offensive just seeing that on the page), but also compared a people being labelled Arab to someone being called the N word. Now I don't know about you, and I can't speak to the technicality of it, but I find that extraordinarily POV and offensive. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier
At this stage could someone point out to me where on the talk page (his or the article) Iskandar323 has been invited to self revert the alleged 1R breach as per usual practice?Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- In relation to the edit described in revert 1, could editor @Free1Soul: kindly explain the edit summary "(deadlinks miss placed. Provide citations and fix text)" in relation to the reverted edit, in particular the removal of tags and the infobox along with all of it's sources. I did see that, the following day, when Iskandar323 asked you to restore this material on the article talk page under the section "Removal of infobox and other unconstructive edits" it was only then that you (backed up by the complaining editor here) provided a variety of not entirely satisfactory after the fact explanations.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I do not know whether Iskander323 intended to canvass me to his side of the discussion, we had been discussing one thing and another on his talk page prior so it is possible it was merely a continuation in the same vein. If it was a canvassing attempt, then it was a signal failure as I did not even visit the page, merely advising the editor to take things forward on the talk page which I now see that he quite properly did. Is it merely coincidental that we have the same three versus one situation as in the complaint just adjudicated? Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Free1Soul
Selfstudier, in this disruptive edit, Iskandar323 tagged around 20 refs as dead links. Most of those tags were wrong, either tagging live links (or links with archive versions) or tagging refs with no urls (books and journals), in which there was no url that was dead. Free1Soul (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Iskandar323 is pushing his pov over and over in the page. He is not listening. Free1Soul (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, Iskandar323 is not accurately portraying my comment. "Arab Jew" is a term that most Mizrahi Jews (the so labelled "Arab Jews") find offensive, this is what sources say. I did not use the N word. I said that labelling populations, that reject this term, as "Arab Jews" in the infobox was inappropriate - inappropriate in the same manner as adding a population box to the article Nigger (or for that matter Kike or any other offensive term that has an article on Wikipedia). The example article was one where it would be obvious a population box would be out of the question. The reasons why "Arab Jew" are offensive to us Mizrahim are complex and have many layers, but one important layer is that it erases Jewish ethnic identity, reducing the Jewish identity to a religion, putting those labelled outside the Jewish people and into a different ethnic group. Use of this term implies we are less Jewish than other Jews.
My point was that labelling people who do not identify themselves with this term in the infobox was unappropriate. Free1Soul (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
The argument about the N-word is obscene (Arab Jew is in fact a widely used term, objected to by some, not most as the bs above claims), and a user who thinks that is a valid argument to make should think carefully about accusing others of "POV-pushing". As far as the reverts, Iskandr, you need to slow down. If you get reverted stop editing the article for a day. Boom, never have a 1RR violation again. nableezy - 21:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Iskandar323
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Note that I closed the above request about Iskandar323 with a logged warning; this occurred two minutes ago and, as of now, has not yet been communicated to the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't give a hoot about any content dispute and the quality of sources and content should be determined via discussion and consensus. My only concern is, not with who agrees with what, but did Iskandar323 violate 1RR since the first thread started? If so, could Iskandar323 please acknowlege the now logged warning, self revert, and we all get on with our lives? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Free1Soul: In your own section, would you please post WP:Dif's of POV pushing? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Free1Soul: Would it be possible to address concerns raised by Iskander? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Despite the fact that the logged warning had not been given to the user at the time of the reverts, the user has had the 1RR rules painstakingly explained to them and they have acknowledged that in their previous(very recent) AE request. I feel this violation is actionable, we have already tried leniency and it seems to have not been effective. I feel they at the very least need a break from this topic area. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)