m →Volunteer Marek: oops, {{hab}} to bottom |
→Statement by Kmoksha: Update2 - Today even more consensus resulting from thread I started in article Talk page |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
::::: * '''Despite all my efforts which lead to improvement of Wiki article and is clearly helping other editors, I am being repeatedly blamed for "Tendentious Editing" etc. ''' Seriously ? And no proper response was given to my refutations. ''To be really helpful, the specific wrong which editor is doing should be pointed out by quoting the relevant part of the Wikipedia policy. And example of expected behavior should be given. That is what really works instead of just copy pasting link of a Wiki policy and vaguely accusing others.'' |
::::: * '''Despite all my efforts which lead to improvement of Wiki article and is clearly helping other editors, I am being repeatedly blamed for "Tendentious Editing" etc. ''' Seriously ? And no proper response was given to my refutations. ''To be really helpful, the specific wrong which editor is doing should be pointed out by quoting the relevant part of the Wikipedia policy. And example of expected behavior should be given. That is what really works instead of just copy pasting link of a Wiki policy and vaguely accusing others.'' |
||
::::: * The '''accusing editor''' says that he had "conceded". But '''did he really concede ?''' Because after that he wrote a comment with 3 bullet points and expected a long answer from me. When I gave a concise and proper answer to that, the editor came here and started multiple accusations including "long posts" instead of replying to my clear and concise comment.-- [[User:Kmoksha|Kmoksha]] ([[User talk:Kmoksha|talk]]) 06:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC) |
::::: * The '''accusing editor''' says that he had "conceded". But '''did he really concede ?''' Because after that he wrote a comment with 3 bullet points and expected a long answer from me. When I gave a concise and proper answer to that, the editor came here and started multiple accusations including "long posts" instead of replying to my clear and concise comment.-- [[User:Kmoksha|Kmoksha]] ([[User talk:Kmoksha|talk]]) 06:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::: '''Update2''' - Today more consensus in the Article Talk page thread I started. Contrary to claims by accusing editor, etc. , most of my threads have resulted in consensus, improving article and helping other editors. I had started a "Request for Comment" on the article Talk page and had given 3 options to support or oppose my proposal or to come up with better proposal to improve a line of lead of article. Today, even more editors agreed on an alternative proposal for lead of article. See - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019&diff=next&oldid=938496461 here] |
|||
::::::@[[User:Bishonen|Bishnonen]] , [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ''Would you like to give details and explain that when my talk page threads clearly lead to improvements in article, consensus and helping other editors, how it is disruptive, "Tendentious Editing" etc.'' ? -- [[User:Kmoksha|Kmoksha]] ([[User talk:Kmoksha|talk]]) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by WBG==== |
====Statement by WBG==== |
Revision as of 22:09, 31 January 2020
Kmoksha
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 Kmoksha
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Kmoksha (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: ARBIPA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 24 Janary 2020 (8283 bytes), 25 January 2020 (5494 bytes) – excessively long posts
- 20 January 2020 – neither agreeing nor disagreeing with my attempt at summarisation
- 20 January 2020, 25 January 2020 – refusal to admit subsectioning - see also this User talk discussion
- 23 January 2020 – refusal to participate in DRN
- 17 January 2020, 23 January 2020 – Repeatedly ignoring the secondary sources that have been cited, and arguing based on PRIMARY sources or inferior secondary sources.
- 27 December 2019 – Asking questions and turning the answers into arguments (as in a court room cross-examination)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
None
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 26 December 2019
- Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
(426 words, 2584 characters, 19 diffs of the user conduct)
This conduct is occurring at the page on Citizenship Amendment Act, a controversial piece of legislation enacted by the Indian government last month, which gave rise to country-wide protests that are still ongoing. The Press has been pretty critical of the Act, and it is hard to find any views sympathetic to the Government. Kmoksha's first edit was on 25 December, which made multiple changes with a contentious edit summary. The edit was reverted and he was told that the Government's own published material (FAQs, in this case) are not acceptable sources. He has created multiple talk page threads to discuss the issue: 27 Dec, 29 Dec, 6 Jan, none of which succeeded. He still continues to push for the government point of view through other means.
One example of this is the issue of the beneficiaries of the Act, which he raised first on 12 January using some out-of-date information from Intelligence Bureau. I asked him to look for sources by a sample google search, the very first of which explained the subtleties of the issue pretty clearly. However, there are five more mentions of "beneficiaries" on the talk page as of today, including this proposal on 23 January.
Kmoksha's second action on the mainspace was to revert my edit where I expanded a one-sentence summary of an important topic ("Relationship to NRC") to a fuller discussion. After considerable prodding, Kmoksha produced an explanation for his revert, whose long and tedious discussion manifested the majority of the problems listed above. Other than those surface issues, the discussion has been essentially one of stonewalling, diverting the attention from the content by bringing in extraneous issues, and refusal to get the point. The most blatant example of this is from yesterday. After I conceded, "I am willing to live with that in the interest of collaboration
", he wrote two more posts, arguing the same old point. Even when I specifically asked, which of of the three bullet points are you responding to, his answer is "all of them"! This is a completely unhelpful attitude.
Kmoksha's long rambling posts have blocked the consensus-building process by discouraging other editors from participating. He has been told by El_C to condense his posts. He has also been told by RegentsPark that he is coming across as being tendentious. None of these had any effect. His refusal to even participate in a DRN discussion is mystifying. So at this point I have no option but to ask for him to be sanctioned from this topic.
- It is ironic that the editor states here once again that "Kautilya3 has not responded to concerns of removing word "concerns" from previous content", whereas I pointed out above that I had conceded. This is an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
- Also worth noting is the continued allegation that "there was an ongoing discussion on improving NPOV in section "Relationship to NRC"" when I expanded the section. There was, but it was regarding some content that the editor wanted to see added. It had nothing to do with my expansion. This kind of obfuscation and gaslighting pervade the entire discussion of the editor, making any collaboration essentially impossible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Kmoksha
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 Kmoksha
Constant flip-flops of Kautilya3 are visible even in his submission here - complaining of "long posts" but where concise and proper answer was possible and given, he still complains instead of responding to it. From day1, Kautilya3, editors toeing similar lines with him are putting vague, false accusations on me while themselves violating several Wiki Policies like WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS. Real issue is content disagreement between various editors at Talk page regarding relationship of CAA law to NRC, after which false allegations increased. All this can be seen here.
False Allegations previously successfully refuted by me - with no response to my refutations by El_C etc. -
- "Pushing Government viewpoint" - My response - My concern is to improve wikipedia articles. I raised Government FAQs because it was prominently covered in Indian media including by source referenced in article. Kautilya3 thanked me for raising that link and said it can be used to expand "Government response" section. My proposed critique along with Government response. proves my effort of NPOV, disproves repeated allegations of "pushing Government viewpoint".
- Long posts - Response
- Response to accusations regarding ignoring secondary sources, using primary sources for argument - See here Even though I have quoted Kautilya`s own referenced sources for argument, Vanamonde still falsely accuses me of using Primary sources for argument.
Improvements in article due to my efforts* -
- First and second edit had useful parts like spelling corrections. My suggested sentence was added to article - see here. But edits were reverted within minutes, without trying to conserve useful parts.
- Beneficiaries of the Act - Only because I pointed out inconsistency of text of accepted sources` article and wiki article, Kautilya3 changed article sources, made changes even today.
- Consensus in talk page on expanding sections from article using accepted sourced link in article and modifying second sentence of lead
While there was ongoing discussion on improving NPOV in section "Relationship to NRC", Kautilya3 removed present text of section having word "concerns" and made it more definitive although all his referenced sources were having words not definitive like "not clear", "worries" etc. and own POV pushed for that. Other editors - YN Desai mentioned haphazard manner in which content was edited and holding addition of proposed content. Abhishekaryavart also agreed. Leaving discussion at Talk page, Kautilya3 went to DRN. I requested to continue discussion at Talk page to which DRN volunteer agreed saying other involved editors should have been invited. Coming back to Talk page discussion, Kautilya3 again moved my posts to start new discussion subthread. I wanted to have discussion in one thread since other editors had already commented in previous thread.
Despite consensus against him, Kautilya3 has not responded to concerns of removing word "concerns" from previous content and making section definitive, with contradiction by his own given references. To stop POV pushing, I request uninvolved editors to ban Kautilya3, Vanamode93 from this topic.
- @El_C, I have already put my statement in the assigned space in under 500 words. It is not clear what is your exact request. Besides this, this section says that this section is to be edited only by uninvolved persons. You and me are both involved in this case. But since you have pinged me, I am forced to respond here. -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are secondary sources in the CAA 2019 article which are quoting text from Primary sources when needed along with analysing them. See example - here When needed, I used similar secondary sources for argument at article Talk page since I did not find any Wiki policy prohibiting that nor did other editors show it to me even on requesting them. I sincerely tried to follow Wikipedia policies, see accepted content and links in the wiki article itself and adjust with other editors as much as possible.-- Kmoksha (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- * Update - Even Today, I was pinged by another editor at the Talk page and asked a question which I happily answered and also corrected format errors in that thread. See here
- * Despite all my efforts which lead to improvement of Wiki article and is clearly helping other editors, I am being repeatedly blamed for "Tendentious Editing" etc. Seriously ? And no proper response was given to my refutations. To be really helpful, the specific wrong which editor is doing should be pointed out by quoting the relevant part of the Wikipedia policy. And example of expected behavior should be given. That is what really works instead of just copy pasting link of a Wiki policy and vaguely accusing others.
- * The accusing editor says that he had "conceded". But did he really concede ? Because after that he wrote a comment with 3 bullet points and expected a long answer from me. When I gave a concise and proper answer to that, the editor came here and started multiple accusations including "long posts" instead of replying to my clear and concise comment.-- Kmoksha (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Update2 - Today more consensus in the Article Talk page thread I started. Contrary to claims by accusing editor, etc. , most of my threads have resulted in consensus, improving article and helping other editors. I had started a "Request for Comment" on the article Talk page and had given 3 options to support or oppose my proposal or to come up with better proposal to improve a line of lead of article. Today, even more editors agreed on an alternative proposal for lead of article. See - here
- There are secondary sources in the CAA 2019 article which are quoting text from Primary sources when needed along with analysing them. See example - here When needed, I used similar secondary sources for argument at article Talk page since I did not find any Wiki policy prohibiting that nor did other editors show it to me even on requesting them. I sincerely tried to follow Wikipedia policies, see accepted content and links in the wiki article itself and adjust with other editors as much as possible.-- Kmoksha (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bishnonen , The Blade of the Northern Lights Would you like to give details and explain that when my talk page threads clearly lead to improvements in article, consensus and helping other editors, how it is disruptive, "Tendentious Editing" etc. ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by WBG
Sanction a PartialBlock from the article, as an AE action. One of the reasons, as to why I took the article off my watchlist. ∯WBGconverse 12:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Abhishekaryavart
As I was pinged, I am writing here my views. Dismiss the AE request on Kmoksha. I found his posts perfectly readable and without any issues. This AE request on Kmoksha has no substance whatsover and is clearly a harassment tactic. And put a topic ban on the persons harassing. -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Kautilya3 is putting his own words regarding what the Intelligence Bureau deposed to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, pushing his own POV and violating WP:SYNTHESIS. See - here -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde
I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand Kmoksha's talk page posts, and I've generally been unsuccessful. I think this is less a case of egregious POV-pushing, and more an inability (or unwillingness) to understand how we use sources of different kinds to construct a neutral and coherent article; for instance, an inability to see that a paragraph in a reliable secondary source that the source attributes to the government is the equivalent of a government press release, and not the same as a statement of fact made by the same source. I'm not going to recommend specific actions here, because I've gotten a little deep into this, and Kmoksha hasn't been engaging in edit-warring or similar; but their ramblings on the talk page are a genuine pain in the neck. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Result concerning Kmoksha
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- A topic ban from WP:ARBIPA may, indeed, be called for due to lengthy and tendentious editing. El_C 23:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tendentious editor. Too much wikilawyering ("I do not see any Wiki policy restricting a source which is just quoting the website which is what this link is doing"), not enough understanding of Wikipedia's policies,[1] and much too much lengthiness and bludgeoning (compare immediately preceding diff). @Kautilya3: the user is not obliged to participate in DRN, per your point 4, whether or not their rationale for refusing makes sense, but I agree with all your other points. I suggest an indefinite topic ban from Indian subjects, to be appealed no sooner than after six months. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC).
- Concur with the above. Obviously disruptive in this topic area, and the failed efforts at lawyering above confirm the need for a topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Adrummond67
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 Adrummond67
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Adrummond67 (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/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 18:39, 29 January 2020 Adds monarch field to someone who held one of the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Editor was specifically pointed here to Talk:Martin McGuinness/Archive 2#Monarch/ appointed by, regarding the consensus regarding FM and dFMs not being appointed by the monarch.
- 18:39, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
- 18:41, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
- 18:43, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
- 18:43, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
- 18:44, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
- 18:45, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Notified here
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Based on articles edited and the edits made, they also edited as Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AB9C:F100:C592:536:29F4:4D2F prior to creating an account. They are a single-purpose account dedicated to adding "monarch" fields to infoboxes. They were requested here to stop edit-warring and discuss their proposed changes on the relevant talk page of the articles concerned. They ignored this and made the edits noted above.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Adrummond67
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 Adrummond67
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Adrummond67
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Volunteer Marek
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 Volunteer Marek
Closing with no action. Recommend to checkuser the filer. Recommend a motion request to the Committee regarding the systemic application of 500-30 to the ARBEE topic area El_C 19:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Dear sysops, I am sorry if I formatted this wrong or am acting wrongly. I met Marek at Polish INR article, that was in the news because of the Polish boycott of the Auschwitz liberation ceremony. Polish president boycotted as speaking slots were only given to world powers that liberated Europe. Marek was hostile at me, and started accusing me of being here back in 2005 because I changed in one article a Gdańsk to Danzig. I told this to my family, and they had big chuckle as me being on Wikipedia in 2005 is impossible in so many ways. When I made this first change, I did not know Gdańsk vote. I did this change based on my intimate knowledge of the Bay of Gdańsk (Danzig) and its history, and since the sentence of "the Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)... Gdańsk" was inconsistent with itself. While posting on Polish INR, Marek linked [9] to Gdansk vote. I then read the vote carefully and acted according to it in some articles. After that, he accused me on my talk page of being here back in 2005 because of the vote, when he told me about the vote!
Discussion concerning Volunteer MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer MarekIf anyone here believes even for a second that this is genuinely a brand new account who just “happens to know” about an obscure vote from 2005 (which is no longer in force anyway having been superseded by WP:MOS) and who knows to go running to WP:AE when they get in a dispute, then I got a bridge to sell you. This is a sock puppet of indef banned User:Icewhiz (who was very active at the IPN article) or one of his friends (also indefinitely banned users Jacob Peter or Kaiser von Europa - the three have been talking on off-wiki sites like Wikipediocracy and previously Reddit’s WikiInAction) For the past three months, ever since Icewhiz got indef banned, Poland related articles have been inundated with literally more than a few dozen (more than 30 by my last count) of brand new, transparently sock puppet accounts, which have basically picked up right where Icewhiz left off when he was banned. The situation is freakin’ ridiculous. It’s too many for SPI, many of them have been editing from behind proxies and as soon as one gets banned, two more pop up. The whole thing feels like a sick joke or at least a complete abdication of responsibility by people who created this mess. I think it’s time to go to ArbCom (again!) and ask them to address this situation. The diffs here don’t violate any DS. Volunteer Marek 14:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Leonid was making edits based on the Gdansk vote before I said anything (for example [11]). In fact, that's why I said something. On top of that he files a perfectly formatted AE report only after a week of being on Wikipedia. There's several phrasings in his report that are typical Icewhiz-ism (believe me, I had to deal with the guy for almost three years, and then he went on a campaign of harassment against me and my family - I know). It's a freakin' sock. Just like the other 30 or 40 socks that have appeared on Poland related articles in the past two months. Volunteer Marek 14:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Anyone still have doubts? Ok. Here is 007Leonid making his first edit at IPN [12], barely a week into his new found Wikipedia career. It's to restore an edit by another sock [13]. At this point ShoooBeeDoo was called out for being a sock, and User:Reaper Eternal blocked him on a check user check, so I figure this is when Icewhiz figured "it's time for another sock to jump in since ShoooBeeDoo is burned". This is how ridiculous the situation is. The sock puppets have sock puppets who have little sock puppet grandchildren. Volunteer Marek 14:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC) User:El_C - yes!!! In 15 years here I've never seen so many socks and SPAs flood a topic area but checking the history of other contentious topics it looks like the exact same phenomenon occurred in India-Pakistan topics after that case was settled and in Palestine-Israel topics when that case was closed (interestingly, Icewhiz was involved in that topic area too though I don't know enough about it to know if there's a connection). Same thing is needed here. Volunteer Marek 15:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Also a quick note to User:Piotrus - while Icewhiz, User:Jacob Peters and User:Kaiser von Europa (all three indef banned) were indeed all discussing this stuff on Wikipediocracy (and reddit going back to March of last year) I do want to note that most other people on Wikipediocracy ridiculed or criticized them. Volunteer Marek 15:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Regarding Francois Robere. I've asked them previously NOT to post to my talk page. The reason for this is very simple and straight forward: Francois Robere's main buddy and Wikifriend has doxxed me, made threats against me, contacted my employer and threatened to hurt my children. He has subjected me (and also several other editors) to really nasty harassment off wiki (on wiki too but that's why he's indef banned). This harassment was ongoing since at least March of 2019 although it wasn't possible to tie it directly to Icewhiz until November. All along, Francois Robere ... "collaborated" with Icewhiz on several dozen articles [14] always supporting Icewhiz and reverting on his behalf. In addition to ... "cooperating" on articles, as far as discussions go, during the ArbCom case evidence was presented [15] which showed that Francois Robere and Icewhiz had together participated in over a hundred discussions on Wikipedia and in all but one instance they strongly agreed with and supported each other. Francois Robere was also very active in the Icewhiz ArbCom case [16], supporting Icewhiz 100% and agitating on his behalf. Ever since the end of the case, as mentioned above, several dozen brand new suspicious SPA sock puppets accounts have popped up in this topic area. Francois Robere was there along with them every step of the way:
This is just off the top of my head and on short notice. There's at least half a dozen more instances where suspicious looking accounts have showed up, made pretty much the same edits as Icewhiz, then after they were challanged, Francois Robere showed up to defend them and facilitate them. I should note explicitly at this point that my interaction ban with Icewhiz was specifically rescinded so I could address the issue of Icewhiz sock puppeting given the harassment that he was engaged in. That's what I'm doing here. So to anyone with half a brain it's obvious what's going on. Before Icewhiz and Francois Robere closely "cooperated" on several dozen articles, always agreed with each other in discussions and unquestionably supported one another. Then ArbCom happened and Icewhiz got banned, while Francois Robere managed not to get sanctioned. Consequently Icewhiz began socking on mass scale and this socking was/is being enabled, protected, facilitated and coddled by his old Wiki friend, Francois Robere. Before FR tag teamed with Icewhiz. Now FR tag teams with Icewhiz socks. Now. If somebody threatened to harm YOUR children (and I'll spare you the disgusting details) would you want to have their close buddy post little passive aggressive taunts on your talk? Hell no. How would you feel if that person followed you to several articles just to mess with you by reverting you and encouraging the socks that come for you? It's odious shameless behavior. FR needs to stay as far away from me as possible. You are who you hang out with. You are who you support. Maybe FR didn't make the threats himself but to this very moment he cheerfully supports the guy who did. I am 100% happy to revisit this with ArbCom since it's their failure to include Francois Robere in their decisions that has led to this situation and why the topic area of Poland is STILL the freakin' mess as before - the ArbCom case didn't actually solve the problem. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Add: " if the content is good, then I don't care whether it came from a sock, a shirt or a codpiece" <--- The problem is that what FR regards as "good content" for some strange reason correlates very closely with "it came from a (Icewhiz) sock" (rather than a shirt or a codpiece) which is the actual problem here. And no, this content is not "good" since it's *exactly* the kind of content that led to Icewhiz's topic ban (WP:BLP violations, one sided and WP:TENDentious POV pushing, cherry picked and manipulated sources, using Wikipedia articles as attack pages). I mean, if you think this is "good content" then that's pretty much saying "I should be topic banned for same reason as Icewhiz". And that's in addition to the "I am reverting on behalf of and in support of Icewhiz sock puppets" reason for the same. (and seriously if you have to go back TWO YEARS to find a weak-ass example of supposed "incivility" (it's not incivility it's simply disagreement and criticism) such as this [31] on my part, it kind of illustrates that you got nothing here and are just trying to deflect). Volunteer Marek 23:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
(as for the t-ban violation - yes I accidentally violated it here. But how did that happen? Well.... that's actually interesting in itself. The original text about this Kurtyka guy had no mention of ANYTHING to do with WW2. In no version of the article prior to Jan 28th did the text concerning Kurtyka mentioned the Warsaw Uprising Museum [32]. The Kurtyka text was indeed under dispute (it was originally added by the other sockpuppet User:ShoooBeeDoo) but it concerned ONLY modern day Polish politics. Here is me removing that text previously - note again, nothing about Museum or WW2. So... how did the part about the Museum get in there??? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! That's right, in his edit warring, [33] 007Леони́д snuck it in. Basically 007Леони́д added a completely irrelevant tidbit ("such as the Warsaw Uprising Museum") to a sentence which otherwise had nothing to do with WW2. Why? Well, gee, maybe it's because he's not a new user and he knew damn well about the topic ban??? I mean, if you weren't convinced before that this was a sock puppet, his awareness of the topic bans pretty much gives the game away. So he added just some irrelevant text about WW2 to a piece of text under discussion so that I couldn't remove it without violating the tban or wouldn't notice (which true, I didn't, my bad, I should expect this kind of sleazy tactics by now). And then.... Francois Robere comes running to AE to bring it up. Did I mention how FR facilitates and supports Icewhiz's sock puppets? Volunteer Marek 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (btw, I have already self reverted that edit awhile ago once I realized what 007Леони́д and Francois were up to) Volunteer Marek 19:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PiotrusAll things considered, it's a good opportunity to get rid of another obvious sock (WP:BOOMERANG). While I don't think this is a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz (I think all of his socks got hit by a wide range VPN block a few weeks ago), I concur with VM that this is a very likely a sock of some old warrior from ye old days, probably one with neo-Nazi leanings (something for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaiser von Europa, good bet). What I find shocking is that such account wouldn't realize how obvious what they are doing is - but on the second thought, given the recent multitude of socks in the given topic area (post-Icewhiz ban few months ago), I guess they are just trying to bait/block shop some other editors. It's not like when this account is banned anything will change, a new one will join the fray. But if they could convince some admin to block VM, finally, what a payoff, all those years of trying, all those socks burned, would finally have a meaning. Ugh. I do not participate in the off wiki forums about wiki, but on several occasions I was sent links that do strongly confirm what VM is saying, i.e. that some banned editors are using them to exchange tips/discuss targets in their war on 'normal' editors. I wonder if this is part of such coordinated strategy? Disgusting/scary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by François RobereA couple of days ago VM left this vaguely threatening comment in an edit summary,[34] in response to me reminding him of WP:CIVILITY after he made some baseless accusations against me[35] (and didn't WP:DROPTHESTICK later [36]). I considered filing an ANI, but I realized admins will be completely fine with this, even if VM has a long record of this sort of abusive comments[37][38][39][40][41][42] (and don't even mind that this subject is under DS). As for the T-ban violation[43] - he's banned from article on the history of Poland during WWII,[44] yet he removed content mentioning a WWII museum in an article that's all about WWII and Communist-era historiography. It's a clear vio of his T-ban, and not the first one[45][46][47] (nor is it the first time he violated any ban [48][49][50]). Oh, and the TA is crawling with "socks", as evident by this comment by Reaper Eternal. In case you're wondering, the thread was opened by VM after I got the page protected to stop him and several others from "edit warring". François Robere (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC) @Piotrus: Piotrus, you misunderstand two things: I don't support editors ("socks" or otherwise), but content. If the content isn't good, then no amount of "nice" will make me support it. Conversely, if the content is good, then I don't care whether it came from a sock, a shirt or a codpiece. Tell me, in our recent engagement at Institute of National Remembrance (and its Talk), how many of the "socked" sources did I support? How many did I restore? Half? Less than half? So what's this nonsense about? And what's this nonsense about "affiliation"? Are you affiliated with Poeticbent? Tatzref? Any other blocked editor? Any of the "socks"? No? Me neither. And I'll never hold it against you either, because AFAIC we're all responsible for our own behavior, and not an inch more. If anyone wants to play politics, that's their prerogative; I don't. François Robere (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC) @MyMoloboaccount: The problem isn't with anyone "hounding" you, it's with you making mistakes like somehow messing up my comment and sticking a TOC in the middle of the page.[51] Earlier this month you plagiarized a source.[52] Last month you got into an argument with Ermenrich for the n-th time on Walter Kuhn, and tried to drag K.e.coffman into it.[53] At about the same time you asked Ealdgyth, who only has 100,000 edits or so, to cite the rule that says refs come after punctuation.[54] So please, instead of lamenting your "withdrawal" (from which you already returned a couple of times [55][56]), enjoy it. François Robere (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC) In response to Volunteer Marek's deplorable comments above: This did not start today, nor because of anyone's "doxxing" - VM has been attacking my integrity for almost two years,[57][58] from our very first interactions, gradually adding more and more accusations over time.[59] None of them was ever accepted at ANI, AE, ArbCom or anywhere else, yet he continues to make them with zero evidence. That's harassment par excellence. And here, knowing that "interaction analysis" is practically useless in heavily trafficked pages, he adds these rancid insinuations that I had anything to do with his alleged "real life" harassment - insinuations that he can barely prove for the banned editor, let alone this one. The truth underlying this complaint is that VM is one of the rudest, brashest editors around; he has berated, swore at, insulted, or otherwise antagonized (or even harassed) dozens of editors. He is of ill temper, perennially assumed of bad faith, and no matter how many times he's urged to change his ways,[60][61][62][63] he never will. But he shouldn't be allowed to besmirch others; if nothing else, take a stand on this. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by MyMoloboaccountThe ongoing obvious sockupuppeting in EE area needs to be dealt with, not only in regards to sockuppets but also in regards to sockpuppeting on behalf of infamous Icewhiz, who openly bragged about falsfying sources and his ethnic prejudices; nothing good comes from such a hateful editor being allowed to hurt Wikipedia by manipulating some many pages and sources in the name of ethnic hatred. Since I have been trying to protect some content with varied success I have too been subject to harassment and attacks to such degree that I have largely withdrawn from editing Wikipedia, despite knowing that several articles edited by Icewhiz contain false information or manipulate sources. What's the point when the crusade by another sock is being allowed to continue? In regards to FR I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour towards these who disagreed with Icewhiz and his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my withdrawal, this led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[64] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[65]. FR needs to finally stop waging this this battle on behalf of Icewhiz and let other editors edit in atmosphere of cooperation and scholarly friendship, and not in battleground one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) FR: Your aggressive behaviour above is exactly what I am talking about. Your interpret any discussion or request for sources as a conflict-instead of treating it as an exchange of information to improve quality of the article. There is nothing wrong in asking another editor what he thinks about reliability of sources by Nazi followers about history of Poland, nor is a simple request for clarification of rules on edits anything wrong. Your comments telling me to "enjoy my withdrawal from Wikipedia" as reaction to my remark about ongoing disruptive socks damaging articles being distracting to editors is quite disappointing. We are here to create encyclopedia, and should behave like scholars, not as aggressive posters on internet forum. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Result concerning Volunteer Marek
|