Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) →Christsos: Comment |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}} |
<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}} |
||
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}} |
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd|the English language varieties in Wikipedia|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English{{!}}Wikipedia:Manual of Style § National varieties of English|administrator elections|Wikipedia:Administrator elections}} |
||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- |
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- |
||
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly> |
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly> |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config |
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 331 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} |
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} |
||
== |
==Abhishek0831996== |
||
{{hat|Consensus is that this is essentially a content dispute with some conduct issues which do not rise to the level of requiring administrative action. All parties are reminded to [[WP:CTOP|follow editorial and behavioral best practice]] if they wish to avoid sanctions in the future. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning Abhishek0831996=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks| |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Kautilya3}} 17:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Abhishek0831996}}<p>{{ds/log|Abhishek0831996}}</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: |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]] |
||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. 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.--> |
<!-- 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=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861202 27 March 2024 15:36] at [[Article 370 (film)]], strange edit summary "{{tq|Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact...}}", placed on a wrong revert. The actual revert came [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=next&oldid=1215862140 later (17 March 2024 16:07)], which removed a tag of "unreliable source?" on a historical claim, without any improvement in the sourcing. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanaag&type=revision&diff=1078035945&oldid=1077696068&diffmode=source 14:26, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sanaag]]. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215864585 27 March 2024 16:03], at its talk page. Rude & bombastic comment: "{{tq|That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why that is so hard for you to understand?}}" |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanaag&type=revision&diff=1078037779&oldid=1078037051&diffmode=source 14:38, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sanaag]]. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861845 27 March 2024, 15:41] at [[Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)]], meaningless edit summary, given the weighty deletion of "Aksai Chin". Tag-teaming with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1215802471, Capitals00]? |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanaag&type=revision&diff=1078046682&oldid=1078038086&diffmode=source 15:35, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sanaag]]. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1216525187 31 March 2024, 14:27] at its talk page. Trying to bully a newbie editor citing [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. If you read through the discussion, you see Abhishek majorly gaslighting and stone-walling, claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state", which is ridiculously false. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sool&diff=1078042268&oldid=1078038624&diffmode=source 15:06, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sool]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title= |
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216687701 1 April 2024 12:46] at [[Aksai Chin]]. More biting of the newbie editor: "{{tq|Revert half baked edits of Haani}}". This is Abhishek's very first edit on this page. |
||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAksai_Chin&diff=1216690091&oldid=1216555927 1 April 2024 13:03] at its talk page. "{{tq|One is a 2022 article and another one is a geography dictionary. None of them are reliable enough.}}" Not any reasonable grounds for claiming unreliability. The so-called "geography dictionary" is published by Columbia University Press. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sool&diff=1078079790&oldid=1078074161&diffmode=source 19:05, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sool]]. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1215642234 26 March 2024, 09:45] at [[Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film)]]. Similar bombastic edit summary "{{tq|No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history}}". Reinstating content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=1215143555 previously added by Capitals00] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sool&diff=1078094126&oldid=1078082376&diffmode=source 20:34, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sool]]. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1197646407 21 January 2024 10:53] at [[Babri Masjid]]. An older example of a bombastic deletion of content without evidence. Here Capitals00 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Masjid&diff=next&oldid=1197728990 reinstated] the edits after having been reverted once by {{U|Vanamonde93}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhulbahante&type=revision&diff=1079015591&oldid=1077136739&diffmode=visual 15:19, 24 March 2022] POV edit in which Shirshore removed almost 20% of the article by blanking a sourced section wholly with the summary: {{tq|Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia}}. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? |
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1214044546 16 March 2024 16:49] at [[Indian independence movement]]. similar deletion of a well-known fact. Subhas Chandra Bose's name is mentioned in the body, including even a photograph. |
||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=777011278 24 April 2017]. A 72-hour block for disruptive editing. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive431#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked) 15:42, 16 April 2021] Shirshore was reported for engaging in the same kind of disruptive POV edit warring behaviour on some of the same articles included in this report (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buuhoodle&diff=prev&oldid=1017953897&diffmode=visual]), as a result of the report they were blocked. |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia: |
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=1041566189 31 August 2021], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=1092297526 9 June 2022] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=1215862336 27 March 2024] (see the system log linked to above). |
|||
*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1166888400 24 July 2023]. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirshore&diff=1017997888&oldid=1017975954&diffmode=source Alerted about discretionary sanctions on 20:12, 15 April 2021] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
I have seen {{U|Abhishek0831996}} occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an <nowiki>{{unreliable source?}}</nowiki> tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, {{U|Haani40}}. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless. |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Horn of Africa space, particularly within Somaliland/Somalia articles. Their edit summaries indicate they are only interested in pushing a specific viewpoint and are more than willing to erase sourced content they dont like using "derogatory" as justification (e.g. from 2019: {{tq|Removed derogatory and inflammatory material on the Derivsh period. <u>This material, although sourced cannot be allowed on Wikipedia</u>.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhulbahante&diff=prev&oldid=915575384&diffmode=source], vs 2022: {{tq|Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. <u>This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia</u>}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhulbahante&diff=prev&oldid=1079015591&diffmode=source]. Please see [[User_talk:Kzl55#Dhulbahante_-_Dervish_Period.]] for a discussion in which this behaviour was discussed and Wikipedia guidelines were explained to them. They've been sanctioned last year for the the same disruptive edit warring behaviour [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AShirshore][[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive431#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked)|#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked)]]. |
|||
Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent. |
|||
They do not seem to care all that much for edit-warring warnings as they have gone back to edit warring within minutes of the notice [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirshore&diff=1078083255&oldid=1077418880]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sool&diff=1078094126&oldid=1078082376&diffmode=source].They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a [[WP:NOTHERE]] ban, failing that I think a permanent topic ban from Horn-related articles is the minimum necessary sanction. Kind regards -- [[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* Seems like the discussion was automatically archived by a bot, as such I've restored it pending a decision from admins. Best regards --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 00:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kautilya3|contribs]]) </small> |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
: Interesting that {{U|Capitals00}} finds fault with me placing a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_%28film%29&diff=1216090453&oldid=1216057918 POV template] on a faulty section. Surely they know that [[WP:NPOV]] is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 21:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirshore&diff=1079102506&oldid=1079102176&diffmode=source]] |
|||
{{U|Abhishek0831996}}'s responses to the issues raised here continue to make [[red herring]] arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible. |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in ''The Hindu'' and a news article in the ''The Guardian''. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of ''justifying'' the improper deletion of an <nowiki>{{unreliable source?}}</nowiki> tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. ''Neither of these has been done.'' |
|||
===Discussion concerning Shirshore=== |
|||
<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 Shirshore==== |
|||
As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves. |
|||
The content removed is derogatory and inflammatory towards the group concerned. I don’t believe such content should be on Wikipedia, it can be deemed abusive should be removed off the platform. However, if other editors believe it to be constructive I will cease editing. Regards |
|||
On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I don’t think there is need for a topic ban or a block. Since my editing has been received as disruptive I can simply cease editing controversial issues to avoid conflict before consensus is reached with other editors. I think my contribution to the project overall has been constructive and I have helped improve the quality of articles concerning the Horn of Africa in general. I have a lot of knowledge on the region and ultimately I seek to dispense that in a neutral and balanced manner for readers. Unfortunately, I see that many articles have evolved to form a bias towards one entity over another, and my endeavours to correct that has been misconstrued by editors who consent to that bias, hence this engagement here. Nevertheless, I’m more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and I intend to observe them in all my edits in the future. I’m not here to be disruptive, I’m here to contribute to the platform in a meaningful way. Kind regards! |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
====Statement by Freetrashbox==== |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=1216733718 1 April 2024 17:49] |
|||
I don't disagree with TBAN because I have several problems with Shirshore's edits, especially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buuhoodle&diff=next&oldid=1078968496 this one]. However, the same goes for Kzl55 and Jacob300 for joining in the editing battle. It is clear from the [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14114727 BBC] and [https://www.voanews.com/a/official-clash-between-somaliland-and-puntland-leaves-4-dead/4394682.html VOA] articles that these areas are disputed areas. Kzl55 and Jacob300 are clearly violating WP:POV and there is no doubt that their edits are frustrating their opponents. I have had several dialogues with Jacob300, but they simply repeat their arguments with the latest version fixed to their preferred edit (and their logic is that "as long as no consensus has been formed, the current version should be adopted,") and I rarely feel that a consensus can be formed in a dialogue with them. It would induce hasty and emotional editing. If their editorial attitude is not changed, it seems likely that similar examples will follow. I have been a long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia, but the situation in this topic on the English Wikipedia is extraordinary.--[[User:Freetrashbox|Freetrashbox]] ([[User talk:Freetrashbox|talk]]) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996=== |
|||
'''Additional comment''' {{ping|El C}} I re-read my post above, and I apologize for the content that could be taken to suggest that the English Wikipedia is inferior to the Japanese version. I mainly translate English Wikipedia articles into Japanese version, and I browse in a wide range of fields, including science, culture, geography, and history. Compared to those, there are many editorial battles in this field to rewrite A into B (and B into A), and the articles are not being enriched in spite of this. Editorial battles are generally caused by both sides. I think it is good idea that both be mentioned jointly, but it seems to me that this is being rejected by both sides participating in this field in the Somaliland/Somalia(Puntland) capacity.--[[User:Freetrashbox|Freetrashbox]] ([[User talk:Freetrashbox|talk]]) 08:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Abhishek0831996==== |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861202 1st edit]: I described that "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact. The Hindu has also dismissed this episode of the movie, not just Deccan Herald." Kautilya3 has cropped my edit summary and cherrypicked just to suit his report. This movie has been criticised as a propaganda movie[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/22/brazen-propaganda-pro-modi-films-flood-bollywood-before-india-election] and its episode on Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru has been dismissed by [[The Hindu]][https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/article-370-movie-review-yami-gautam-steers-this-explainer-on-the-governments-kashmir-policy/article67877818.ece] and [[The Deccan Herald]][https://www.deccanherald.com/entertainment/article-370-movie-review-another-thinly-veiled-propaganda-film-2908141] but Kautilya3 is opposing this all based on his personal views, not backed by any sources, contrary to [[WP:OR]]. |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215864585 2nd edit]: Only for using the word "nonsensical" (which is not offensive), Kautilya3 went to falsely allege me of breaching [[WP:NPA]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=next&oldid=1215869852] This is a breach of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] on Kautilya3's part. |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861845 3rd edit]: There is nothing "meaningless" about this edit summary. Also, what tag-teaming? I am editing this article since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1211456552 2 March 2024]. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1216525187 4th edit]: The message I was responding to, "We will revert you and even seek mediation if you continue your edit war" reeks of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality since it promises to edit war and falsely accuses of an "edit war" that wasn't even happening for days.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1216378440] Now Kautilya3's false claim on this report that I am "claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state"," is outright misleading. I am instead saying: "None of this confirms if this princely state controlled [[Aksai Chin]]".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJammu_and_Kashmir_%28princely_state%29&diff=1216525187&oldid=1216405864] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216687701 5th edit]: I was restoring the last stable version against the unconstructive edits that had been also reverted by another editor some hours ago.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216465199] It is wrong to preserve misleading edits on these highly controversial articles. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAksai_Chin&diff=1216690091&oldid=1216555927 6th edit]: An article and a geographical dictionary cannot be used for challenging the article that is built on scholarly sources. On talk page I had myself provided [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAksai_Chin&diff=1216690091&oldid=1216555927 scholarly sources] (including the one from [[Harvard University Press]]) to rebuke these edits but these sources have been wrongly demeaned as "Chinese views" by Kautilya3.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aksai_Chin&diff=next&oldid=1216690091] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1215642234 7th edit]: This is yet another movie just like Article 370 that has been criticised as a propaganda movie created to promote the cause of the [[Bharatiya Janta Party]] [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/22/brazen-propaganda-pro-modi-films-flood-bollywood-before-india-election][https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/india-elections-modi-bollywood-article-370-savarkar-b2516879.html] and it has been also criticised for distorting history.[https://enewsroom.in/swatantra-veer-savarkar-movie-propaganda-pushes-divisive-agenda/] After knowing this you won't see anything wrong with that edit. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1197646407 8th edit]: Nothing wrong with this edit. Yes it is disputed that who placed the idols of Ram and Sita in 1949. Some Indian officials claim they placed the idols,[https://openthemagazine.com/features/india/the-villain-nobody-knows/] and the activists belonging to [[Nirmohi Akhara]],[https://www.scobserver.in/reports/m-siddiq-mahant-das-ayodhya-title-dispute-know-the-parties-nirmohi-akhara/] [[Hindu Mahasabha]][https://radianceweekly.net/gandhis-assassin-among-those-who-installed-idols-in-babri-masjid/][https://thefederal.com/category/opinion/ayodhya-ram-temple-1949-to-2024-nine-dates-that-changed-everything-106420] have either claimed or they have been alleged to have placed the idols. This is why many sources simply avoid giving credit to any particular entity.[https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/ram-mandir-inauguration-timeline-of-the-ayodhya-babri-masjid-dispute-leading-to-mandir-inauguration/3365220/] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1214044546 9th edit]: Kautiya3 is falsifying this edit as well. The Wiki text concerns those who are "the leading followers of [[Mahatma Gandhi|Gandhi]]'s ideology". Subhas Chandra Bose has been instead criticised for departing from Gandhi's ideology and making alliance with the Nazis and fascists as noted at [[Subhas Chandra Bose#Anti-semitism]]; "How did a man who started his political career at the feet of Gandhi end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo? Even in the case of Mussolini and Tojo, the gravity of the dilemma pales in comparison to that posed by his association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership." |
|||
It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Shirshore=== |
|||
:''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. --> |
|||
*Recommend an indef [[WP:BROADLY]] [[WP:TBAN]]. Even though editing [[WP:HORN]] pages is all {{u|Shirshore}} appears to do on the project, so I'm not sure how open they'd be to that, still, at a minimum, I believe this is what's required to curb the disruption. If they are able to edit productively elsewhere for, say, 6 months, appealing this sanction would have a fair chance of success. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*There was also a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1028901523#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Jacob300_(Result:_Shirshore_and_Dabaqabad_warned;_Jacob300_cautioned) June AN3 report (warned)] and I think their talk page speaks for itself. They have made 7 edits between Aug 2021 and Jan 2022. Anyway, there needs to be strong assurances, at this point, I think (I've yet to see any at any point), which a TBAN is the ultimate test of. I still think it's due. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::*{{u|Freetrashbox}}, excuse me if I take {{tq|long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia}} with an extra grain of salT, knowing what I know about the alarming extent of historical revisionism on that language project. Anyway, the general convention on the [[English Wikipedia|''English'' Wikipedia]] is to refer to ''de facto'' independent (self-declared) states by their own names rather than the countries from which they had separated from. |
|||
:::[[Somalia]] vs [[Somaliland]] naming conventions disruption had been a perennial problem on Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. Now, wrt the [[Puntland–Somaliland dispute]], maybe Somalia and Somaliland could both be mentioned jointly in the [[Sanaag]] and [[Sool]] infoboxes, as a compromise. It doesn't necessarily need to be either or, all or nothing, etc. But that discussion needs to, well, exist. It needs to have the ''foundation'' to exist. A foundation which [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] editing work very much against. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 01:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*This is two cases of edit warring on two article in a couple of days. Not sure I would jump to a topic ban just yet, although I understand if that is how it goes. Their last (and only) block was by {{u|EdJohnston}} in August of last year for 72 hours for similar. Being that this is in such a short period of time, and I think their intentions are good (although their execution is horrible), I would be more inclined to issue a strong block, one week, standard admin action, then go to a topic ban if this continues (3rd strike). I don't think this is a matter of someone who is inclined to be disruptive, but rather, someone who gets something in their mind and won't let it go; a habit they need to break. They also need to read [[WP:BRD]], ie: if you are the one trying to introduce new material, YOU are the one that needs to go to the talk page after you are reverted, then build consensus. Or accept you don't have consensus. In other words, take your own advice.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanaag&diff=1078046682&oldid=1078038407] [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**Those are two very valid points, I had missed the prior warning. I have to admit, I'm a bit warmer to the idea of a topic ban now, particularly give the limited scope. The warning was appropriate in that episode was not the most egregious violation of edit warring, but the same problem was going on, a fundamental misunderstanding (or flat out ignoring) of [[WP:BRD]]. Again, I'm not against the topic ban so much I like trying to be less aggressive, but you do make a strong case for a tban. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 15:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I hate to admit it, but I'm coming down on the side of a TBAN. The chronic edit warring is pretty clearly disruptive, and it's gone on for long enough. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 02:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I think El_C's proposal seems the best option here. A [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from all editing related to the [[Horn of Africa]] region, broadly construed, with an appeal possible in six months. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 13:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (Haani40)==== |
|||
==Reasoned Inquiry== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
{{hat|No AE-enforcement action needed at this time, though Reasoned Inquiry is cautioned that dominating talk page conversations, per [[WP:BLUDGEON]], is frowned upon, and may lead to behavioral sanctions in the future. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. {{noping|Capitals00}} and {{u|Abhishek0831996}} who {{u|Kautilya3}} is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that {{noping|Kautilya3}} has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of [[User_talk:Capitals00]] |
|||
<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> |
|||
:Removal of sourced content that was using a Reliable source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216687701&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 diff] |
|||
:Restoring the word, "propaganda" without a reliable source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1216176911&title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_%28film%29&diffonly=1 diff] |
|||
:Restoring edit of {{noping|Capitals00}} with bombastic edit summary, "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215642234&title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_%28film%29&diffonly=1 diff] |
|||
:False claim that India never controlled [[Aksai Chin]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1216525187&title=Talk%3AJammu_and_Kashmir_%28princely_state%29&diffonly=1 diff] |
|||
:Removing [[Aksai Chin]] from the "Today part of" section of the infobox at the [[Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)]] article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861845&title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_%28princely_state%29&diffonly=1 diff] which {{u|Curious man123}} reverted. |
|||
:After reading the allegations of {{u|Capitals00}} below, I state that I am new here but learning the rules. I have placed the <nowiki>{{this is a new user}}</nowiki> template on the top of my Talk page. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at [[WP:PG]]. I observe that every few days, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. {{U|Kautilya3}} has stated that those edits are his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216712973&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 here] but {{u|Capitals00}} is alleging that it is mine, so he must be directed to read [[WP:DONTBITE]] |
|||
===Request concerning Reasoned Inquiry=== |
|||
:: I have also read the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]] after {{noping|Kautilya3}} mentioned it on my Talk page. |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tgeorgescu}} 18:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::In his reply above, {{noping|Abhishek0831996}} has repeated his false claim, "I am instead saying: None of this confirms if this princely state controlled [[Aksai Chin]]".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1216885822&title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&diffonly=1] |
|||
::::{{noping|Capitals00}} has again reverted {{u|Kautilya3}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1217494053&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 here] - it certainly looks like he and {{noping|Abhishek0831996}} are working in tandem to get their viewpoint added which is a false claim that India never controlled [[Aksai Chin]].[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 06:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{noping|Abhishek0831996}} has changed his statement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1219043963&title=Talk%3AAksai_Chin&diffonly=1 here] saying that China did not occupy any extra territory in between 1959 and 1962 and, "false claim that China got control in 1962".-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1218835292&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1217494053&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216754149&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216749010&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216687701&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1219532668&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this] diff to understand that {{noping|Capitals00}} and {{noping|Abhishek0831996}} are repeatedly removing sourced content from the [[Aksai Chin]] article.-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 13:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{re|Firefangledfeathers}} [[Aksai Chin]] was occupied by China and for "Aksai Chin occupied" by China, there are [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Aksai+Chin+occupied%22+by+China&sca_esv=288b86a47c11e67b&hl=en&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn09Ge9QPQC591lOC1F0pZHRyQKqveA%3A1713190521058&ei=eTYdZqyTA-ymhbIP3NajoAU&ved=0ahUKEwjss8KDtMSFAxVsU0EAHVzrCFQQ4dUDCAo&uact=5&oq=%22Aksai+Chin+occupied%22+by+China&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIh4iQWtzYWkgQ2hpbiBvY2N1cGllZCIgYnkgQ2hpbmFI7SxQ8ApY1CdwAXgAkAEAmAFYoAGqAqoBATS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB9YE&sclient=gws-wiz-books dozens of sources]. However, {{noping|Capitals00}} and {{noping|Abhishek0831996}} are repeatedly removing the text {{u|Kautilya3}} and I added with reliable sources that China occupied Aksai Chin. I am expecting them both to be sanctioned.-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Capitals00==== |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Reasoned Inquiry}}<p>{{ds/log|Reasoned Inquiry}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond [[WP:BATTLE]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArticle_370_%28film%29&diff=1215719408&oldid=1215715290][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215694973] and even [[WP:CIR]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhagavad_Gita&diff=prev&oldid=1216653430][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABhagavad_Gita&diff=1216672693&oldid=1216659387] |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION]] |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
[[WP:ARBPS]] and [[WP:ARBCAM]] |
|||
; [[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.--> |
|||
#{{diff2|1080821896}} 3 April 2022 Does not heed [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] |
|||
#{{diff2|1080827221}} 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of [[WP:AE]] |
|||
#{{diff2|1080827635}} 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of [[WP:AE]] |
|||
While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_%28film%29&diff=1216090453&oldid=1216057918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215835344][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215888351] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own [[WP:OR|original thoughts]] by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215715290] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the [[WP:ABF|worst meaning]] of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216465199][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215967947] against their will on the cited pages. |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2016&diff=prev&oldid=732071181] [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
* {{diff2|1078138061}} Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. |
|||
====Statement by (Bookku)==== |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest. |
|||
{{re|Reasoned Inquiry}} You were not uncivil. You were just doing [[WP:PUSH]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|Importance of [[WP:DDE]] protocol and going back to [[WP:DR]] }} |
|||
Here I am not commenting on specific merits of the case (emphasis added). |
|||
As usual at this WP:ARE forum, intermittently I come to make good faith reminder; If for some reason discussions go off the track from content dispute usual preference should be, 'go back to the track of solving content disputes as per [[WP:DR]]' rather than personalizing them. As far as personal issues before any disputes coming at WP:ARE checking protocol mentioned @ [[WP:DDE]] also be considered important. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
{{diff2|1080830029}} [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
[[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion concerning Reasoned Inquiry=== |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
<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 Reasoned Inquiry==== |
|||
*'''Some different facets''' Diff1 |
|||
I'll try to keep this statement as lean as possible. I see a big misunderstanding of my conduct in the electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page surrounding this AE action. |
|||
* '''Brief''': [[MOS:FILMHIST]] says, "..If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .." |
|||
{{collapse top|Detail appreciation Diff1 issue}} |
|||
**While my primary perception about above case has been that like many other content dispute spilling over in personal realm and that continues; I gave a re-look into discussion between Kautilya3 and Abhishek0831996 specially about Dif 1 deletion of <nowiki>{{unreliable source?}}</nowiki> tag. |
|||
** Can any history film, other than academically transcripted and peer reviewed documentary; be called academically accurate? Who is going to decide those are just fiction or fictionalized or academically accurate history? Whether even any reliable news media can sit on judgement of it's veracity like academics? |
|||
**What Wikipedia lacks at policy level is well identified allowance of weak sources. So be it. If at all a RS media is being used where academic should have been then why not at least provide attribution to the media. |
|||
**Above discussions are mentioning WP:HISTRS essay but inadvertently seem to miss on [[MOS:FILMHIST]] which provides some good via media for above explained difficulties. '''[[MOS:FILMHIST]] says''': |
|||
**".. If ample coverage from secondary sources exists about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology). .. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .." |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
** Did I not end up explaining content dispute aspect above, that's why my emphasis on WP:DDE protocol mentioned earlier. |
|||
{{collapse top|Some related advise}} |
|||
** We all users being human it's very understandable we prefer to stick to more suitable positions and RS. To draw a parallel whether any one would appreciate that court judges getting influenced by media even if RS? Similarly in a role of encyclopedist do we not need to understand many of our perceptions and positions are being constructed by media and mediums around us and there may be need to revisit our own positions and do effort to understand from where other user's point is coming and can there be space for that? |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
** @[[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] Yes it's true other users too may need introspection but when thing come to WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. My purpose is not to judge you on merit, other users are there for that. I suggest you revisiting statements like ".. Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact..." and read [[WP:TRUTH]] then confirm yourself by reading "..So, if you want to:..Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue,.." from [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]], and inadvertently we do not go closer to [[WP:POVPUSH]]. In my own case when other users expressed concerns about my own editing it took me time to understand from where other users perceptions are coming and how I can revisit my editing in this collaborative environment and do better. |
|||
I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all. |
|||
[[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (User name)==== |
|||
My intention was certainly not to indulge in argumentation. I used the talk page solely for the purpose of ''engaging discussion'' about the ''substance'' of my position. My position was entirely misrepresented over the course of the discussion and my activity in the talk page represents my failed attempts to correct this view with my interlocutors. I use reason/logic to clarify misunderstandings generally because it seems to be the ideal way of making that happen. I intend no antagonism with this; I simply have a style that relies on it, hence my handle name. |
|||
===Result concerning Abhishek0831996=== |
|||
Blatant misrepresentations are demonstrated with invocations of [[Wikipedia:Exceptional claims|WP:EXCEPTIONAL]]. This standard is unclear outside the implication that "EHS has a scientific basis" is a part of my claim. It is not a part of my claim and I further rule it out specifically here: |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1079391133&oldid=1079340077&title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity] |
|||
Here are the responses from @tgeorgescu and @Alexbrn that appeared ''after'' this comment, implying my claim meets criteria as an exceptional claim in some way: |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=next&oldid=1079391133] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=next&oldid=1079513042] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=prev&oldid=1079921903] |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=next&oldid=1079533594] |
|||
'''My position is that science has not cast a judgment against EHS'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=prev&oldid=1078802716] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1079391133&oldid=1079340077&title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity] and that's the only basis for my proposed edit. So I do not understand why my position was not considered as such. |
|||
This brings me to the subject of consensus, which I felt was far from clear cut due to these circumstances. This was the spirit of the message I intended to convey to @Meters, (albeit I did not express it well). I did not mean to dismiss @Meters' point, although I see how I might have accidentally allowed that to happen. Generally, I agree with the points they made. |
|||
I hope this message helps. [[User:Reasoned Inquiry|Reasoned Inquiry]] ([[User talk:Reasoned Inquiry|talk]]) 16:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Allow me to add my views on [[WP:TALKDONTREVERT]]: <u>"Editors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others."</u> I have poor social and negotiation skills since this essentially comes with the territory of having autism spectrum disorder. Having been put in opposition to being "less than civil" tells me Wikipedia might understand my nature as being uncivil. I try very hard to be fair with representing other views accurately and respond in kind. None of this is challenged by the specifics of the AE action (with the possible exception of my response to @[[User:Meters|Meters]], partly because my message was poorly expressed, and partly because I thought their first-time appearance very late into the discussion meant they might not have been aware of certain details, which does not convey in a standalone diff). By all appearances, I communicate in a style editors do not want since the minor mistakes I make as a newcomer to Wikipedia take the spotlight over the clear misrepresentations from @[[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] and @[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]]. I write long messages -while rooted in concise language- so that I am not misunderstood; but it happens anyway. I have no idea what I'm supposed to learn from this AE action outside the basic instruction not to pursue this anymore, as though there were some general assumption I want to violate the policies/guidelines/etcetera (and would attempt this in the future by reopening discussion). I do not have this intent and I would like to know why my conduct is being seen as a potential problem. There is more I could discuss; but I do not want to bother the admins with additional long messages. I hope this message helps ''me''. [[User:Reasoned Inquiry|Reasoned Inquiry]] ([[User talk:Reasoned Inquiry|talk]]) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] This is the first anyone in that discussion has mentioned [[WP:PUSH]], which I've never seen before now. [[User:Reasoned Inquiry|Reasoned Inquiry]] ([[User talk:Reasoned Inquiry|talk]]) 14:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Reasoned Inquiry=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*As is all too common in this area, there's a lot to review here; I'll try to when I get a chance. I will note up front that we almost certainly do not need ''more'' information to go through, and that the 500 word/20 diff limit on this request will be very strictly enforced. If you must add additional commentary, please keep it ''brief''. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Reasoned Inquiry has not edited the article [[Electromagnetic hypersensitivity]]. (They are autoconfirmed, so not prevented from editing it.) They're certainly argumentative on the talkpage, and the sheer mass of their posts is more of a problem than Tgeorgescu's three diffs above, in my opinion. Being unimpressed by hints of AE is no wikicrime. (Just brushing off {{u|Meters}}'s very reasonable point[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1080682024&diff=1080683739] is not a good look, though). But I don't see any of it as rising to a discretionary sanction. Why doesn't one of you guys just close the thread with a note about the (obvious) consensus? If RI then starts another long argument about a similar wording change, [[WP:BLUDGEON]] may come into play. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 21:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC). |
|||
*:{{u|Seraphimblade}}, I'd still love to hear your thoughts on this matter, but you're right that it's a lot to go through. Per the below, I'm inclined to close without action, except to advise everyone involved to watch their toes a bit more. Planning to close as such in a couple days unless you or someone else wants to go another way or requests more time. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with Bishonen's analysis. The talkpage discussion has been closed, so hopefully the matter is now resolved. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::I think this ''ultimately'' boils down to a content dispute, but I'm seeing some behavioral issues here as well. I don't see any truly egregious ones, but a reminder to everyone to tone it down a few notches or there will be some action taken in the future would not be a bad idea. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 07:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I'm reviewing and will likely have some thoughts in the next 24 hours. I urge all the participants to be mindful of the word limit. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I'm sorry to say that I'm hampered by a lack of a general understanding of the topic areas involved in these disputes. It makes it hard to parse much of the evidence provided. For example, diff #9 is presented as "deletion of a well-known fact", but judging just based on the article, Bose is raised as a figure from the Congress Party who "diverged" from "Gandhian Values". In the main Bose article, there's lengthy description about differences between the two. Is it so factual to say that he was a "leading follower of Gandhi's ideology", and so patently unacceptable to remove such a statement? Haani40 cites multiple diffs of Abhishek and Capitals "repeatedly removing sourced content" but the citations provided do not appear to support the content about a 1959 occupation. I might be way off on all of this, but the evidence provided is not clear enough to make firm conclusions. |
|||
*:Reading the evidence provided, and looking at the page history, there's plenty of evidence of content disputes turned acerbic. I'm not seeing a diff or two that jumps out at me as being over the top. I'm not at all happy with: |
|||
*:# Abhishek's description of other editors' work as "nonsensical" and "half baked". |
|||
*:# Kautilya's suggestion that Abhishek and Capitals are [[WP:TAGTEAM|tag-teaming]]. I'm not seeing enough evidence of coordination to make such a suggestion appropriate. |
|||
*:# Haani40's casting aspersions at an article talk page |
|||
*:I don't think any of that rises to the level where administrative action is needed, at least not yet. I'd caution everybody to turn down the rhetoric and be a bit quicker to seek outside content dispute resolution. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Haani40's response to me is emblematic of the problem here. The Google Books link shows many sources, the first two of which (at least for me) say: |
|||
*::* [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Beyond_NJ_9842/XW1QBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Aksai+Chin+occupied%22+by+China&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover "... Aksai Chin occupied by China in 1962"] |
|||
*::* [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kashmir_Dispute_Terrorism_and_Pakistan/cz2qDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Aksai+Chin+occupied%22+by+China&pg=PT196&printsec=frontcover "Aksai Chin occupied by China in 1962 Indo China war"] |
|||
*::Neither supports, and both implicitly contradict, the disputed article text which said "Between 1959 and 1962, China occupied 5,985 sq mi/15,500 sq km. of territory claimed by India in the region". I am neither the holder nor the arbiter of the truth at the heart of this content dispute, but I can't support administrative action based on the quality of the evidence presented so far. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
== |
==Grandmaster== |
||
{{hat|No action necessary. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{hat|Not a violation. Everyone seems to be on the same page now, so closing without action. I do recommend discussing the source's suitability (reliability) at the proper venue. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 20:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning Grandmaster=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks| |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vanezi Astghik}} 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Grandmaster}}<p>{{ds/log|Grandmaster}}</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/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions]] |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:AA3]] |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_3#Ocampo 22 December 2023] Grandmaster wants to remove Luis Moreno Ocampo from the lead, but does not get a consensus to do so. |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1206985508 13 February 2024] An admin officially warns Grandmaster the following: "Don't revert more than once to your preferred version of content, even if some time has passed, unless you have clear consensus." |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=prev&oldid=1080996619 17:45, 4 April 2022] previously removed this source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=1051594844&oldid=1036641810 here] and reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=next&oldid=1051594844 here] making this the first revert |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title= |
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1219526854 18 April 2024] removes Moreno Ocampo from the lead because "not a place for individual minority views". |
||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1219526709 18 April 2024] Creates a new discussion simultaneously with removing Moreno Ocampo, repeating the same points as if not already doing so in a previous discussion, which Grandmaster abandoned after being shown proof the Azerbaijani government hired a lawyer to help fight Moreno Ocampo's analysis |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=1081133174&oldid=1081129612 Refused to self-revert] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1219532378 18 April 2024] Grandmaster changes "disputed" with "denied", claiming it is better wording. There was an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians/Archive_5#Enver_Pasha_Street article discussion months earlier], which Grandmaster participated in. Grandmaster [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1180381550 didn't want to use the word dispute], but the consensus was "disputed" is better wording.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1179939247][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1180439624] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1072615557 18 February 2022] previous [[WP:AA2]] topic ban, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1116086867 appealed] in October. |
|||
N/A |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grandmaster/Archive_8#Armenia-Azerbaijan_3:_Arbitration_case_closed 18 March 2023] placed under an indefinite probation following AA3 |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia: |
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1072615557 18 February 2022] by {{admin|Rosguill}}. |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=1030504329&oldid=1030415200 here] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
In both discussions, Grandmaster did not even contest the final point of the last user and just abandoned the discussions. Yet months later, after the activity quieted down, Grandmaster changed the established wordings again as if they hadn't been explicitly by a consensus which Grandmaster is aware of and took part in. [[User:Vanezi Astghik|Vanezi]] ([[User talk:Vanezi Astghik|talk]]) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I know David is a popular person around these parts, I know his crusade against sources he finds subpar to have varying levels of support. But [[Benny Morris]] is very obviously among the five best sources for [[Palestinian right of return]] and calling him "extremist" or "fringe" is either over the line or nudging up against the line of a BLP violation. Im sure he will say things like "white nationalist blog", but Morris was responding to somebody else in the same forum his views were attacked, and if Morris were to write his views on a soiled piece of toilet paper and sign his name to it that would still be a usable source here. Regardless, that is a question for the talk page or RSN, neither of which Mr Gerard has seen fit to consult. Instead, as per the usual MO, edit warring to [[WP:RGW]] without paying even the tiniest bit of attention to what it is he is removing. This is a clear 1RR violation, one in which the editor has refused to self-revert, and it should be met with a block or topic ban |
|||
:Dennis, I call it a revert because it was David who previously removed it and had it restored. I dont know how one can claim they can repeat an edit they've previously made and had reverted anything other than a revert. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
Also, for the record, and for why the removal of the is improper, there is now in our article a direct quote to Morris, "who had just attacked the Jewish community", which is not in what is now the only source cited ([https://www.haaretz.com/1.5262428 this interview in Haaretz]). The quote is from the now expunged source, making David's edit an issue of source falsification in which we claim a quote is available in a source which does not contain it. Making this just the latest example of this editor recklessly and carelessly removing things they have not even pretended to look at. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 15:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:I dont intend to engage in the silliness about arguing whether or not [[Benny Morris]] is a reliable source, since that is an abjectly absurd argument to have, but this is a simple issue of counting. Can David remove something, be reverted, and then come back some months later to remove it again and that not be a revert? Or is an editor periodically returning to make the same edit that has previously been contested a revert? I think it obvious given his removal in October that the first removal yesterday was a revert and his second removal yesterday his second revert. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 15:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
{{u|Newyorkbrad}} could you please explain how [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=prev&oldid=1080996619 this] repetition of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=1051594844&oldid=1036641810 this previous removal] is not a revert? Genuinely curious as to how that is possible, because there are a number of edits Ive made 6 months ago I could repeat if they are no longer reverts. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:{{u|Newyorkbrad}} normally I would agree with you 6 months is plenty long to ignore, except for the fact that it is David repeating his own edit. If this had been removed by some other person back in October then sure calling it a revert would be a stretch. But when David repeats his own edit, an edit that was reverted, I dont see how one can claim that is not a revert. You are essentially, if this is to be carried out with any consistency, allowing users to periodically return with a new first-movers advantage to push their view through edit-warring. As far as a "better source", there is no better source for Morris' own views than Morris himself, even if he is writing in a less than reputable publication. I agree it should be discussed on the talk page, a place David has never found himself. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 16:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
Um the two reverts I am listing here are two hours apart, not 6 months apart. I feel like I am in crazy town here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:{{u|Jayron32}} if that is the definition decided here then fine, but then expect any repeated edit I make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert". You are opening things up to all sorts of gaming here by restoring a first-movers advantage to somebody who just waits some period of time to return their contested edits. As far as the claim of "hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart", a the edit in question from October is in the last fifteen edits of that page, and b. I saw it at the time and raised it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1051828514 here] then, with David at the time seeming to acknowledge his error in removing it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1051829275 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1051830755 here]. I didnt have to hunt through anything, I just had to remember the last time he pulled this crap. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:So let me get this straight, "After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit." only applies in this specific instance with this specific editor? That isnt a definition of anything, it is just how the interpretation this one specific instance, [[Bush v Gore|never to be referenced again as though it applies in any other situation with the exact same sequence]]? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:No Jayron, I am not twisting anything at all by quoting you. By saying I will accept the precedent established that an edit repeated after six months is not a revert I am not announcing an intent to game the system. Odd for somebody to write [[WP:AGF]] as often as it appears in your comments to then repeatedly assume my bad faith. If an edit six months apart is not a revert by an admin then I will expect that same determination for edits six months apart by anybody else. Unless you really would like to more formally declare that admins are indeed covered by a "rules for thee but not for me" policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:It is not this one admin said this one time, it would be if a consensus here finds that an edit repeated after 6 months is not a revert, then I would expect that consensus to stand for future such edits. Here we have David making an edit, being reverted, then re-doing his edit 6 months later. With multiple admins claiming that the intervening six months makes it so that this restoring of his preferred version is not a revert. If that is the case for David it should be the case for everybody else. This game of we dont establish precedents and I wont be held accountable for my positions in the future very obviously leads to an unfair and unjust system in which different users are treated in different ways for objectively the same actions. Do you really feel that is acceptable? I do not. So yes, if the consensus of this discussion is that 6 months time wipes away the status of revert for repeating ones edit then I will expect that same treatment. Obviously since I am not one of the anointed ones with the bit I may not get that treatment, but I sure as hell will be referencing the hypocrisy of such a decision if it does not hold. You cant just say for David returning after six months negates any status of a revert but for me it would be gaming. That is unfair and unjust and it is not sealioning to say so. We are all supposed to follow the same rules of the road here. You cant say well David didnt blow a red light for six months so this first rolling stop is not going to be counted against him, but for others (me) no such deference will be given. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 18:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
Thanks Dennis, I appreciate your kind tone (and Floqs and NYB for that matter), and I am fine with that honestly, I just find it to be opening things up to game-playing, but so long as there is consistency in that definition of a revert for all of us then Im cool with it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 19:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=1081136231&oldid=1081134159 Notified] |
|||
:THE [[WP:BRD]] cycle states "you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns", but Grandmaster just ignored the previous discussions entirely. Grandmaster abandoned a discussion for something they wanted to remove because the consensus was against it, then 4 months later removed the same content without any consensus, and opened a "new" discussion repeating same talking points already addressed in the previous discussion. Grandmaster also says they forgot about the previous discussion, but is trying to make the exact same disputed/denied change that was thoroughly discussed and is the one who started the previous Moreno Ocampo discussion. I hadn't commented in the new discussion yet, because the POV-pushing and lack of regard for the established consensus seemed more alarming. |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
:As for the admin advice given in the previous AE threads, I was not a part of those discussions, while Grandmaster was. So I do not understand what is meant by "us". [[User:Vanezi Astghik|Vanezi]] ([[User talk:Vanezi Astghik|talk]]) 19:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Does Grandmaster waiting 4 months after a consensus discussion to revert the established versions of without a new consensus, violate the AA3 indefinite probation and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1206985508 warning] given by {{U|Firefangledfeathers}}? And it was a revert (albeit 4 months later) despite established consensus because if you look at the article history, Ocampo was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1190525282 removed] from lead on 18 December with no explanation other than "updated header", then it was restored with "no consensus" explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1191169653], and after that a day later, Grandmaster starts a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_3#Ocampo discussion] that they end up abandoning, and the rest/details I've already shown chronologically in the diffs section and my comments. [[User:Vanezi Astghik|Vanezi]] ([[User talk:Vanezi Astghik|talk]]) 21:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1219684139] |
|||
===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning Grandmaster=== |
||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Grandmaster==== |
||
Regarding removal of Ocampo from the lead, I just followed the standard [[WP:BRD]], and started a discussion at talk. I was advised to not rv more than once, and this is a single revert that I made. Vanezi reverted me with no edit summary other than "rv", and did not join the discussion that I started. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1219684306] Regarding the change of the word "disputed" to "denied", I indeed forgot about the previous discussions from the last year. We had many discussions with multiple archives on 3 related articles, so it is hard to keep track of what exactly was discussed a few months ago. I was going to rv myself when I saw the report here, but Vanezi already did. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1219684649] |
|||
This appears from the diffs provided to be a second revert within six months, not within 24 hours. Literally the ARBPIA ruling that Nableezy links says: {{tq|Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours}}. There is no case to answer here. |
|||
Previously the admins advised us to ask the other party to rv themselves if their edits are disputed, and only escalate if the other party refuses to cooperate. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328#KhndzorUtogh] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328#Grandmaster] |
|||
The source removed was from the white nationalist blog American Thinker. Although it hasn't been formally deprecated, I think it's jawdroppingly obvious that it's the sort of source that absolutely shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_235#American_Thinker|Here's an RSN discussion from 2018]] setting out its issues, for example. This shouldn't even be a difficult call. |
|||
This is what I did when Vanezi themselves made an edit against the consensus. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanezi_Astghik#UN_mission] The closing admin confirmed that there was a violation of the consensus, and Vanezi self-reverted. |
|||
Even if Morris is a great source, that doesn't mean every instance of him saying things is a suitable source for Wikipedia use. |
|||
If Vanezi had notified me of my mistake, I would have reverted myself, but Vanezi never contacted me at my or the article talk. I always try to resolve any dispute by following the dispute resolution process, as one can see from all the [[WP:DR]] processes that I started, and I would certainly do so again if I was alerted about present or past disagreements with my edits. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I note also that Nableezy is already constructing a conspiracy theory as to why his action here will fail, ''in the course of raising the action''. |
|||
It should also be noted that there is an [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KhndzorUtogh|SPI case]] on the filer open over a month ago, and until that is formally closed, it is unclear if they are allowed to post here. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
In any case, we have the RS. If the quote isn't in that, remove the quote, don't put back the obviously terrible source - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Kyohyi==== |
|||
Completely uninvolved in terms of this dispute. I'm just seeing some rather confounding comments by admins. What is a revert is defined in policy, policy says to revert is to undo another editor's actions. It does not give a time frame in which this has to happen. If enforcing admins wish to include a time frame then they should be modifying the existing sanction, or seek to change policy language. But to characterize the first revert on April 4th as a non-revert has no standing in policy. --[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 17:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The policy language is clear, to revert is to undo another editor's actions. Period. That's policy, as documented in [[WP: EW]]. Do these removals undo someone else's actions? Obviously they do, since wikipedia articles and content are non-existant until someone creates them. So someone added this, and David Gerard removed it. That's a revert. It doesn't get much more explicit than this. (Using the undo button is obviously more explicit than this)--[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: The point I am making is that the look back time is irrelevant to how policy defines a revert. That content exists on Wikipedia indicative of someone having added it. Removing that content is always going to be a revert regardless of when the content was added. That is because any removal is always an undoing of what someone else added. And a revert is an undo of another editor's actions. Policy is clear on this. --[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::: Whether or not you choose to block the editor, or issue a warning, or do something else is your prerogative. Whether or not something <b>is</b> a revert is documented in policy. --[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 18:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Nobody is playing word games. What is a revert, as well as it's exceptions are spelled out in our edit warring policy. Whether or not a violation is worthy of a sanction is different from whether or not something was a violation in the first place. Something that is a minor violation, but doesn't warrant a sanction, can come to warrant a sanction if continued over a prolonged period of time. Something that isn't a violation at all should not.--[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning Grandmaster=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*I'm not seeing anything here. It looks like 0RR was followed. Any objections to closing with no action? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Not sure I would call the first diff a "revert", since it was added Oct of 2021 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=1051988500&oldid=1051945378]. David first removed the source just before that latest addition, also in October [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=1051594844&oldid=1036641810]. David does seem to have an obvious problem with https://www.americanthinker.com, although I'm not sure if that is withing the remit of WP:AE. I think it all boils down to whether you call that first edit a "revert" or not, and (again) since the edit was removing material that was inserted many months ago, I'm not sure. At the very least, it does seem against the spirit of 1RR. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 14:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Agreed with SFR, I don't see any need to take action here. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 08:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I understand your frustration {{u|nableezy}}, hence why I said it felt like it was against the spirit of the policy, but it is within policy. {{u|Floquenbeam}} sums it up better than I did, below. The first "reinstatement" (if we call it that) really wasn't a revert. There isn't a specific time that must pass before reinstating a prior edit isn't really a revert, but I'm pretty sure 6 months qualifies. That means, from a technical perspective, we have one edit and 2 hours later, one revert, even if he does gain first mover advantage via 1RR. But in the end, there is no violation. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Not a comment on David's actions but it is important to remember that RSOPINION exists and thus regardless of the quality of the source, as long as it is not on a BLP, there is a potential to use that otherwise nonRS, but editors should discuss the expertness of the writer and whether the view merits DUE inclusion. Which is all stuff to debate on talk pages. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*No violation. In lieu of further reverts, please discuss use of this source on the talkpage. If this person's point of view is notable enough to include, shouldn't there be a better source for what his view is? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**{{ping|Nableezy}}Thank you for your question. It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report. As I mentioned above, the substantive issue here should be resolved by finding one or more additional sources of better quality, if available. This should be discussed on the talkpage. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm with NYB here. No violation. The text of the arbitration sanction says "{{tq|Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict.}}" While I would think that reverts that were close to, but slightly outside of 24 hours, might be "gaming the system", and could warrant something, reverts made ''6 months apart'' in no way represents a violation here. I'm much more concerned that someone is hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart... --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:@Nableezy: What I am saying is that your characterization of two edits separated by 6 months do not constitute a revert. The 17:45 edit is not a revert under any normal understanding of the term. After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit. The only revert is then the 19:18 edit. That is the first edit I would consider a revert for the purposes of XRR. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::I'm not "defining" anything for any other purpose, nor establishing any rules here. Rules get decided only by community consensus, and if you want to start a discussion elsewhere to establish consensus to establish parameters (up to and including no time limit), then feel free to have that discussion elsewhere. We have no guidance on the matter, so we're left with assessing the situation on our own, and deciding what is the best way forward, with only [[WP:AGF]] and other similar rules as our guidance. With the lens of "we have no rules on this" and "I don't see evidence of bad-faith acting here", I'm considering his first edit on the day in question a normal edit. This is not a rule, and if you came in here tomorrow with another person in a different situation, the evidence may point in a different direction. That would ''include'' statements that the person intended ahead of time to test the limits of admins patience by deliberately making two such edits 6 months apart, knowing ahead of time that this conversation had occurred. Every situation is unique, and needs to be assessed on its own merits. If you want a rule, do the work of establishing a new rule. Don't make claims that "one time this one decision was made, so it's now a rule". That's not how rules get made. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:::No, and I must say Nableezy, this is becoming a [[Sealioning|sealion]] level of [[WP:BLUDGEON]], but I will try one last time to avert your deliberate twisting of my words. A ''facile'' description of a situation, absence of context, is not a good way of solving problems. Context matters, and simply saying there are two hypothetical situations where edits were made 6 months apart ''does not make the rest of the context around those situations'' the same. It rarely is. If faced with another case of such a situation, maybe the decision would go differently. For example, if the person in question announced ahead of time they had intended to "{{tq| make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert".}}" that is ''context'' for making a decision that would make ''that'' case different from ''this'' case. See, in this case, we have no such intent to [[WP:GAME|game]] the system. We merely have these edits, and have to make sense of what to do about them. In this case, we have nothing more than these edits, and your characterization of them. With all due respect, I tend to ignore ''anyone's'' characterization. I look at the diffs. The dates and times of the diffs lead me to the conclusion that this is not a violation. If you have other diffs that act as evidence to change my opinion on the matter, please provide them, if you just have more assertions and your own characterizations, I've seen enough of those, TYVM, and I consider this my final analysis of the situation. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::::This is not a court of law, we don't establish precedent. We apply the principles of behavior at Wikipedia the best we can to allow smooth operation of the encyclopedia. Don't try to read rules from these discussions. I'm ''not'' a king. I am ''not'' more important than you, or David, or anyone else. I am providing my opinion on this matter. My opinion, insofar as any decision is made on this matter based on it, only counts for this discussion here. If you want to make a rule, there are ways to do that at Wikipedia, but "This one admin said this one time..." is not rulemaking. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*@Kyohyi Let me reiterate what NYB said, "{{tq|It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report.}}" If other admins clearly disagree with us, I'm perfectly willing to abide by consensus here, and if there is consensus that NYB and I are out of order, I will abide by that consensus. What we have is, in my perspective, a lack of guidance from the rules, which is to say that the rules are ''silent'' on the matter. What you interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so the limit must go back forever", I interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so we have no guidance and are working blind here". When I don't have such clear rules, I fall back on more core principles, including [[WP:AGF]]. When I see a borderline or ambiguous case, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, I lean towards AGF. That's my statement on the matter. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:Context is always relevant, the notion that a "revert" in the spirit of "enabling a good editing environment" needs to be assessed, in context. Under your limitless revert, an edit could have been made in 2006, undone in 2014, reinstated in 2019, and undone again in 2022, and now we're supposed to block that editor? I'm going to be honest with you, and this is just me, I can't remember ''anything'' I was doing 6 months ago; much less any specific edits I may have made to one Wikipedia article. Is this a revert? I don't know. So I need to go with [[WP:AGF]] here. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::This isn't a place to play games with language. This is a place to decide whether or not to block someone for something they did. If the language I used gets in your way of understanding that, simply rewrite everything I already said, but replace any time I made you think I said "this isn't a revert" instead with the language "this revert is not worth counting for 1RR in this case". The end result is exactly the same, and if that doesn't get you hung up on the language here, Kyohyi, it's all the same to me. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*While I don't think I'd actually actively '''do''' anything different than Dennis, Brad, or Jayron here, because it's a little fuzzy, I do understand Nableezy's frustration. I've noticed for a while - with no suggested resolution - that there is a tension between BRD and 1RR. If we assume David's first removal of the link was bold, then he violated BRD when he reverted Nableezy's revert. But there's currently no sanction for doing that. 1RR in fact incentivizes breaking BRD. So no matter how we define David's first edit to the page today - bold or revert - the second edit broke either 1RR or BRD, but Nableezy is trapped and has to accept the edit as the new status quo while discussion goes on. And if the discussion results in no consensus, David's edit somehow becomes the de facto new default. 1RR definitely creates a first-mover advantage, which in most other areas of WP we tend to try to avoid. This is reason #46 I seldom get involved in AE, because so often it relies on gamesmanship, and rewarding the person who plays the game better. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 17:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
== |
==Haani40== |
||
{{hat|Haani40 blocked as a sock. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{hat|There's been a lot of ideas as to solutions, and we all agree on the problem. At the end of the day, I think the best solution is to institute an indefinite topic ban for all topics relating to "Russia", broadly construed, for {{u|Veverve}}. This includes talk pages or discussions anywhere on the Wiki, subject to the usual exceptions (appeals). The scope was kind of tricky, as we aren't trying to overshoot the mark, yet it's unfair to have the scope too narrow or confusing as to invite more AE discussions as to what is and isn't a violation. I think there is a clear consensus that Russia in general is the primary problem. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC) }} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning Haani40=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Srijanx22}} 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Haani40}}<p>{{ds/log|Haani40}}</p> |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Veverve}}<p>{{ds/log|Veverve}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia: |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]] |
||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. 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.--> |
<!-- 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=Indian_reunification&diff=prev&oldid=1219543137 18 April] - Added thoroughly unreliable sources in a topic that is sensitive towards religious conflicts |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080034218&oldid=1079915442 23:40, 29 March 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080135703&oldid=1080102706 14:05, 30 March 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080589879&oldid=1080282988 04:21, 2 April 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080855244&oldid=1080848916 21:31, 3 April 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1081159494&oldid=1081141914 17:17, 5 April 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1081223680&oldid=1081222452 02:22, 6 April 2022] - sustained edit-warring on page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&action=history Russian_fascism_(ideology)], immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page. In last edit summaries user claims consensus to delete this page by making it a redirect. I do not see an obvious consensus anywhere. An AfD about this page was closed as "no consensus" on March 18 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_fascism_(ideology)]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&diff=prev&oldid=1219575788 18 April] - Removes critical content about the subject by misrepresenting [[WP:BLP]] in edit summary |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Russia_should_do_with_Ukraine&diff=1081530623&oldid=1081529993],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Russia_should_do_with_Ukraine&diff=1081533032&oldid=1081531163] (please check their edit summaries) - the user repeatedly removes [[:Category:Russian fascism]] from a page about Neo-fascist essay [[What Russia should do with Ukraine]]. This essay advocates extermination of [[Ukrainian people]] in context of the ongoing [[War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]. And it is described as such on the page: "The article calls for the full destruction of Ukraine as a state and the Ukrainian national identity [https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kremlin-editorial-ukraine-identity-1.6407921 ref]" in the lead. It also say that "According to [[Euractiv]], Sergeitsev [author of the essay] is "one of the ideologists of modern Russian fascism" [https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/opinion/the-whole-world-can-observe-the-clash-of-civilization-and-anticivilization/ ref]". The irony of this? The category was already there, I inserted it by mistake. But such edits show the bias of Veverve and their readiness to edit war even about categorization of pages as belonging to [[:Category:Russian fascism]] when they obviously belong to such category. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&diff=prev&oldid=1219576715 18 April] - Same as above |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=1081549139&oldid=1081548642] - Veverve objects to using [[:Category:Russian fascism]] on a number of pages (such as page in the previous diff #2), and instead of discussing why the category would be applicable to specific pages (as I suggested [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=1081543675&oldid=1081537841]), demands that I must self-revert on ''all'' such pages or he will submit an ANI request about me. This is a highly confrontational approach. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rahul_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1219618409 18 April] - Engages in [[WP:BLP]] violation by using unreliable sources and misrepresenting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1219615956#WP:BLP_violation this discussion] on edit summary |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1075008684&oldid=1075005722] - misleading edit summary by Veverve. No, [[Z symbol]] removed by Veverve is very much relevant to the subject, this is like removing swastika from a page about Nazi. But he removes it again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1075061771&oldid=1075059578], and again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1076355855&oldid=1076336630]. This is ''modus operandi'' of Veverve: just declare something to be unrelated to the subject and remove over the objections by other multiple contributors. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080855244&oldid=1080848916] - misleading edit summary. Veverve removes not just views by [[Dzhokhar Dudayev]] (which are relevant), but views by well known academic historian [[Timothy D. Snyder]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1079384812&oldid=1078311674 (edit summary)] - is that an adequate explanation for removal? |
|||
What is more surprising, that the last diff came after this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haani40&diff=prev&oldid=1219597971 clear-cut topic ban warning by Bishonen] on his talk page. This user has actually misrepresented the sources with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rahul_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1219618409 this edit] as correctly observed by another admin (Cordless Larry).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rahul_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1219626331] Even after this all, he is still arguing on the article's talk page that how his edits are not WP:BLP violation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rahul_Gandhi#Reversion] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veverve#March_2022] block for edit-warring on page Russian_fascism_(ideology) |
|||
While this user is overly enthusiastic about these controversial topics, I believe the inputs and warnings on his talk page have so far [[WP:IDHT|ended up getting ignored by him]]. [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User_talk:Srijanx22|talk]]) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haani40&diff=prev&oldid=1215515341] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veverve#DS_alert DS alert] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
||
*As a note of order, I now restored the page based on comments by admins below. I also commented on article talk page about it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=prev&oldid=1081914856] [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 11:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haani40&diff=prev&oldid=1219770658] |
|||
With regard to categories (diff #3), my typical response would be that [[Black Hundreds]], for example, should be included to the category based on their description in book [[Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements]] or in another book, but this is beyond the point. The point is the confrontational approach by Veverve to resolving content disputes: the refusal to discuss the essence of disagreements and demanding to self-revert immediately on all pages or "I will report you to ANI". The report to ANI would result only in wasting time by contributors in this case. |
|||
*If a TBAN to be issued here, I think this should be a TBAN from anything related to Russian nationalism or fascism or any wider topic ban. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veverve#AE_request User notified] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
===Discussion concerning Haani40=== |
|||
===Discussion concerning Veverve=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Haani40==== |
||
At [[WP:DR]], it says, "{{tq|If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages. There are several templates you may use to warn editors of conduct issues,[b] or you may choose to use your own words to open a discussion on the editor's talk page. In all cases, and even in the face of serious misconduct, please try to act in a professional and polite manner}}" |
|||
However, there was no edit war nor any discussion on any article's talk page or my talk page about these edits by the filer. {{strikethrough|I therefore believe that this ARE/AE is filed with a malafide intention.}} |
|||
:1. What you call edit-warring is either: a) enforcing the consensus at [[Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)#Scope of the article]], and I was not the only one doing it by revertingyour edits as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1081222024&oldid=1081221912 HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith reverted you]; or b) disagreeing on the content of the page which does not constitute edit-warring. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1081225560&oldid=1081225056 told you on the article's talk] page that there was a consensus and that another uninvolved user had seen there was a consensus. The consensus was also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1081120645&oldid=1081117625 seen by a second uninvolved user at ANM]. |
|||
:[[User_talk:Veverve#March_2022|My article-ban]] was from 17 March 2022 to 24 March 2022. All your examples are from more than 5 days after the end of the ban, so I do not see how you can say I had contend disputes {{tq|immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page}}. |
|||
:I opened an ANI [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095#Tsans2 adding FICTREFs, refusing to BRD, implies I have an AGENDA|on 1 April 2022]] concerning this page and a dispute with another user, Tsans2. On 2 April the user was topic-banned, and I received no sanction or accusation for edit-warring at this ANI, meaning I was not considered by anyone as edit-warring (i.e. no [[WP:BOOMERANG]] as should have happened if I was doing what you are accusing me of). This topic-ban was [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_Review_of_Topic_Ban|supported by Deepfriedokra]], who had previously imposed a one-week article-ban of this article to both me and Tsans2. |
|||
<br> |
|||
:2. and 3. As for the second and third point, you are emphasising the content dispute aspect, while I was protesting against you trying to make controversial changes. As I [[User_talk:My_very_best_wishes#POV_categorisation|stated on you talk page]], most of your additions did not meet [[WP:CATDEF]]. And some (probably most if I remember correctly) of the articles to which you added those tags make no mention of fascism; I gave you two examples at your talk page ([[Russian world]], [[Third Rome]]). Another example is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=1081542796&oldid=922512283 adding this category to Category:Antisemitism in the Soviet Union] which is highly contestable. I have the right to ask you to follow [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:QUO]] when a policy is not respected; I feel in no way can this behaviour be considered {{tq|a highly confrontational approach}}. |
|||
[[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Dennis Brown}} since there was no consensus at the AfD, as [[User talk:Veverve#Russian fascism|I told My very best wishes]], my reasoning was that there was no WP:CONLEVEL, as [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]] seems treated differently in the same policy page (I pointed out [[WP:CCC]] and [[WP:BUREAUCRACY]] in my comment). [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Dennis Brown}} that I may have misinterpreted one or more policies, I admit. However, what POV are you accusing me of pushing? [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 21:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Dennis Brown: I would like to point out that my argument about CCC and CONLEVEL were made 6 April 2022, 1 month after the AfD; and they were not made after you gave an explanation on them. |
|||
:::While I was previously given the argument that the soft deletion was not to be done due to the AfD result, other users have also been given this argument and have also changed the article into a redirect, in good faith, in the name of what they perceived as enforcing a legitimate consensus from the talk page. Besides, I am not the one who turned this article into a redirect in the first place. I am not invoking a [[WP:SHEEP]] editing on my part, but the user My very best wishes wants to make those actions as if they were outlandish and especially made by me. |
|||
:::While those elements do not make my actions automatically excusable, I hope they provide a bigger picture of the situation. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 01:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I note that My very best wishes (MVBW) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=1081696157&oldid=1081690838 has changed their complaint] to try, even here, to POV-push adding the [[Z (military symbol)]] and the [[Ribbon of Saint George]] as symbols of fascism in Russia without any source; this is despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARussian_fascism_%28ideology%29&type=revision&diff=1077678876&oldid=1077678761 having accepted the letter "Z" was not a fascist symbol according to the only sources once given in the article supposedly supporting this claim]. MVBW is also trying to blame me for not agreeing on their scope of the article at the time, which [[Talk:Russian_fascism_(ideology)#Scope_of_the_article|by a 2 vs 1 was not following MVBW's opinion]]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARussian_fascism_%28ideology%29&type=revision&diff=1078113113&oldid=1078094040 MVBW's view] being that the article should be a collection of claims of [[Russia under Vladimir Putin]] being fascist or compared to fascists. I have justified myself concerning Danilov's opinion [[Talk:Russian_fascism_(ideology)#Editing_problems|on the article's talk page]]; the opinion to me is not DUE and the statement it supports is half a FICTREF. Dudayev's opinion is from an interview and therefore is a primary source and given weight arbitrarily. Those new accusations are either once again content dispute material, or an user trying to justify [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 03:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the first diff: That was copied from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article (which someone else had added in that article). {{U|Srijanx22}} then reverted it. In the mean time, an admin ({{noping|Vanamonde93}}) removed it from the [[Anti-Hindu sentiment]] article for some reason and so, I did not edit war over it in either the [[Anti-Hindu sentiment]] article, nor in the [[Indian reunification]] article (I did not add it back). |
|||
====Statement by Dhawangupta==== |
|||
Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the second diff:- |
|||
{{ping|Dennis Brown}} I think you should take [[WP:ATD]] into consideration. There is no need of another AfD to overturn a previous AfD. The discussion on talk page happened for weeks and it was concluded that Wikipedia is better off without this article. The clear consensus was also noted by arbitrator+admin Xeno on WP:AN.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1081708006#Careful_attention_to_the_page_Russian_fascism_(ideology)] |
|||
That was reverted by an admin ({{noping|RegentsPark}}) and I did not add it back |
|||
Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the third diff:- |
|||
Since this report largely depend on that particular point that has been already resolved, I don't consider this report as anything more than [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] to find another resolution instead of describing on talk page that why this POV cruft is needed or if there is any academic coverage about it. [[User:Dhawangupta|Dhawangupta]] ([[User talk:Dhawangupta|talk]]) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
That was reverted by a Rollbacker, {{noping|TheWikiholic}} and I did not add it back |
|||
::{{ping|Dennis Brown}} With that logic, the whole issue is now moot because "Russian fascism (ideology)" was redirected and "[[Fascism in Russia]]" became article after Vevere requested on RM/TR.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=1081278282&oldid=1081273262] I believe his efforts were sincere and he was being helpful. [[User:Dhawangupta|Dhawangupta]] ([[User talk:Dhawangupta|talk]]) 11:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the fourth diff:- |
|||
====Statement by Levivich==== |
|||
I asked at the [[WP:Teahouse]] and added that with reliable sources but since it was reverted, I didn't add it back and started a discussion on the Talk page of the article (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rahul_Gandhi#Reversion this]) where the consensus was against adding it (however, only one experienced editor who had reverted it responded to the question if it was acceptable and the filer of this AE was not a part of that discussion at all). I have abided by that consensus. |
|||
Just want to note Veverve's recent editing in this topic area, including a group of RfDs, plus their retirement message, plus more editing afterwards. Sorry I'm on mobile and don't have time for diffs, but it's all in their contribs from today. I would suggest the scope of the tban include fascism ''and'' EE, not just "Russian fascism" as that's too narrow IMO. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 17:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I have been extra careful about my edits after the warning by an admin ({{noping|Bishonen}}) on my Talk page and have asked for clarification at the Teahouse before my next edit. After that was reverted and discussed on the Talk page of the article and the consensus was to avoid adding it, I didn't add it back. I have understood why my edits were reverted and apologise for it. I shall learn, improve and avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, I will ask some experienced editor or maybe at the [[WP:Teahouse]] before making any edit I feel is going to cause a problem. |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
I have not received any warning by the filer ever before. <s>He/she has directly come here for Arbitration/getting me sanctioned with a malafide intention!</s> |
|||
===Result concerning Veverve=== |
|||
:''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. --> |
|||
*{{u|Veverve}}, why exactly are you (and {{u|Czello}} and {{u|HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith}}) trying to soft delete an article that went to AFD and was closed as "no consensus".[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_fascism_(ideology)]. AFD is considered a global consensus, unlike a talk page which is a local consensus, as it attracts input from all over the Wiki. It would seem to be that if you want it to be deleted, you would take it to AFD again. I mean, you didn't even bother to have a well advertised RFC, you just got a few people together on a talk page and decided the AFD was "wrong". There are plenty of issues with the article (as the AFD pointed out), but you [[WP:CONLEVEL|can't overturn global consensus with local consensus]]. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 19:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm seeing textbook [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious editing]] from Veverve here. You can't just quote BRD or only give it lip service, then point your finger at the other guy. I will look around more, but seriously, this may warrant a topic ban. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 19:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::No consensus defaults to KEEP under all circumstances at AFD, and always has, as that is the default state of an article. The only real difference between a no consensus and keep decision is that it is considered acceptable to bring a no consensus article back to AFD after a period of time, 3 to 6 months. For all intent and purposes, the status quo was "keep", and the AFD showed there was NO consensus to delete it. Been that way since I started in 2006. And please stay in your own section. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 21:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Let me add, your quoting CCC (consensus can change) two weeks after the AFD is making the case that you need to be topic banned. You seem blinded by your POV here and reaching for any straw to grab onto. You're quoting policy you don't understand, and instead of learning policy, you are trying to find some policy that fits your preconceived ideas. I don't think you need to be editing in EE areas, your POV is overriding good judgement. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Dhawangupta}} ATD has no bearing here. The Arbitrator didn't take action as an admin, and their opinions don't carry more weight anyway. Local discussions don't override a recent AFD. Had it been a well advertised RFC (thus global) or actual advertised and tagged merge discussion, that might be different, but it wasn't. Your arguments here are moot. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 20:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Pinging {{u|Deepfriedokra}} who made the last block and is more familiar with the case. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 13:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*{{u|Dennis Brown}}'s observations reflect my own. This is straying into [[WP:CIR]] territory. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{u|Deepfriedokra}}, just trying to be nice, because incompetence might happen in good faith, unlike agenda, uh, ''servitude.'' But that's right, we don't have special insight into someone's soul. In that sense, mitigating factors for DE can only go so far, with the effectiveness of the enforcement action serving as the driving imperative. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* Oh, {{u|Veverve}} I see my block did not deter you from further disruption. Not sure if we need just a TBAN enforced by a partial block on Russian_fascism_(ideology) or a TBAN on Eastern Europe entire. --<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> 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{yo|El_C}} is it [[WP:CIR]] or is it in the service of some agenda? ''Quien sabe''. Or some other reason? There's a [[Roger Zelazny]] quote I won't bother to look up that would apply. The reason is irrelevant. Stopping the disruption is what we seek. (noting "retired" on user page) --<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> 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*: '''Wot Firefly sed''' --<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> 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::OK with any broader than the one article topic ban. --<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> 15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* My instinct would be a partial block + TBAN from [[Russian fascism (ideology)]], with a clear warning that should the same disruption "leak" elsewhere in any way, broader sanctions will be swiftly imposed. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::So I'm clear, a topic ban only on Russian Facism specifically, broadly construed, as well as a partial block from the single article/talk? That is a lot narrower than all of EE but does make sense and I could support that. Not sure how necessary the partial block would be if there is a tban in place, but it can't hurt. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 14:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thinking on it just a minute more, this would have to be a little broader, covering Russism, Russian nationalism and more. If making it that narrow, might be better to just make it all of Russia, or Russian politics and philosophy. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 14:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Could happily support something along those lines - "Russian politics/political philosophy, broadly construed"? [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 14:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::As I think about it, I'm still a bit worried the narrowness will cause him to trip up unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally thinking there was plausible deniability, ie: editing the current Russian war, which is getting close. I think if we are going to narrow it smaller than EE, it may need to just be "Russia", broadly construed. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 17:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yep, we don't want ambiguity if we can help it. "Russia, broadly construed" looks good. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Support TB for Russia broadly construed. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Reading through all of this, it seems the most appropriate response here is a topic ban from all Eastern Europe topics, per [[WP:ARBEE]]. I would also support any lesser included topic bans if it is felt that a more narrow scope is sufficient. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 13:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
The filer may be sanctioned as per [[WP:BOOMERANG]] |
|||
==Goliath74 == |
|||
:I read what {{noping|Bookku}} has written below and so, I request you not to block or ban me. If you really want to, please make it light. For example, a block for 72 hours. A topic ban would be a very severe punishment for a first time sanction!-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 07:41, 22 April 2024 (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> |
|||
:{{noping|Srijanx22}} has also opened a false SPI against me [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Souniel_Yadav#Comments_by_other_users|here]]. It is possible that he had a bad experience with that user and is now [[WP:WIKIHOUNDING]] me. That is all the more reason to sanction him instead of me.-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 16:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Request concerning Goliath74 === |
|||
::As per instructions at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry/Notes for the accuser]], {{noping|Srijanx22}} had to, "Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages" which he didn't.-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 17:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|FDW777}} 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:According to {{noping|Bookku}} below, {{noping|Srijanx22}} has not followed the [[WP:DDE]] protocol, so that also calls for a sanction against him instead of me, as per [[WP:BOOMERANG]].-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (Bookku)==== |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Goliath74 }}<p>{{ds/log|Goliath74 }}</p> |
|||
I observed {{noping|Haani40}} as uninvolved editor form Abhishek0831996 case (still on this board while commenting here), there after I tried to give some mentorship like peer advice. I concur with OP that User:Haani40 seems overly enthusiastic about some controversial topics. They seem to pick some part of advice and overlook some. I doubt similar mistakes might be happening while interpreting the sources due to haste. Some of this mistakes may happen from any new user. |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
Hence I had advised Haani40 to not edit in these topic areas at least for couple of months. I suppose after my advice User:Haani40 should have got opportunity un til they do not repeat the mistake. There is specific [[WP:DDE]] protocol for such cases that too has not been complied before coming to ARE. In any case the case is on board so I feel let us observe {{noping|Haani40}} for 8-10 days by keeping this open, then take the call whether to leave them with warning or Haani40 deserves Topic Ban for some months. |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe]] |
|||
{{collapse top|Following part of [[WP:DDE]] protocol could have been followed before filing this request}} |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
.. |
|||
* If tendentious editor ''is'' using sources, but <u>if the sources are poor or misinterpreted</u>: |
|||
** Do not go to ANI yet. |
|||
** '''Review''' [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. |
|||
** '''File a report''' at the [[WP:RSN|Reliable Sources noticeboard]], if appropriate. |
|||
** Continue attempts to engage the editor in dialogue. '''Refer to policies''' and guidelines as appropriate. |
|||
*** If only two editors are involved, '''seek a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]]'''. |
|||
*** If more editors are involved, try a '''[[WP:RFC|Request for comment]]'''. |
|||
* If attempts at dispute resolution are rejected or unsuccessful, or the problems continue: |
|||
** '''Notify the editor you find disruptive on their user talkpage'''.<br />Include diffs of the problematic behavior. Use a section name and/or edit summary to clearly indicate that you view their behavior as disruptive, but avoid being unnecessarily provocative. Remember, you're still trying to de-escalate. If other editors are involved, they should post their own comments too, to make clear the ''community'' disapproves. |
|||
.. |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
<!-- 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.--> |
|||
{{collapse top|This advice is followed by Haani40 hence collapsed}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081629382&diff=prev 16:35, 08 April 2022] Restores content with unreliable reference without explanation |
|||
@[[User:Haani40]] just in recent discussion about Abhishek0831996 on this board itself I had mentioned [[WP:DDE]] protocol, you could have used that as I used above, instead your sentence about OP {{talkquote|He/she has directly come here for Arbitration/getting me sanctioned with a malafide intention!}} seems without proofs overly harsh against spirit of [[WP:AGF]] and unhelpful for yourself. I advice to strike it out at the earliest. [[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 06:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081629981&diff=prev 16:35, 08 April 2022] Again restores content with unreliable reference without explanation, despite my very clear edit summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081629802&diff=prev "rv. See previous edit summary. The discussion has been had regarding that website. It isn't reliable. Per WP:BURDEN, anyone restoring the information needs to cite a proper reference, not an unreliable blog] |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
@{{ping|Haani40}} Here in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1220240948 this edit of yours] you attributed me but did not ping. In above guidance I suggested to use [[WP:DDE]] but did not ask to go after OP. You should have read my advice to Abhishek0831996 ".. at WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. ..". Read: time to [[Law of holes|stop digging]] and [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|drop the stick]]. To regain the confidence of the community you need to promise and prove yourself by working in non-contentious areas without any controversy. Last but not least, going after OP or biting good faith advisors itself is last thing to help you. [[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 05:07, 23 April 2024 (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.--> |
|||
n/a |
|||
;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%3AGoliath74&type=revision&diff=1081629792&oldid=633303208 Notified] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
Given the ongoing propaganda war surrounding the actual war, the last thing relevant articles needs is editors who persist in restoring information by a blog deemend unreliable at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#defence-blog.com]]. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoliath74&type=revision&diff=1081630614&oldid=1081630330 Notified] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Goliath74 === |
|||
<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 Goliath74 ==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning Haani40=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
* {{u|Haani40}}, you're past your word limit. Please do not respond further unless you're requesting an extension. Also, there is no notification requirement for SPIs, and the page you linked is marked at the top with "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''[[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection|Extended confirmed protected]]'''<!-- Template:RFPP#excp --> for the duration. {{u|FDW777}}, while {{u|Goliath74}}'s edits to the page might be subpar, it's only 2 reverts and this article isn't subject to [[WP:1RR]] right now. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I am not impressed by the editing (especially falsely stating that things violate BLP, and then proceeding to ''actually'' violate BLP), nor by the [[WP:LAWYER|wikilawyering]] here. I don't think that this editor is a net positive in the ARBIPA area, so I would be in favor of excusing them from it. I also don't think the SPI was filed in bad faith; there are at least credible reasons to suspect socking, even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, and it would certainly not be the first time we've dealt with that problem in this topic area. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I guess if {{ping|Goliath74}} can agree to not make further edits with that source, and to [[WP:BRD|discuss contents and sourcing going forward]], we can call it a [[Day-O (The Banana Boat Song)|day-o]] --<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> 15:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with Seraphimblade about giving Haani40 a holiday (indefinitely) from the [[WP:ARBIPA]] area. As for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav|the SPI]], I found {{u|Srijanx22}}'s research there persuasive and actually came pretty close to blocking Haani40 per [[WP:DUCK]]. There was a smidgeon of doubt left in my mind, though — the evidence being all circumstantial — so I didn't. I'd be glad if another admin took a look; possibly I was too timid. (CheckUser has been requested, but I believe it's behavior, not technical evidence, that must resolve the matter.) One more thing: {{u|Haani40}}, you frequently use the noping template, for example when linking my username above. Why do you do that? The effect of "nopinging" me is that I don't get pinged. Were you trying to prevent me and the other nopinged admins, such as {{ping|Vanamonde93}} and {{ping|RegentsPark}}, from noticing this discussion? That's not a good look, and not a good use of the noping template. (It's best used for out-and-out vandals that you don't want to aggravate.) [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 22:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC). |
|||
*ECP should work. I note that Goliath74 rarely edits, with months between edits, and wouldn't be surprised if he's not going to again for a while. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*{{ping|Firefangledfeathers|Seraphimblade|Bishonen}} topic ban on A) ARBIPA, or B) politics and religion in India, broadly construed? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Shall we close this enforcement request as moot? Haani40 has been blocked as a sock of Souniel Yadav. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 23:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC). |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
== [[Havana syndrome]] == |
|||
==14Jenna7Caesura== |
|||
{{hat| Eyes requested. This is not the venue for discussion. I've fully protected the article for a month. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (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 14Jenna7Caesura=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Funcrunch}} 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|14Jenna7Caesura}}<p>{{ds/log|14Jenna7Caesura}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
I am hoping that some uninvolved administrators can review [[Havana syndrome]] and determine if: |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality]] |
|||
# it is covered by the [[WP:ARBPS|pseudoscience and fringe topics contentious topic area]] |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
# and if some AE restriction can be added to help with the ongoing edit warring. |
|||
The article was fully protected for two weeks, by {{u|EdJohnston}}, from 5 April to 19 April. Within a day of the protection's expiration, edit warring had resumed. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; [[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=Special:Log&logid=129964201 00:34, 10 April 2022] Page move without discussion |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=129523836 23:14, 29 March 2022] Page move without discussion |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=129120319 04:03, 20 March 2022] Page move without discussion |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=123691679 17:40, 11 November 2021] Page move without discussion |
|||
*There are multiple government investigations into Havana syndrome that are ongoing, and three review articles published on the subject acknowledging different possible causes. A subset of editors, primarily from the "fringe noticeboard", are pushing to classify the weapons hypothesis as "fringe", just as everything to a hammer looks like a nail. An uninvolved administrator will have a very hard time arguing he/she does not have a POV on the issue in making a decision that this subject is pseudoscience, and specifically which theory is pseudoscientific. [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (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.--> |
|||
:Wouldn't the 60 Minutes etc reports which seem to be the primary reason for the recent flare-ups come under EE? I have no idea how this is generally interpreted but would think it covers allegations of EE government actions even outside the EE geographical area. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
::I wasn't aware of what the EE abbreviation was, but Eastern Europe CT would make sense as well as any American politics CT too. There's a more clear intersection there while pseudoscience would be more limited in scope there. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 03:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
:Thanks Firefangledfeathers for asking this here after I originally asked for help in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_eyes_needed_at_Havana_syndrome this ANI thread]. The hope there was to get an admin to tamp down on the battleground behavior and edit warring before things escalated further or needing editor sanctions. Even for those of us who were largely outside the topic and saw issues from the noticeboards while trying to mediate a little, it's definitely above my pay grade when I'm seeing repeated edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havana_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=1220256472 like this] over the last month reoccur where editors are told about [[WP:ONUS]] policy only it ignore it and guidance on the talk page about how to handled disputed edits on talk. |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. |
|||
:To answer question 2, perhaps a consensus is required restriction would help with the issues of content continually being reinserted without getting consensus on it? Cut down on that and it would take care of what's mostly destabilizing the article and talk page to a degree. With the battleground sniping I linked to at ANI though, just someone to enforce [[WP:TPNO]] at the talk page would help a lot too. I'm seeing too many folks treating [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Havana_syndrome&oldid=1220229189#Further_edit_warring the talk page] as a battleground, and I'm out of energy for the topic as someone who tried to help a bit on the normal editor side of things. Not sure if threaded AEs are ok or not since this isn't a specific enforcement request, so I'll just leave this as my 2 cents. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
User has a number of DS alerts in other areas as well, but my reason for filing is the number of page moves without discussion on pages subject to gender and sexuality sanctions. [[User:Funcrunch|Funcrunch]] ([[User talk:Funcrunch|talk]]) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The latest flare-up was because of an attempt (in essence) to say Havana syndrome was caused by a direct energy weapon, despite there being no medical evidence this was the case, to even that the Russians have such a capacity, thus some people felt that was a medical claim "In March 2024, an investigation by 60 Minutes claimed that the Russians had perpetrated the attacks through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons.", Note as well that this claim was made in three separate places within the article (at first). It keeps on being re-inserted with no agreement as to what we should say or where, based upon the claim that "well we have agreed we can have it, and thus we have consensus for my version". [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
::There was no attempt to "say" (assuming you mean in wikivoice) that Havana syndrome was caused by a directed energy weapon (check the text here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havana_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=1220256472]). You also keep on mentioning "evidence" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Havana_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=1220258342], as if this is somehow important for us to cover the allegations made in the relevant section. It isn't. Our responsibility as Wikipedians is only to cover the allegations as reported, not to verify them ourselves. [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A14Jenna7Caesura&type=revision&diff=1081847304&oldid=1081397677 Diff] |
|||
:There's too many names that I'm [[WP:INVOLVED]] with around there for me to do much, and I already spend a lot of my free time babysitting one CTOP. If an RFC is started on the actual wording to include I'd be more than happy to full protect the article while it runs, though. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] Why should we entertain an RFC when there is a [[Talk:Havana syndrome#Further edit warring|firm consensus]] from a majority of editors across three discussions, just because of a persistent few? Initiating an RFC requires a prior discussion under [[WP:RFCBEFORE]], which includes suggestions for alternative text, but these editors have done no such thing. Now that they see that the content has been restored to the page, they have simply changed their tactics to trim it, claiming it violates MEDRS, when there is already an RFC on the page in that regard, with a very obvious outcome. This seems more like a conduct issue, inappropriate for an RFC and better handled directly on this noticeboard. [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 17:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Because there is not firm consensus for inclusion of the details and structure you want for that information. The only thing there is firm consensus on is that it was significant enough to be due mention. The rest is an open question that should be discussed and hashed out at article talk ''before inclusion.'' [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::As @[[User:TinyClayMan|TinyClayMan]] pointed out in response to your trim, there is no point in including the allegations on the page if we don't say what they are. You trimmed the contents purely to sustain an edit war and maintain your position about MEDRS, even though it has no grounding in policy. [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 17:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Please at least try to assume good faith. I have some serious concerns about [[WP:RECENTISM]], the quality of the source, and the way it is being framed to support specific proposed causes. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Nicoljaus== |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
{{hat|Blocked indefinitely, first year covered under AE. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
===Discussion concerning 14Jenna7Caesura=== |
|||
<small>'' |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
====Statement by 14Jenna7Caesura==== |
|||
*Please review [[Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Changing_the_title]].--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 01:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Does DS mean a 0 revert policy? If so, every single time, I reverted even once, I got a DS notice. Let me know is DS means 0-revert policy or no discussion allowed.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 16:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*User:Deepfriedokra is one of the editors who backed blocking me in 2021; I was asked to create an account and reveal personal information even though I was okay with IP editing.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 16:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I believe I may have more DS's on my talk page that I probably deleted.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 17:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*When I move the pages, I let them know that reversion of my page moves are okay. There were either discussions there as in [[Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality]] or I discussed when asked about my rationale. |
|||
*The main advocates of [[Causes_of_transsexuality]] have refrained from casting a single vote at [[Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Requested_move_10_April_2022]] to explain the selection of the "transsexuality" term.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 15:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== |
===Request concerning Nicoljaus=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Selfstudier}} 15:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Nicoljaus}}<p>{{ds/log|Nicoljaus}}</p> |
|||
See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&oldid=1076925682#Keir_Starmer_content_moved this] about BLP-violating gender-related content being added to an article after getting the gender DS, and the attacks in the reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:14Jenna7Caesura&oldid=1081847304#Your_edit_to_List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender here] to another editor. |
|||
14Jenna7Caesura made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Act_%28United_States%29&type=revision&diff=1081063800&oldid=1080798095 this] edit to [[Equality Act (United States)]], which added a source but also subsumed sex and sexual orientation as part of gender ''even though none of the sources support that'', not even the one she added. After being reverted, she [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Act_(United_States)&diff=1081110198&oldid=1081070204 edit warred] by restoring the same edit with a non sequitur edit summary about sex and gender being related (true, but they are [[sex and gender distinction|distinct]], as is sexual orientation). |
|||
The discussion she points to in the comment here contains personal attacks against Funcrunch, found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACauses_of_transsexuality&type=revision&diff=1081849985&oldid=1081848494 this diff]. Odd to point to it. Whether someone is right or not, editors must be collaborative and civil. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbpia/CT |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
===Result concerning 14Jenna7Caesura=== |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euro-Mediterranean_Human_Rights_Monitor&diff=1220390536&oldid=1220380219 Diff 1 Revision as of 14:20, 23 April 2024] |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euro-Mediterranean_Human_Rights_Monitor&diff=1220394447&oldid=1220391708 Diff 2 Latest revision as of 14:45, 23 April 2024] |
|||
<!-- 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. --> |
|||
*Well, it looks like 14Jenna7Caesura goes and does as she wishes without attaining a consensus. {{ping|14Jenna7Caesura}} you must not do this. I leave it to those with stronger reading skills to look further. Not sure what the provenance of four (4) DS alerts is or should be. --<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> 15:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*4 different alerts for 4 edits in different areas. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*And that's all that I can see. I think either a page move ban or a topic ban would be appropriate here. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Page move ban might be sufficient, and given the topic is an Arb DS area, I think that a total page move ban is within our authority to implement. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 15:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Let me be the one dissenting voice to put the brakes on sanctions at this point, or indeed to at least consider lesser sanctions than the ones proposed above. The difs above show me a little overly aggressive application of [[WP:BOLD]], but 14Jenna7Caesura is also showing restraint as time has gone on... For example, in the April 10 move, [[WP:BRD]] was clearly followed, as the initial contested move has now resulted in a discussion. 14Jenna7Caesura has been made aware of DS in the past, but as far as I can tell, [[WP:ARBGSDS]] has no provision ''requiring'' a move discussion. I'm sure 14Jenna7Caesura is ''now'' aware that such moves as they have been making have been unilaterally controversial, and that such moves in the future, especially those in the ARBGSDS remit, should ALWAYS be preceded by a consensus building discussion (which is to say, no more [[WP:BOLD]] moves in the GS topic area). I don't think we need a ban to accomplish this as long as 14Jenna7Caesura agrees to common sense self-moderation including 1) refraining from enacting likely-to-be-controversial moves unilaterally 2) participate collegially in discussions about such ''proposed'' moves before they happen, and refrain from accusations of bad faith or [[WP:BLUDGEON]]y-type responses from those that disagree with them. While the others above note that people have applied DS notices from multiple topic areas, while strictly true, this all relates to GS-related editing, even if the notices come from other sensitive topic areas. I think if we have some assurances that they intend to work more cautiously, I would be willing to forstall formal sanctions at this point, under [[WP:LASTCHANCE]] principles. I am but one voice here, so don't let my dissent overrule any consensus that may develop in another direction, but this is at least my feelings on the matter. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 15:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==RfC at [[Azov Battalion]]== |
|||
{{hat|Declined malformed. [[user:Elinruby|Elinruby]], this is inadequate and malformed. It doesn't look like you've put that much effort into this report, like much of a ''summary'', the ''users involved,'' key ''diffs'', and so on. I've given you a logged warning due to spillover from this dispute just yesterday, and I'm sorry to say, but this does not inspire confidence. Worse still, when the careless (not just inexperience) nature of this report was brought up, your responses had been just confounding ([[special:diff/1082011386|diff]]). And also just plain wrong, because not only is [[user:Redrose64|Redrose64]] an admin, but her knowledge of these editorial procedures is unrivalled. Please do better because a [[WP:TBAN]] is pretty much imminent for ''anything'' else. Newcomers can only be given allowances to a point. [[WP:CIR|Competence is required]], most especially for [[WP:ACDS]] matters. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:46, 10 April 2022 (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 RfC at [[Azov Battalion]]=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Elinruby}} 19:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|RfC at [[Azov Battalion]]}}<p>{{ds/log|RfC at [[Azov Battalion]]}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
RfC close as no consensus |
|||
; [[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.--> |
|||
Section as it stands: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANicoljaus&diff=1009239712&oldid=1008166004 ARBPEE tban (2021)] |
|||
#[http://Difflink1 Date] Explanation |
|||
#[http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia: |
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
||
*Placed a {{t|Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. |
|||
<!-- 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. -->. |
|||
Not seeking sanctions, just closure |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
When requested to self revert, commented "Oh, I'm so sorry. I need to bring in this area a couple of friends to make reverts instead ne.". |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
Not seeking sanctions at the moment but there has been a revert war on an RfC as people were voting on it. This may be due to a previous refusal to discuss but the bigger point right now is that everyone involved seems to agree.that the RfC needs to be closed and started over. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANicoljaus&diff=1220402888&oldid=1220402427 Notified] |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
Not seeking sanctions, just closure |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning Nicoljaus=== |
||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Nicoljaus==== |
||
====Statement by |
====Statement by BilledMammal==== |
||
There’s a 1RR violation here that needs to be reverted, but there also appears to be a lot of recent edit warring by all parties in the article. |
|||
Explanation (sort of) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&oldid=1082014893#I_asked_for_the_RfC_to_be_closed here]. I don't think AE lets administrators close RFCs as an arbcom enforcement action, so it's unclear what is being requested here. See the list of things you can request via AE at the top of the page. If you're requesting action against a user you need to specify the user and why. I would assume that this page falls under the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions|Eastern Europe DS]], though. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I’m also concerned by the removal of sources that were used as evidence of [[WP:SIGCOV]] in the recent AFD on the grounds of unreliability - either they are usable or they are not, you can’t have it both ways. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning Nicoljaus=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*Based on their block log for CTOP violations, edit warring, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nicoljaus&diff=prev&oldid=1220398969 this gem] I have blocked indefinitely, the first year as an AE action. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu== |
|||
==EnlightenmentNow1792== |
|||
{{hat|Topic ban modified to post-2000 Russia/Ukraine relations. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small> |
|||
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning EnlightenmentNow1792=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vladimir.copic}} 03:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Anonimu}} – [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|EnlightenmentNow1792}}<p>{{ds/log|EnlightenmentNow1792}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
; Sanction being appealed : Broad topic ban from the subject of Eastern European topics, imposed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive303#Anonimu]], reconfirmed 2 days later at, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive304#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Anonimu]], and logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe]] |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBEE]] |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|El_C}} |
|||
; [[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=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081922071 10 April] Disruption/vandalism of an RfC |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=next&oldid=1081922071#RFC_designation_as_neo-Nazi 10 April] Disruption/vandalism of an RfC |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1081929129&oldid=1081928374&title=Talk:Azov_Battalion 10 April] Disruption/vandalism of an RfC |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=next&oldid=1081933725 10 April] Disruption/vandalism of an RfC |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081947361 10 April] Disruptively editing away from the status quo (the result of an RfC) while a new RfC is in progress. They cite votes in the ongoing RfC as justification. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=1081581566&oldid=1081384722 8 April] Accusing an editor (myself) of being an SPA on Jimbo Wales' talk page. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEnlightenmentNow1792&type=revision&diff=1081781087&oldid=1081745923 9 April] Uncivil behaviour after receiving an AE warning |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1081744203 9 April] Uncivil behaviour at AN/I |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081701248 9 April] Battleground/uncivil behaviour |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1081783343 9 April] Declined report at edit war noticeboard |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1081677501 8 April] Baseless accusations of edit warring |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1081676671 8 April] Baseless accusations of edit warring |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081571289&diff=prev 8 April] Repeated re-adding of POV tag |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081609185&diff=prev 8 April] Repeated re-adding of POV tag |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081670731&diff=prev 8 April] Repeated re-adding of POV tag |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081720955&diff=prev 9 April] Repeated re-adding of POV tag |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobfrombrockley&diff=prev&oldid=1081632470 8 April] Bludgeoning |
|||
; Notification of that administrator : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1220417024 diff] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=127923465 19 February 2022] 1 week block for disruptive editing |
|||
===Statement by Anonimu=== |
|||
;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. --> |
|||
*DS alert sent on 8 April [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=prev&oldid=1081577591] |
|||
*AE warning logged on 9 April [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEnlightenmentNow1792&type=revision&diff=1081745923&oldid=1081683233] |
|||
More than 2 years have passed since the ban was enacted. I am fully aware that my behaviour then was far from encouraging civil and productive discussion of the content in a highly contentious topic (Russian-Ukrainian war), and I am sorry for that. My plan was to wait for the war to end before appealing the topic ban, unfortunately it is dragging on with seemingly no perspective of peace. Due to lack of sources/interest in other topic areas, as well as the broadness of the topic ban, in the past two years my editing was mostly restricted to fixing some issues and adding some content related to areas that could not possibly be considered as connected to Eastern Europe. I think that restricting the area of the topic ban would allow me to come back to more productive editing. Thus, if you consider that the topic ban cannot be completely overturned, restricting the topic ban to modern Russian-Ukrainian relations (say, after 2000) would still serve as a remedy to the original situation, while not preventing me from using the knowledge and sources I have in order to improve Wikipedia content related to other areas of Eastern Europe. Thank you. [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
*{{u|El_C}}: I was a bit confused about the procedure, considering the first failed appeal. I am impartial about which way to finalize this appeal procedure. As mentioned in my initial statement, I am fine with any result that allows me to contribute to articles regarding Eastern Europe not related to the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict. [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 10:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This is just a snapshot of this editor's disruptive behaviour over the past few days at the Azov Battalion page [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=EnlightenmentNow1792&page=Talk%3AAzov_Battalion&server=enwiki&max= encompassing more than 100 edits on the talk page] since 30 March. |
|||
===Statement by El_C=== |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
*This appeal lists a previously failed appeal, but not the original enforcement action. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
:*No objection on narrowing the scope on my part. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEnlightenmentNow1792&type=revision&diff=1082049158&oldid=1081953581] |
|||
::*{{u|Anonimu}}, since this a sanction originally imposed by me, I can just implement the change you proposed immediately, unless you'd rather go through the appeal process and let someone else close it (likely with the same outcome). So let me know what you prefer. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
:::*{{u|Anonimu}}, since it's not a clear yes from you, I'll let the appeal run its course, and let someone else close it and enter the changes into the log. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by tgeorgescu=== |
|||
===Discussion concerning EnlightenmentNow1792=== |
|||
<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 EnlightenmentNow1792==== |
|||
Anonimu can be an useful editor. I don't say this because I like his POV, but because he can act as a counterweight to Romanian nationalist POV-pushers. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by (involved editor 1)=== |
|||
'''My contributions to the attempt to improve the article''': |
|||
===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== |
|||
'''1.''' Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion#Is_Azov_still_neo-nazi? (over a dozen of the most eminently RSs) |
|||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonimu === |
|||
'''2.''' Many hours spent trying to help finish the malformed RfC (I didn't want to), only for the initiator to then take back control of the RfC, which I acquiesed to: |
|||
<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 (uninvolved editor 1)==== |
|||
3. {{ font color | darkolivegreen | For the RfC, an "Alternative Draft #2:" }} |
|||
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)==== |
|||
{{ font color | darkolivegreen | '''The Azov Special Operations Detachment''' is a unit of the [[National Guard of Ukraine]], based in [[Mariupol]], southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the '''Azov Battalion''' in [[Kyiv]] in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and [[neo-Nazi]] political activists under the political leadership of [[Andriy Biletsky]].<ref>Umland, A. (2019)</ref> "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1).<ref>Shekhovtsov, A., & Umland, A. (2014). The maidan and beyond: Ukraine's radical right. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 58-63.</ref> Active participants in the [[Revolution of Dignity]], the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence,<ref>Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.</ref> relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism,<ref>Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.</ref> and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers.<ref>Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.</ref> However, after its forced absorption into the [[National Guard]] and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially [[Andriy Biletsky]] and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".<ref>Umland, A. (2019). Irregular militias and radical nationalism in post-euromaydan Ukraine: The prehistory and emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105-131.</ref><ref>Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.</ref><ref>Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.</ref><ref>https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias</ref><ref>AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war</ref><ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/</ref><ref>https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d</ref></ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404</ref><ref>https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151</ref> }} |
|||
===Result of the appeal by Anonimu=== |
|||
[[User:EnlightenmentNow1792|EnlightenmentNow1792]] ([[User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792|talk]]) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. --> |
|||
*I'm generally favorable to a loosening of sanctions. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I'm going to give this another day to see if there is any further input and if there's no objection close this with an adjustment to a topic ban on post-2000 Russia/Ukraine relations, unless {{u|El_C}} feels like amending it now. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Crampcomes== |
|||
{{hat|{{u|Crampcomes}} blocked for one week for edit warring/1RR violations, and topic banned for six months for misrepresenting sources. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:09, 25 April 2024 (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 Crampcomes=== |
|||
'''Reply regarding GizzyCatBella:''' |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|AP 499D25}} 02:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Crampcomes}}<p>{{ds/log|Crampcomes}}</p> |
|||
:I believe this editor's activities to be [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] to the point of being disruptive. Would I be correct in surmising that these diffs below (are they diffs?) are indicative of someone who is not, at this moment, here to build an encyclopedia? [[WP:NOTHERE]] |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081880215] - demonstrates she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion. |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions]] |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081875484] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen | "After thinking about it - here is '''the issue''' with the above version. Do we have any source that says ''includes Neo-nazi elements''. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see [[WP:OR]]" }} - there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV. |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081865629] - <u>Comment</u> - {{ font color | mediumseagreen | Same here, <u>do we have any source</u> that says ''which used to be neo-Nazi'' ? }} - there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV. |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1220121710|23:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)]] 1st revert within 24 hours |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1220167697|06:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)]] 2nd revert within 24 hours |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=prev&oldid=1081865359] - invited her to withdraw a personal attack, she clearly declined |
|||
(none) |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081865153] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen | <u>Comment</u> - After thinking about it - here is '''the issue''' with the above version. Do we have any source that says ''includes Neo-nazi elements''. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see [[WP:OR]] }} - demonstrating again she hasn't read the discussion |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [[Special:Diff/1194959949|17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)]] (see the system log linked to above). |
|||
*Was informed by another user about the 1RR restriction on [[Special:Diff/1220170417|06:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)]]. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081864599] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen | Yay, I would go with this one, perhaps modifying it to '''''defined as neo-Nazi''''' }} - votes, despite not reading sources, and ends choosing the least supported of all the options. The sources in fact actively refute this allegation. But she votes that way all the same. |
|||
Talk page discussion has been attempted by the other involved editor ([[User:Mistamystery]]) [[Special:Diff/1220123825|here]], but it has not been responded to. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081857395] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen | "[[User:Disconnected Phrases|Disconnected Phrases]] ([[User talk:Disconnected Phrases|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Disconnected Phrases|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic." }} - accuses a new user that doesn't share her POV of being a SPA |
|||
[[Special:Diff/1220489751|diff on User talk:Crampcomes]] |
|||
===Discussion concerning Crampcomes=== |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081719631] - adds "insignia used by the Nazi [[Schutzstaffel|SS]] divisions" to the text of the article lead! Very helpful! |
|||
<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 Crampcomes==== |
|||
Bringing this case here is totally against [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] policy. I already explained myself [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1220300196&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diffonly=1 here]. It's been two days and I haven't edited the article in question since then. BTW, '''I was the one who created that article in the firstplace.'''[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Occupation+of+the+Gaza+Strip+by+Israel] Nonetheless, I will repeat: The article, which I created recently, has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219441100&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1218256762&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1 IP] and account [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220121710&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220123761&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected (it was extended confirmed protected very recently). Please note that '''I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1].''' ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1 another very experienced editor first reverted him]) I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220121710&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1], but he refused[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220123761&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1]. He at some later time put a vague note on the talkpage without pinging or notifying me about it anywhere not even in edit summaries.[[User:Crampcomes|Crampcomes]] ([[User talk:Crampcomes|talk]]) 07:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Sorry for replying late, very busy with work today. I created that article recently and it became the target of persistent IP vandalisms e.g.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219441100&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1218256762&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1], all of which were reverted by other editors. Then IP removed this exact same chunk for which I am being accused of edit warring, but IP was reverted by an experienced editor who asked the IP to explain removal on talkpage[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1]. I was not edit warring, I just repeated what that experienced editor said: to explain on talkpage, but the IP editor when editing through account flatly refused[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220123761&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1]. That statement had two linked articles [[Siege of Khan Yunis]] and [[Battle of Beit Hanoun]], and both seemed to support what was stated. I concur it was my mistake for not actually checking the sources and just blindly believing in another experienced Wikipedia editor seemingly fighting vandalisms. |
|||
*:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1] [[User:Crampcomes|Crampcomes]] ([[User talk:Crampcomes|talk]]) 20:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: (@Selfstudier) It's highly likely. [[User:Crampcomes|Crampcomes]] ([[User talk:Crampcomes|talk]]) 20:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::BilledMammal really has no clue about what he's saying. I added this info with source:"According to [[CNN]], the attack by Iran was "planned to minimize casualties while maximizing spectacle", and noted that Iranian drones and missiles went past Jordan and Iraq, both with US military bases, and all the air defenses before penetrating the airspace of Israel.<ref>{{cite web|title=Iran's attack seemed planned to minimize casualties while maximizing spectacle|website=CNN|date=14 April 2024 |url=https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/14/middleeast/iran-israel-attack-drones-analysis-intl|access-date=14 April 2024|archive-date=14 April 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240414171934/https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/14/middleeast/iran-israel-attack-drones-analysis-intl|url-status=live}}</ref>" '''And it's still in the article''' [[User:Crampcomes|Crampcomes]] ([[User talk:Crampcomes|talk]]) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Selfstudier==== |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081718274] - replaces TWO BBC sources (2018 and 2022) about the Wolfsangel symbol, with a 2015 RBC (Russian state-controlled media) one specifically linking it to Andrei Biletsky, who, of course, was booted from the modern Azov unit way back in 2016. Demonstrating again, she is not familiar at all with subject or the the source material (8 years out of date). |
|||
{{Re|Crampcomes}} Something confusing me a bit, are u saying that the IP in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1 this diff] is the (original) complainant (ie Mistamystery)? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by BilledMammal==== |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1081681291] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen | "@ [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] - Battleground mentality of Aquillion? I feel users who arrive here with such an obvious absurdity to safeguard their POV partner need to be cautioned. I'm referring to the remark left EnlightenmentNow1792." }} Tries to goad an admin to "caution" me because I am supposedly there to "safeguard my POV partner", who, as it happens, kept rv my edits as much as she did! lol |
|||
There was also an edit warring/1RR issue at [[2024 Iranian strikes in Israel]]: |
|||
#{{diff2|1218948085|20:54, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=prev&oldid=1081618597] - this whole Talk Page exchange is bizarre. She has repeatedly, point-blank refused to even take a look at, let alone read, any sources. She has added no content herself. No sources. Well, except for the RBC one! What is the point of even being on Wikipedia if you're not prepared to look at sources or contribute any content? |
|||
#{{diff2|1218942691|20:17, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
#{{diff2|1218936069|19:33, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
:When I provided her with a list of recent high quality sources on her Talk page, her response was this... |
|||
#{{diff2|1218917842|17:23, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
#{{diff2|1218915063|17:01, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=prev&oldid=1081616783] |
|||
They sought to include the claim that Iranian missiles went past "all the air defences" of Israel's allies - a claim that doesn't appear aligned with the source, which says "Israel’s allies helped shoot down the bulk of these weapons". They also at one pointed added the claim that "According to ''[[CNN]]'' it was an Iranian operational success" (17:23); again, this doesn't appear aligned with the source. 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Apparently she's been blocked multiple times for edit-warring and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. This hasn't stopped her from spending much her time on Wikipedia trying to get others blocked for supposedly edit warring... only if of course they have the temerity to not share her POV. |
|||
:[[User:EnlightenmentNow1792|EnlightenmentNow1792]] ([[User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792|talk]]) 17:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment regarding and replying to [[User:El_C|El_C]]:''' |
|||
::This admin is not uninvolved. He has repeatedly threatened me with a TBAN on my talk page since he was first made aware of my presence in the topic area, in which I possess a high level of professional expertise and unusual level of access to sources (books, academic journals, Russian language sources, can speak/read Russian, etc). It's impossible not to respond to [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior with retaliatory combative edits in this topic area, as editors who have a special interest POV are constantly pushing for new users - who don't share their nationalist/ethnic special interest - to be Topic Banned, blocked, etc. Admin who aren't familiar with the source material, the scholarship, and the political disputes in the region, then are often successfully goaded into banning new users, who don't know how to properly defend themselves (the the required competence WP:CIR [[User:El_C|El_C]]) refers to. - [[User:EnlightenmentNow1792|EnlightenmentNow1792]] ([[User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792|talk]]) 17:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{ref talk}} |
|||
====Statement by BSMRD==== |
|||
In addition to what has been provided above, EnlightenmentNow1792 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080313939&oldid=1080313833 seems] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080314190&oldid=1080313939 to] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080315853&oldid=1080315491 be] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080312173&oldid=1072850554 reverting] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080316571&oldid=1080316428 any] messages regarding their behavior off their talk page as "personal attacks" (that's just a small sample, more can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&action=history here]). Now, by itself there is nothing wrong with that however, in addition, they have shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia's administrative processes and ruling, shown both in the above posting, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=1081726167&oldid=1081580896 this comment] and their response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792#AE_logged_warning this warning]. They clearly have no desire to change their behavior or regard any other editors or administrators encouragement to do so. In fact, they don't seem to have changed their behavior at all since the last time they were blocked, and I doubt anything short of a broader/longer block or TBAN will do anything. [[User:BSMRD|BSMRD]] ([[User talk:BSMRD|talk]]) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by GizzyCatBella==== |
|||
I <u>always</u> advocate against sanctioning editors unless it's absolutely necessary and justified but this case requires administrative intervention, unfortunately. Edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=1080923185&oldid=1080913696&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=1080925516&oldid=1080923515&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=1081227443&oldid=1081149144&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=1081947361&oldid=1081946032&diffmode=source] and [[WP:BLUDGEON]] on the [[Azov Battalion]] talk page including "hijacking" RFCs [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1081951652&oldid=1081950705&diffmode=source] (modifying other people's text to their liking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=next&oldid=1081921114&diffmode=source] see the complaint that followed -->[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=next&oldid=1081922678&diffmode=source]), the repeated removal of other people's comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1081876508&oldid=1081791327&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1081923872&oldid=1081890438&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=prev&oldid=1081934687&diffmode=source] are just samples that are outside criteria that must be followed. |
|||
<small>(I could go on with more examples of disruptive behaviour but I believe these already presented are enough)</small> - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*<s><small>'''Page needs a clerk intervention please. Everything written below this message is not mine''' - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 17:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)</small></s> |
|||
The [[WP:BLUDGEON]] at the Azov talk page continues (as I write this). Here is just a recent sample of it: |
|||
*March 31 list of sources eg. Umland, A. (2019) etc - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1080299785&diffmode=source] |
|||
*April 9 <u>again</u> Umland, A. (2019) etc - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081683367&diffmode=source] |
|||
*April 11 <u>yet again</u> (just a few minutes before coming here) Umland (2019) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=1082154542&oldid=1082152339&diffmode=source] |
|||
It's very challenging to navigate through that talk page as it is. We don't need to hear repeated argumentation, over and over and over. Sadly, I'll have to support a topic ban at least from that talk page, please. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 17:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
On top of the bizarre accusation of misconduct against our finest administrators [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1082164769&oldid=1082164440] and here too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=prev&oldid=1081678772&diffmode=source] |
|||
I believe it's worth noting the strange remark posted here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1082158333&oldid=1082157926] that has been copy-pasted from talk page of ToBeFree [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToBeFree#Some_help_for_a_new(-ish)_editor?] where EnlightenmentNow1792 went on a block shopping journey just a day earlier. The editor exhibits clear battleground behaviour. I'm not sure 🤔 but perhaps they require also a break to recognize it. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
And now this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792#WP:AE] .. contesting another fine admin. Oh Lord.. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I also share the view of Firefangledfeathers -->[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1082236247&oldid=1082235081&diffmode=source] |
|||
EnlightenmentNow1792 has the potential to be a positive acquisition to our project if they only understood how to act accordingly to our standards. The <u>only issue</u> is their conduct which might be happening because of a lack of experience. I hope they learn from this incident and revise their behaviour. I really hope so and I would welcome rather soft sanctions. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Firefangledfeathers==== |
|||
I'll likely have more to say later, but I'd like to call attention to prior conduct issues raised at ANI in [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#EnlightenmentNow1792|December]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#EnlightenmentNow1792_is_NOTHERE_to_build_an_encylopedia|February]]. Both involved disruptive conduct in other topic areas. [[WP:TEXTWALL]] is a recurring issue with this editor. {{u|EnlightenmentNow1792}}, are you aware that there is a 500 word limit here? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: Since it seems some sanction is likely, I won't add to the pile of diffs, but if admins feel more are needed I've got them. For the record, EN1792 has a great strength in compiling and sharing quality source lists. They present themselves, convincingly, as someone with an extensive library and source access and the willingness to spend hours digging out the relevant info. I hope they get a chance to show off their more civil, collaborative side. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 02:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by My very best wishes==== |
|||
The battleground attitude of this user is obvious, <s>but if a topic ban to be issued, I would propose it to be only ''for 2-4 months'' as their first sanction. The user seems to be agitated and profoundly disturbed because of the ongoing Ukrainian war, and especially the [[Siege of Mariupol]]. When these events end, and there will be more certainty on this subject as reflected in sources, perhaps she/he will be able to edit in a more reasonable and collaborative manner?</s> [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 18:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:@Bishonen. Yes, I agree with you after checking their earlier edits, and not only in the EE area. This user seems to be non-cooperative in general, but the problem is becoming bigger in contentious subject areas. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning Crampcomes=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*Did anyone give {{u|Crampcomes}} a chance to self-revert before filing this report? Also, Crampcomes, I'm less than impressed with your edit warring over clearly NPOV material that does not match the sourcing. Can you explain how the source you cited saying {{tq|The government's decision to withdraw the maneuvering forces from Gaza and switch to ongoing defense proves that the IDF was able to bring Israel many achievements and victories in the military arena and undermine Hamas' capabilities.}}[https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-795724] turned into {{tq|By April 2024, Hamas was able to expel Israel from southern Gaza}}? There is plain source misrepresentation going on here. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Recommend TBAN. This user is needlessly combative ([[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]) ''and'' they lack the required competence ([[WP:CIR]]) to edit the topic area at this time. Little if any reflection or introspection were ever shown (perhaps because they fail to realize that there ''is'' a problem), so it's probably for the best. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:I'm thinking a one week block for the edit warring, and a 6 month topic ban for source misrepresentation/NPOV issues. If there is no other admin input in a day or so I'll implement that. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*This user does not understand [[WP:INVOLVED]]. I've interacted with them in an administrative capacity only, and of course, I made no {{tq|threats}}. That they call my warning that is further proof of intractable BATTLEGREOUND. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::I concur. This has also been reported at ANEW, and I was ready to block when I saw a thread had been opened up here (it didn’t ''need''to be IMO, but it’s here now so we play it as it lays) [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::*That's right, I pretty much stopped setting TBANS to automatically expire a while ago. Been burned too many times before. Also, obviously, we can't tell when Russian atrocities are going to end in the Ukraine, so how do we set any kind of a clock on the ban? How can any duration not be arbitrary, in that sense? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
*Agree with El C. I'm particularly interested in the user's editing after they were warned by El C, and quite a lot of the diffs offered indeed postdate that warning. This is a very obvious case of disruptive battleground/steamroller editing, and a topic ban seems necessary. Indeed, I thought of simply issuing one myself, per my sole admin discretion, but it would perhaps be a pity not to reinforce it by having it come from multiple admins here at AE. I note and appreciate [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]]'s recommendation of a 2-4 months' ban only, but I can't agree. Time-limited bans can be simply waited out, and then users can return with their bad habits intact, without having had to show they can otherwise edit constructively. Topic bans should normally be indefinite, IMO. In this case, an appeal in three months' time could be entertained. EnlightenmentNow1792, if you are indeed topic banned indefinitely with a three-month wait to appeal, as I recommend, you can make that appeal more credible by showing good editing in other areas, and also in the EE area on our [[WP:SISTER|sister]] projects. (You would only be banned from the English Wikipedia.) [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 22:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC). |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
*I support an indefinite topic ban. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== |
==Christsos== |
||
{{hat|Indef TBAN from ARBEE. Thanks, [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] for the summary. [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]], [[triage]], please! [[User:El_C|El_C]] 01:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning Christsos=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks| |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Pppery}} 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Christsos}}<p>{{ds/log|Christsos}}</p> |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Anonimu}}<p>{{ds/log|Anonimu}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [ |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA4]] extended-confirmed restriction |
||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. 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.--> |
|||
User:Anonimu has both been extremely [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] in their edits to articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war, and extremely uncivil, uncooperative and insulting as well. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faiq_Al-Mabhouh&diff=1220104830 Created] [[Faiq Al-Mabhouh]] |
|||
# Created [[Ibrahim Biari]] (deleted by me as G4) |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Eyal_Shuminov&diff=1220061045 Created] [[Draft:Eyal Shuminov]] |
|||
All of these are very obviously related to the conflict |
|||
For the record, Anonimu is still under a 1RR restriction, a civility parole and an admonition to "behave impeccably" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonimu/Complete_Works/Tom_1_(2009)#Ban_suspended]; although this restriction was imposed quite some time ago as a condition of removal of their indefinite ban from Wikipedia, it was never lifted and still applies. Anonimu acknowledges that it still applies in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081031753 this edit summary] although they claim that these restriction only apply to "Balkans" and not "Russia". There is no indication anywhere that this is the case. The original restrictions apply to ALL of their editing. |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
Anonimu has violated all three of these restrictions, and even if one regards these restrictions as "stale" on account of their vintage, their behavior is still sanction worthy. Indeed, this seems to be a reversion to exactly the same kind of behavior (both in terms of civility and POV/WP:TEND) that led them to get indefinitely blocked back then. |
|||
The most vexatious issue is Anonimu repeatedly referring to my edits as vandalism: |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081080187 First instance] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081794586 and then more seriously here] - also accuses me of using "fake descriptions". To be clear, there are two photos there and I did mislabel label one as from Bucha instead of Mariupol. Anonimu could have simply corrected that or pointed it out. But this wasn't the gist of the dispute - they wished to remove that both of these are attributed to Russia by RS. --- I then asked Anonimu not to refer to my edits as vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081797002]. '''First time'''. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081813220 He ignores my query], doubles down referring to me as a "vandal" personally --- I again ask him to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081797828]. '''Second time'''. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081814368 In response he starts a talk page section] with header which again calls me a vandal. It's becoming obvious that he's purposefully using "vandal" as a way to antagonize and insult ([[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]) --- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081815021 I again] ask him to stop accusing me of vandalism, and point him to the relevant policy about it, [[WP:NORESVAND]]. '''Third time'''. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815021 Anonimu doubles down on the accusation] (edit summary is straight up personal attack) --- I ask them again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815350]. '''Fourth time''' |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815404 They respond] by repeating the attack. --- I removed their attack from header [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815796] and ask them (again!) to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081819901]. '''Fifth time'''. Someone else chimes in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081820004] also telling Anonimu to cut it out. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081874964 Does it again] and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081875182 Anonimu] restores section header. Yet another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081876809 collapses the section] and then informs them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081882765] as to how their offensive headings violate policy. This is at least '''Sixth time''' Anonimu was told their comments are inappropriate. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081882765 They respond] with more! [[User:Mathglot]] also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081883749]: ''"these four edits constitute repeated accusations of vandalism against another editor, at the wrong venue, and without supporting evidence."'' and asks them to ''"most especially, please refrain from accusations of vandalism at the article Talk page. A pattern of unfounded accusations may be seen as [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]], or a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]"''. '''Seventh time''' Anonimu was told to cut it out. We're wayyyy past [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] territory here. See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081893908 this assessment by Mathglot]. The previous user, [[User:Chuckstablers]] complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081896553] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082015462] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082016519] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082071854 Anonimu responds] by repeating the personal attacks --- it's explained to them again - '''Eight time''' - why these are problematic [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082074564] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082078372] |
|||
#Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081881518 Anonimu continues to refer] to my edits as "vandalism", and restores the personal attacks to the section header [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081881952] that Mathglot changed to remove them. --- I also ask for the '''Ninth time''' for him to stop calling my edits vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082156114] |
|||
#Yup, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082166092 he responds by doing it again]. it's pretty clear that this isn't just [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] but just straight up TAUNTing. |
|||
#And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082161918 more]. Repeats false accusations. It's almost like he wants to make sure that I see him insulting me. --- '''TENTH warning''' from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166664 me here] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166799 here] |
|||
#Yup, he does it again and even uncollapses the section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166900] |
|||
And here we are. I've been about as patient as it is humanely possible here with Anonimu. Ten warnings, from myself and other users. Each one seems to only embolden him. |
|||
Anonimu's edits to article space have likewise been problematic. On [[War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] their edits generally try to deny, whitewash or minimize Russian war crimes reported on in reliable sources: |
|||
*Removing well sourced info [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1077622632] (more of the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171202], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171689] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1077622632]) |
|||
*Typical edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078604283] where he adds "according to Ukrainian authorities" to anything that makes Russia look bad, EVEN IF sources report it at face value (CNN in this case). More of the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079172290] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1080985297] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081077162] (replaces "human rights groups", which is what source says, with "Ukrainian authorities"), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081084980] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1077863956] [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/20/us-decries-disturbing-accounts-of-ukrainians-deported-to-russia] |
|||
*Restores text to lede against consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078783948] (trying to "bothsides it"). Then edit wars about it (violating 1RR which he is subject to) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078858378]. And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171076]. And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079782551]. And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081029753] |
|||
*More 1RR violations [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079782058], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079791263] with new flimsy pretext [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080441200] (text not backed by source) |
|||
*WP:TEND [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080980531] because apparently because Russian soldiers killed NOT JUST civilians but also some soldiers, then it wasn't a war crime. |
|||
*Removes well sourced text because "it fails verification", meaning, he didn't check it himself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080984071]. Inserts whitewashing language such as "apparently dead bodies". Yeah, "apparently" they were dead. This is a subtle pushing of the [[conspiracy theory]] being pushed on pro-Putin social media that the massacre was staged by Ukrainians with crisis actors. He re-inserts the conspiracy theory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080986444 here] (although attributed) |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081081890] (not actually "per source"), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081258586] (more conspiracy theory insinuations), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081564690] (false pretext - source mentions two beheadings, it's just that one was "partially beheaded", so he changes it to singular) |
|||
Note that's there's likely a dozen or so 1RR violations in the above, in addition to [[WP:TEND]] and [[WP:NPA]] violations. |
|||
There's even more at [[Kramatorsk railway station attack]] |
|||
*Inserting the conspiracy theory that Ukraine bombed its own station [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1081710940]. And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1082192861] |
|||
*Pretends that who the attacker is is disputed out there among reliable sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1082197765] |
|||
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 00:18, 12 April 2022 (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.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu#Anonimu_was_blocked_indefinitely] Indef ban |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu#Anonimu_banned] ArbCom ban on top of 1 year ban. |
|||
Yes, both of these are very old. But these were the reasons he was placed under 1RR restriction and civility parole as conditions of removing the indef ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonimu/Complete_Works/Tom_1_(2009)#Ban_suspended]. The restrictions were never removed. |
|||
As mentioned above Anonimu recognizes the restrictions are still in place but likes to pretend they only apply to the Balkans. This is not true. And in fact, their original indef ban was over edits to the topic area of Balkans AND Russia. |
|||
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: |
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Christsos&diff=prev&oldid=1219933421 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)] (see the system log linked to above). |
||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
||
Like I said above, I'm out of patience here. Four different editors have tried to explain to him why their behavior is problematic. The response is just [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] and escalation in incivility and battleground. And that's NOT EVEN considering the WP:TEND content of their edits. While I don't think their indefinite ban should be restored (although it's exactly the same problem that led to it) a topic ban from anything Eastern Europe and especially Russia related is a minimum here. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
||
[[User talk:Christsos#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion]] |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonimu#WP:AE] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning Christsos=== |
||
<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. |
<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 Anonimu==== |
|||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Christsos==== |
||
I also noticed that recent editing by Anonimu in this subject area was very problematic. Some diffs: |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1077623135&oldid=1077622632] - Anonimu believes that bombing pregnant women in a hospital was not a war crime |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1077622632&oldid=1077574942] - Anonimu believes that mass bombing of civilians in Mariupol was not a war crime, even though it was described a "humanitarian catastrophe" by International Committee of the Red Cross in text he removes |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1079171202&oldid=1079171076] (edit summary by Anonimu: "source mentions not reports, but rumors heard by locals") - This is a misrepresentation of the source by Anonimu. The article in Haaretz [https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-panic-in-captured-ukrainian-city-russians-are-entering-houses-there-s-looting-1.10651066] tells about reports by eyewitnesses, not rumors. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1080115720&oldid=1080115332] (edit summary by Anonimu: "rv vandalism ..."). Here, Anonimu includes to the <u>lead</u> of the page that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of ... indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas" with a reference to [https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/03/situation-ukraine this]. No, the body of page (and the source) do not include any credible claims that Ukrainian authorities indiscriminately shell their own civilians. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1076387437&oldid=1076386506] - Anonimu believes that use of cluster munitions is legal, even though [[Human Rights Watch]] found that it was not (in the text Anonimu deleted in this diff) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning Christsos=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*{{u|Christsos}}, if you have anything to say, now would be the time. It looks like all of these happened after you were explicitly left a contentious topics notice informing you of the 30/500 restrictions, so can you please explain why you are clearly violating that? I'll give you a short while to explain, but otherwise I'm very much leaning toward a sanction. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, you are well over the 500-word limit (over 1,600), please trim with that baseline in mind. Also, please sign + timestamp at the end of your statement. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Entropyandvodka== |
|||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu== |
|||
<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 Entropyandvodka=== |
|||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small> |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|BilledMammal}} 19:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Entropyandvodka}}<p>{{ds/log|Entropyandvodka}}</p> |
|||
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small> |
|||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Anonimu}} – [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 14:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions]] |
|||
; Sanction being appealed : Indefinite topic ban from Eastern European topics, imposed at [[WP:AE#Anonimu]], logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe]] |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|El C}} |
|||
[[WP:1RR]] violations and 1RR gaming at [[Israeli war crimes]]: |
|||
#{{diff2|1219978462|02:22, 21 April 2024}} (said that Israel had committed genocide → found that Israel had committed genocide) |
|||
#{{diff2|1220005367|07:05, 21 April 2024}} (said that Israel had committed genocide → finding reasonable grounds that Israel had committed genocide) |
|||
#:Was requested to self revert at {{diff2|1220010322|07:51, 21 April 2024}}. Did so at {{diff2|1220119072|22:58, 21 April 2024}}, saying {{tq|Self reverting per request, as that edit can be considered a revert. Will be putting that material back in later tonight for the same reasons.}} |
|||
#{{diff2|1220169156|06:18, 22 April 2024}} (said that Israel had committed genocide → found Israel was committing genocide) |
|||
I don't know whether 06:18 is a second 1RR violation, but it is gaming of 1RR and seeing 1RR as an allowance, rather than a hard limit - reimplementing a reverted violation 23 hours after initially implementing it and seven hours after reverting it is not aligned with our expectations regarding self-reverting violations. |
|||
; Notification of that administrator : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1082324978&oldid=1082320358 dif] |
|||
I [[User_talk:Entropyandvodka#WP:1RR_at_Israeli_war_crimes|requested they re-self-revert]]; they have refused to do so, and are now arguing that 07:05, 21 April 2024 was not a revert. |
|||
===Statement by Anonimu=== |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
I did not have the occasion to make a statement on the original AE request, since it was closed in just 2 hours. Since enforcing admin said the ban was applied for supposed "tendentious editing", I'll just go through the "offending" diffs and show that they were just strict application of [[WP:5P2]] (more specifically [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:ATT]]). Do note that this is a current topic, thus should be judged according to data available at the time of edit, not info which appeared later: |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081794586] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1077863956] add a neutral description to photos published by a non-independent, non-reliable source (the Ukrainian government); the first diff also fixes a obviously wrong caption (a photo the Ukrainian gvt says was taken in Mariupol is presented as taken in Bucha), and introduces text from [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61036740 BBC]: "accused Russia of using its Iskander short-range ballistic missile with a cluster munitions warhead. But he later corrected himself, "Russia's defence ministry also said that Tochka-U rockets were used in the Kramatorsk strike, blaming Ukraine's armed forces for the attack." "The ministry insisted it did not use the type of Tochka-U missile that was fired, whereas the Ukrainian military did." |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082166092] Moves source to the supported text and clarifies info from [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61036740 BBC] source: "analysts point to images and videos on social media that appear to show the Russian military using the Tochka-U." |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1077622632] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1077622632] removes text that violates [[WP:ONUS]]. While sourced, the text does not indicated how exactly is relevant to the article, and none of the sources warrant its inclusion in a page about "war crimes". The same for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171202], which moreover misrepresents [https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-panic-in-captured-ukrainian-city-russians-are-entering-houses-there-s-looting-1.10651066 Haaretz], which says about the subject "Abrazhevich recounted, adding that she had also heard reports of looting" |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171689] This is simply fake sourcing, [https://www.euronews.com/2022/02/26/in-pictures-disbelief-and-resistance-as-russia-invades-ukraine Euronews] does not support one word of the article text. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078604283] is attributing text, as the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/20/mariupol-art-school-civilians-russia/ Washington Post] says "About 400 women, children and elderly people had taken refuge inside Art School No. 12 in the Left Bank district of eastern Mariupol before it was bombed by Russia on Sunday, '''according to Mayor Vadym Boychenko and the city council. The Washington Post could not independently verify the claim.'''". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079172290] is also attribution, as [https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/16/europe/ukraine-mariupol-bombing-theater-intl/index.html CNN] states "'''according to local authorities''', as hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped in the coastal Ukrainian city that has been encircled for weeks by Russian forces.", while [https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mariupol-theatre-where-hundreds-of-people-sheltering-bombed-by-russian-forces-officials-claim-12567393 Sky News] says "People are buried under rubble after a theatre in Mariupol - where hundreds of people are reported to have been sheltering - was bombed by Russian forces, '''local officials have said'''". So is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1080985297], as [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-bucha-atrocities-civilians-russia/ CBS news] says "'''Ukraine documents alleged atrocities''' by retreating Russians" and "Ukraine's troops found brutalized bodies with bound hands, gunshot wounds to the head and signs of torture after Russian soldiers withdrew from the outskirts of Kyiv, '''authorities said''' Sunday"."'''Authorities said''' they were documenting evidence of '''alleged''' atrocities". The [https://archive.ph/DWVsn Times] never calls the massacre "war crimes". |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081077162] is also attribution. Per [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/20/us-decries-disturbing-accounts-of-ukrainians-deported-to-russia Al Jazeera], "Thomas-Greenfield said the United States '''had not yet confirmed the allegations made''' on Saturday '''by the Mariupol city council'''", "Kallas said '''the allegations''' of Ukrainians deported to Russia", while [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/04/hundreds-of-ukrainians-forcibly-deported-to-russia-say-mariupol-women The Guardian] says "Russian forces are sending Ukrainian citizens to “filtration camps” before forcibly relocating them to Russia, '''according to the accounts of two women'''". |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081084980] completes attribution presented in source, per [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/ukrainian-children-used-as-human-shields-near-kyiv-say-witness-reports the Guardian] "'''Ukraine’s attorney general is gathering a dossier of claims''' about the Russian use of local children to avoid fire when in retreat from around Ukraine’s capital and elsewhere. Coaches of children '''were said'''... '''It was further alleged''' that children had been taken as hostages" |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078783948] restores consensus version as indicated by talk page [[Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#The_lead|here]]; there was no consensus for removal, as evident from the discussion [[Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine|here]]. Consensus for inclusion is also proven by the fact the phrase, reformulated and more clearly attributed, is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1082284109 currently]] still in the lede. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080984071] fixes misrepresentation of sources, and violation of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], as [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/02/bucha-bodies-russia-retreat-kyiv/ Washignton Post] says "showed at least nine people, including one child, lying in the street of a residential area in the town of Bucha, north of Kyiv, after Russian forces retreated. '''They appear to be dead.'''" Words such as "evidence" and "atrocities" are not used at all. The type of source presented by The Kyiv Independent (probably non-RS in this context) is qualified, and text is presented as allegation, as [https://kyivindependent.com/national/hundreds-of-murdered-civilians-discovered-as-russians-withdraw-from-towns-near-kyiv-graphic-images/ Kyiv Independent] attributes it to a photographer: "'''According to the photographer Mikhail Palinchak''', under the blanket are the bodies of one man and two or three naked women that Russians attempted to burn down". [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60967463 BBC] does not mention executions, so I corrected the article text. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079782058] restored text sourced to [https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-27-22/h_6e158d3fc5bc5efe7fc3f10b69b7aeee CNN]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080441200] restores text sourced to [https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/HRMMU_Update_2022-03-26_EN.pdf UN Human rights watch] (page 8, section D). As evidence of consensus for inclusion, they are still in the article and have not been removed in the past week. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080980531] adds information from [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60949791 BBC]: "two are wearing recognisable Ukrainian military uniforms". |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080986444] introduces information from [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/03/bucha-ukraine-graves-war-crimes-calls-icc/ Washington Post]: "Russia’s Defense Ministry [...] claimed some of the footage of bodies in Bucha was “fake” and accused Ukrainian forces of killing people by shelling Bucha." "Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said the discovery of the graves could “only be described as genocide.”", "Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, [...] accusing Russia of carrying out a “massacre,” requested that the ICC visit the scene “to collect all the evidence of these war crimes” " |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081081890] fixes misrepresentation of the [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-russia-trostyanets.html New York Times]: "the town’s hospital was shelled. '''It is not entirely clear who hit the building''', but local residents accuse the Russians of firing into the structure" "In the morgue, beside the three dead Russian soldiers, Dr. Volkova pointed to '''a body''' bag in the corner of the room. “This person was tortured to death,” she said." "war crimes" are never mentioned. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081258586] add lack of information as explicit from [https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/associated-press-journalists-bucha-civilian-killings-bucha-1.6409330 CBC] "'''It was not clear who the people were or under what circumstances they were killed.'''" |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1081710940] adds Russian claims, as reported by several RS, including [https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/08/europe/kramatorsk-railway-station-strike-intl/index.html CNN] "At least 50 people [...] were killed after Russian forces carried out a missile strike [...] '''Ukrainian officials said'''", "'''Zelensky said''' that the "Russian military hit the railway terminal"", "On April 8, the Russian armed forces did not conduct or plan any artillery fires in the city of Kramatorsk. We emphasize that the Tochka-U tactical missiles, the wreckage of which was found near the Kramatorsk railway station and published by eyewitnesses, are used only by the Ukrainian armed forces." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1082192861] removes fake attribution to this same CNN source. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1080115720&oldid=1080115332#cite_note-:2-1] restores info reported by the [https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/03/situation-ukraine UN High Commissioner for Human rights]: "We are also looking into '''allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces''' in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’." |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
I fail to see how adding info from sources such as BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, Euronews, CBS News, and the UN High Commissioner for Human rights and reporting the original attribution (explicit in these RSs) instead of presenting Ukrainian claims in [[WP:WIKIVOICE]] can be considered [[WP:Tendentious editing]].[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 15:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on {{diff2|1179956348|5:10, 13 October 2023}} (see the system log linked to above). |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
I am able to provide "clear evidence" of [[WP:VANDALISM|"malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia"]] by Volunteer Marek. Therefore, per [[WP:SPADE]] and [[WP:GOODFAITH]], I think adequately describing his actions does not qualify as incivility. I will only list diffs if requested to do by administrators (just collecting the ones from last month will take three or four times as much as my original statement).[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:RE to [[User:Jayron32]]: [[WP:GOODFAITH]] says explicitly "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). " I restate that I'm open to list such "obvious evidence" if requested to do so.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 16:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok, maybe I was wrong in my interpretation of policy and calling Volunteer Marek directly a vandal was unnecessary, I can admit to that. How about the diffs related to content, could you point out exactly which ones are in violation of what policy? Please also read my statement relate to diffs presented by MVBW (I left them out initially for the sake of brevity). I can only improve if I'm told what I'm doing wrong. [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I politely ask you again to indicate effective bias in my mainspace edits. Anyway, if I were to accept a temporary topic ban (which I don't find warranted), topic area is too broad, letting me very little space to contribute (if you check my edit history, it is mostly related to Eastern Europe, all articles [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Anonimu I have created created] would be covered by it). I already have [[User:Anonimu/Romanian_resistance_movement|about 6 articles in the pipeline]], but all are about Romania, which will fall within the scope and thus I won't be able to move them out of userspace. Basically, the point I'm taking home right now is that I'm indefed for calling another user a vandal.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:RE to [[User:El C]]: I do agree that every person's death is tragic and cannot be justified unless done in immediate self defence. However, that does not mean WP editors can [[WP:OR|make a judgement call]] and declare that one specific death qualifies as a war crime, considering that even legal experts fail to agree what exactly constitutes a war crime. Unless, of course, there's a RS saying that, and, '''at that moment''', there were none.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
====Statement regarding diffs provided by MVBW==== |
|||
{{diff2|1221246870|19:31, 28 April 2024}} |
|||
MVBW's statement is actually a list of personal attacks, at it attributes to me beliefs I do not hold. Do note that per [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOTTRUTH]], one editor's personal beliefs are irrelevant as long as he edits according to [[WP:NPOV]]. So here we go: |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1077623135&oldid=1077622632]. This was removed per [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:DUEWEIGHT]]. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60734706 BBC] does not use the expression "war crimes" anywhere in the article. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1077622632&oldid=1077574942] This was removed per [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:DUEWEIGHT]]. "war crimes" are not mentioned by [https://www.space.com/mariupol-ukraine-damage-satellite-photos Space.com], [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/13/more-than-2000-killed-in-mariupol-since-war-began-officials Al Jazeera], [https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-live-updates-e4ccdd9cf82e868ad8854f6f97cadb27 Associated Press] or [https://english.nv.ua/nation/russian-missiles-attack-kyiv-first-residents-of-mariupol-leave-encircled-city-updated-50224803.html The New Voice of Ukraine]. Note that the refs to Maxar link to the company's home page and its presentation of its general work, thus we have a case of fake referencing. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1079171202&oldid=1079171076] I already discussed above: [https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-panic-in-captured-ukrainian-city-russians-are-entering-houses-there-s-looting-1.10651066 Haaretz] says about the subject "Abrazhevich [a young student in Kharkov] recounted, adding that she '''had also heard reports of looting'''". That's a rumour, not a witness account. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1080115720&oldid=1080115332] This is restoration of content per [[Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#The_lead|apparent consensus]] on talk page. The source is the [https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/03/situation-ukraine UN High Commissioner for Human Rights]: "We are also looking into '''allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces''' in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’. " |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1076387437&oldid=1076386506] I don't have an opinion since I'm not a legal expert. However the word "illegal" is used neither by [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/russian-military-commits-indiscriminate-attacks-during-the-invasion-of-ukraine/ Amnesty] [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/ukraine-cluster-munitions-kill-child-and-two-other-civilians-taking-shelter-at-a-preschool/ International], nor by [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/25/ukraine-russian-cluster-munition-hits-hospital Human] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/04/ukraine-cluster-munitions-launched-kharkiv-neighborhoods Rights Watch]. HRW does say "An international treaty banning cluster munitions has been adopted because of their widespread indiscriminate effect and long-lasting danger to civilians. Cluster munitions typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds, of small bomblets over an area the size of a football field. Cluster submunitions often fail to explode on initial impact, leaving duds that act like landmines. '''Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among the ban treaty’s 110 states parties'''." Thus, while it is undoubtedly immoral, we have no source saying the use of cluster munitions is illegal. My edit removed [[WP:OR]].[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 16:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka=== |
|||
===Statement by El C=== |
|||
<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> |
|||
Let's be clear, VM's report was terrible. So long, needlessly so. Which then unsurprisingly reflects in this appeal. And the weird thing is that VM actually knows better. He has argued multiple times, on this very noticeboard, about how a responding party needs ''more'' space than the complaining one. And yet here we are. |
|||
====Statement by Entropyandvodka==== |
|||
I looked at a couple of other examples from VM's lengthy complaint that were questionable. Like, claims of 1RR vios for pages not subject to 1RR. Also, RE: [https://www.euronews.com/2022/02/26/in-pictures-disbelief-and-resistance-as-russia-invades-ukraine Euronews source,] I'm not sure what happened there, but "terror" is mentioned in the aforementioned titled "Ukraine war: Distress and destruction as Russia continues its assault," which can be found [https://nnm.world/2022/02/28/ukraine-war-distress-and-destruction-as-russia-continues-its-assault/ here.] |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that the evidence submitted by MVBW was what prompted me to act so decisively. Otherwise, the report from VM seemed pretty TLDR-impenetrable. So I would advise the appellant to focus on those diffs rather than on those submitted by VM. Personally, I believe that that evidence is rather damning, but if the general feel is that this was too hard too fast on my part, I'll definitely take note. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Entropyandvodka=== |
|||
:{{u|Jayron32}}, point taken and understood. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::RE: {{u|AdrianHObradors}}' defense of the appellant, let's just look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1077623135 first diff] they list. It concerns mention of a pregnant woman who, after Russians bombed a maternity and children's hospital in Mariupol, was seriously injured and her infant stillborn, and who later succumbed to her wounds. This was the appellant's edit summary upon removal of this mention (in full): {{tq|the hospital air strike has been described as a war crime. The death of that woman has not been}}. Am I the only one confounded by this... (I don't even have words)? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Volunteer Marek=== |
|||
El_C imposed the topic ban on Anonimu for tendentious editing (well deserved, even if not ALL of Anonimu's edits were problematic). I'm guessing from El_C's statement (replying to MVBW) that the tendentious editing by itself was enough to merit a topic ban. My initial AE report in good deal also focused on persistent incivility by Anonimu, refusal to tone down attacks, and general [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] attitude. Anonimu is also still under 1RR restriction (which they've broken numerous times) and a civility parole (see original report). Here are the diffs which show Anonimu making repeated and escalating personal attacks and refusing to stop calling my good faithed edits 'vandalism' despite being asked/instructed to do so by several editors: |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081080187 First instance] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081794586 2nd instance] --- me requesting he stop: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081797002]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081813220 3rd time] --- I again ask him to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081797828]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081814368 Escalates, 4th time] --- I again ask him to stop[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081815021] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815021 Again, 5th time] --- I ask them again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815350]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815404 And again, 6th time] --- I ask them to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081819901]. Someone else asks them to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081820004] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081874964 Does it again, 7th time] and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081875182 And again, 8th time] restores section header. Yet another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081876809 collapses] and then informs them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081882765] as to how their offensive headings violate policy. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081882765 And again, 9th time]. [[User:Mathglot]] also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081883749].See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081893908]. The previous user, [[User:Chuckstablers]] complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081896553] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082015462] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082016519] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082071854 Anonimu does it again, 10th time] --- again is asked to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082074564] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082078372] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081881518 And again, 11th time] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081881952 12th time] --- I ask again for him to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082156114] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082166092 Responds doing it again, 13th time] |
|||
#And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082161918 14th time]. --- Again ask him to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166664] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166799 here] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166900 Chooses to do it again immediately, 15th time] |
|||
I've been extremely patient, but dealing with someone who does this over and over again is simply impossible. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by My very best wishes=== |
|||
I did not even read any diffs and comments by VM in his request. However, I provided 5 diffs which clearly demonstrate that Anonimu should not be editing in this subject area. And yes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1081710940 that diff] (see comments by RandomCanadian) shows exactly the same. It does not matter why exactly Anonimu does it. Hence, I would definitely endorse the topic ban by El_C. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by (involved editor 3)=== |
|||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonimu === |
|||
<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 RandomCanadian==== |
|||
Some of the edits mentioned above are clear instances of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]], and, unfortunately for the OP who does not seem to agree with the wider community, it is indeed tendentious to insist otherwise (for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1081710940]). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The diffs by Marek could on their own (IMHO) be enough for a [[WP:CIVIL]]/[[WP:NPA]] block... [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::@Anonimu: [[First law of holes|Stop digging]]! Calling edits by others "malicious" and accusing them of vandalism is well beyond the usual norms here. You disagreeing with someone does not make it vandalism. Even if it were actually disruptive editing (as in edit-warring), it would still not be vandalism. On the other hand, as I was saying, the evidence presented so far in regards to your edits is rather damning, and you're not helping your case. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by AdrianHObradors==== |
|||
I just saw this, and I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, is my first time on a discussion about an appeal. Also don't know how uninvolved I am as I have been keeping an eye over the subject and have been seeing the edits made by both Anonimu and Volunteer Marek, and sometimes trying to reach a compromise between them. I think they are both a bit biased, but they did find a bit of an equilibrium between each other. And I don't think Anonimu deserves the block (in regards of his edits of the article). The articles involving Ukraine are very hard to keep NPOV, and his contributions actually help balance it a little bit. Sometimes it is balanced a bit too much, but still helps. |
|||
I want to go over the statements made by My very best wishes: |
|||
#{{diff2|1077623135}} - The edit isn't about what Anonimu believes, source makes no mention of war crimes. It is probably a war crime, but either a better source should be found or he did well removing it. (See [[WP:SYNTH]]) |
|||
#{{diff2|1077622632}} - Again, this shouldn't be about what Anonimu believes, but his edits. And a humanitarian catastrophe is not the same as a war crime. War crimes cause humanitarian catastrophes, but so does war by itself. |
|||
#{{diff2|1079171202}} - The source is about local reports, which by themselves are not very reliable, and it is something that is often talked about on the talk page. Reports by locals or by the Ukrainian government that hasn't been verified by third parties are very unreliable. |
|||
#{{diff2|1080115720}} - I disagree with the call of vandalism, but what MVBW said is untrue. Source says "We are also looking into allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’". |
|||
#{{diff2|1076387437}} - See [[Cluster_munition#International_legislation]]. Neither Ukraine nor Russia (or the USA) subscribe to the Wellington Declaration, so calling it illegal is a bit confusing. |
|||
I do think Anonimu should stop claiming vandalism everywhere, but I do understand it is a very sensible thread and many get a bit heated up over it. In short, I think removing Anonimu from editing would actually be more negative than positive and make it harder to keep those articles with a neutral point of view. [[User:AdrianHObradors|AdrianHObradors]] ([[User talk:AdrianHObradors|talk]]) 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)==== |
|||
===Result of the appeal by Anonimu=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request |
<!-- 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 was a bit taken aback, as well, by the speed of the initial close by El_C, but their response, and especially the diffs by VM provided above, which outline clear tendencies towards [[WP:TE]] in this topic area, including repeated mischaracterization of good-faith editing by others as "vandalism" (a pervasive and almost ''sine qua non'' hallmark of TE in my experience) and the mis-representation of source material presented by MVBW in the initial report leads me to believe, as an uninvolved admin, that the prior close was the correct one. I '''Endorse''' El_C's initial sanction. A few points in both directions 1) To Anonium: there is no requirement that any report be open for any particular length of time. While borderline cases can be left longer, when something is a very clear-cut violation of existing Arbitration-enforced sanctions, then quick responses are not uncommon here. This is not a court-of-law, this is a place to get admin's attention. 2) To El_C: the initial close was impenetrable from an outside reader, to say the least. I had a hard time following your rationale for closing, it consisted mostly of an admonishment of VM for exceeding word/diff counts, and very little explanation as to why you were issuing the sanctions. In the vein of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"; having a clear rationale for a sanction would have helped immensely. It doesn't need to be verbose, but it should leave little doubt in anyone's mind that the correct action was taken. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
--> |
|||
**Anonimu: Please spare me the talking-down to. I've been an active admin for 14 years and an editor for several years longer than that. I am not discussing the fineries of what is and is not vandalism and bad-faith editing. I am ''telling you'' that you are wrong. Straight up. The edits noted by VM above are ''not'' vandalism in any way, despite your calling them such, and disagreements can exist between two people editing in good faith. Every word you type denying that is not going to convince anyone that the sanctions imposed by El_C above are unjust, indeed, your continued stance on your indefensible position is likely to convince people that they ''didn't go far enough''. Don't try to defend yourself, because you're so obviously in the wrong here, it is basically indefensible. Convince us you intend to change. I haven't seen any of that yet. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
***Anonimu: Thank you for your change in tone here. This board does not deal with content issues, only behavior. As admins, our role is in making sure that editor behavior does not interfere with smooth operation of the encyclopedia, and that conflicts are handled the ''correct'' way (by using article talk pages, by building consensus, by seeking [[WP:DR]] and outside opinions when there is a disagreement) and NOT the wrong way, such as using reverts, or characterizing other editors as malicious or their edits as vandalism, or whatever. My concern here is with the behavior, not with the content itself. Your behavior has been a problem, and it is for that you were rightly sanctioned by El_C. My recommendation is that you ride out the sanction and edit collegially in other areas of Wikipedia for a while. 6 months is usually the standard amount of time between appeals; if you can show 6 months of improved behavior while editing outside of the [[WP:ARBEE]] area of concern, then you stand a better chance of succeeding with your appeal. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 22:06, 28 April 2024
Abhishek0831996
Consensus is that this is essentially a content dispute with some conduct issues which do not rise to the level of requiring administrative action. All parties are reminded to follow editorial and behavioral best practice if they wish to avoid sanctions in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (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 Abhishek0831996
I have seen Abhishek0831996 occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an {{unreliable source?}} tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, Haani40. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless. Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent. Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)
Abhishek0831996's responses to the issues raised here continue to make red herring arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible. For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in The Hindu and a news article in the The Guardian. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of justifying the improper deletion of an {{unreliable source?}} tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. Neither of these has been done. As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves. On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Abhishek0831996
It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (Haani40)I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 who Kautilya3 is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that Kautilya3 has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of User_talk:Capitals00
Statement by Capitals00Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE,[18][19] and even WP:CIR.[20][21] While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[22][23][24] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own original thoughts by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[25] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the worst meaning of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[26][27] against their will on the cited pages. I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[28] Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (Bookku)I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest.
I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all. Bookku (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (User name)Result concerning Abhishek0831996
|
Grandmaster
No action necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (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 Grandmaster
In both discussions, Grandmaster did not even contest the final point of the last user and just abandoned the discussions. Yet months later, after the activity quieted down, Grandmaster changed the established wordings again as if they hadn't been explicitly by a consensus which Grandmaster is aware of and took part in. Vanezi (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GrandmasterStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GrandmasterRegarding removal of Ocampo from the lead, I just followed the standard WP:BRD, and started a discussion at talk. I was advised to not rv more than once, and this is a single revert that I made. Vanezi reverted me with no edit summary other than "rv", and did not join the discussion that I started. [33] Regarding the change of the word "disputed" to "denied", I indeed forgot about the previous discussions from the last year. We had many discussions with multiple archives on 3 related articles, so it is hard to keep track of what exactly was discussed a few months ago. I was going to rv myself when I saw the report here, but Vanezi already did. [34] Previously the admins advised us to ask the other party to rv themselves if their edits are disputed, and only escalate if the other party refuses to cooperate. [35] [36] This is what I did when Vanezi themselves made an edit against the consensus. [37] The closing admin confirmed that there was a violation of the consensus, and Vanezi self-reverted. If Vanezi had notified me of my mistake, I would have reverted myself, but Vanezi never contacted me at my or the article talk. I always try to resolve any dispute by following the dispute resolution process, as one can see from all the WP:DR processes that I started, and I would certainly do so again if I was alerted about present or past disagreements with my edits. Grandmaster 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC) It should also be noted that there is an SPI case on the filer open over a month ago, and until that is formally closed, it is unclear if they are allowed to post here. Grandmaster 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Grandmaster
|
Haani40
Haani40 blocked as a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (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 Haani40
What is more surprising, that the last diff came after this clear-cut topic ban warning by Bishonen on his talk page. This user has actually misrepresented the sources with this edit as correctly observed by another admin (Cordless Larry).[38] Even after this all, he is still arguing on the article's talk page that how his edits are not WP:BLP violation.[39] While this user is overly enthusiastic about these controversial topics, I believe the inputs and warnings on his talk page have so far ended up getting ignored by him. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Haani40Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Haani40At WP:DR, it says, " However, there was no edit war nor any discussion on any article's talk page or my talk page about these edits by the filer. Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the first diff: That was copied from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article (which someone else had added in that article). Srijanx22 then reverted it. In the mean time, an admin (Vanamonde93) removed it from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article for some reason and so, I did not edit war over it in either the Anti-Hindu sentiment article, nor in the Indian reunification article (I did not add it back). Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the second diff:- That was reverted by an admin (RegentsPark) and I did not add it back Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the third diff:- That was reverted by a Rollbacker, TheWikiholic and I did not add it back Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the fourth diff:- I asked at the WP:Teahouse and added that with reliable sources but since it was reverted, I didn't add it back and started a discussion on the Talk page of the article (see this) where the consensus was against adding it (however, only one experienced editor who had reverted it responded to the question if it was acceptable and the filer of this AE was not a part of that discussion at all). I have abided by that consensus. I have been extra careful about my edits after the warning by an admin (Bishonen) on my Talk page and have asked for clarification at the Teahouse before my next edit. After that was reverted and discussed on the Talk page of the article and the consensus was to avoid adding it, I didn't add it back. I have understood why my edits were reverted and apologise for it. I shall learn, improve and avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, I will ask some experienced editor or maybe at the WP:Teahouse before making any edit I feel is going to cause a problem. I have not received any warning by the filer ever before. The filer may be sanctioned as per WP:BOOMERANG
Statement by (Bookku)I observed Haani40 as uninvolved editor form Abhishek0831996 case (still on this board while commenting here), there after I tried to give some mentorship like peer advice. I concur with OP that User:Haani40 seems overly enthusiastic about some controversial topics. They seem to pick some part of advice and overlook some. I doubt similar mistakes might be happening while interpreting the sources due to haste. Some of this mistakes may happen from any new user. Hence I had advised Haani40 to not edit in these topic areas at least for couple of months. I suppose after my advice User:Haani40 should have got opportunity un til they do not repeat the mistake. There is specific WP:DDE protocol for such cases that too has not been complied before coming to ARE. In any case the case is on board so I feel let us observe Haani40 for 8-10 days by keeping this open, then take the call whether to leave them with warning or Haani40 deserves Topic Ban for some months.
@@Haani40: Here in this edit of yours you attributed me but did not ping. In above guidance I suggested to use WP:DDE but did not ask to go after OP. You should have read my advice to Abhishek0831996 ".. at WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. ..". Read: time to stop digging and drop the stick. To regain the confidence of the community you need to promise and prove yourself by working in non-contentious areas without any controversy. Last but not least, going after OP or biting good faith advisors itself is last thing to help you. Bookku (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Haani40
|
Eyes requested. This is not the venue for discussion. I've fully protected the article for a month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article was fully protected for two weeks, by EdJohnston, from 5 April to 19 April. Within a day of the protection's expiration, edit warring had resumed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Nicoljaus
Blocked indefinitely, first year covered under AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2024 (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 Nicoljaus
When requested to self revert, commented "Oh, I'm so sorry. I need to bring in this area a couple of friends to make reverts instead ne.".
Discussion concerning NicoljausStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NicoljausStatement by BilledMammalThere’s a 1RR violation here that needs to be reverted, but there also appears to be a lot of recent edit warring by all parties in the article. I’m also concerned by the removal of sources that were used as evidence of WP:SIGCOV in the recent AFD on the grounds of unreliability - either they are usable or they are not, you can’t have it both ways. BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Nicoljaus
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu
Topic ban modified to post-2000 Russia/Ukraine relations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by AnonimuMore than 2 years have passed since the ban was enacted. I am fully aware that my behaviour then was far from encouraging civil and productive discussion of the content in a highly contentious topic (Russian-Ukrainian war), and I am sorry for that. My plan was to wait for the war to end before appealing the topic ban, unfortunately it is dragging on with seemingly no perspective of peace. Due to lack of sources/interest in other topic areas, as well as the broadness of the topic ban, in the past two years my editing was mostly restricted to fixing some issues and adding some content related to areas that could not possibly be considered as connected to Eastern Europe. I think that restricting the area of the topic ban would allow me to come back to more productive editing. Thus, if you consider that the topic ban cannot be completely overturned, restricting the topic ban to modern Russian-Ukrainian relations (say, after 2000) would still serve as a remedy to the original situation, while not preventing me from using the knowledge and sources I have in order to improve Wikipedia content related to other areas of Eastern Europe. Thank you. Anonimu (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
Statement by tgeorgescuAnonimu can be an useful editor. I don't say this because I like his POV, but because he can act as a counterweight to Romanian nationalist POV-pushers. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AnonimuStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Anonimu
|
Crampcomes
Crampcomes blocked for one week for edit warring/1RR violations, and topic banned for six months for misrepresenting sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2024 (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 Crampcomes
(none)
Talk page discussion has been attempted by the other involved editor (User:Mistamystery) here, but it has not been responded to.
diff on User talk:Crampcomes Discussion concerning CrampcomesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CrampcomesBringing this case here is totally against Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. I already explained myself here. It's been two days and I haven't edited the article in question since then. BTW, I was the one who created that article in the firstplace.[44] Nonetheless, I will repeat: The article, which I created recently, has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [45][46], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both IP and account [47] [48] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected (it was extended confirmed protected very recently). Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question[49]. (another very experienced editor first reverted him) I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals[50], but he refused[51]. He at some later time put a vague note on the talkpage without pinging or notifying me about it anywhere not even in edit summaries.Crampcomes (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier@Crampcomes: Something confusing me a bit, are u saying that the IP in this diff is the (original) complainant (ie Mistamystery)? Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by BilledMammalThere was also an edit warring/1RR issue at 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel:
They sought to include the claim that Iranian missiles went past "all the air defences" of Israel's allies - a claim that doesn't appear aligned with the source, which says "Israel’s allies helped shoot down the bulk of these weapons". They also at one pointed added the claim that "According to CNN it was an Iranian operational success" (17:23); again, this doesn't appear aligned with the source. 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Crampcomes
References
|
Christsos
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 Christsos
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Christsos (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:ARBPIA4 extended-confirmed restriction
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Created Faiq Al-Mabhouh
- Created Ibrahim Biari (deleted by me as G4)
- Created Draft:Eyal Shuminov
All of these are very obviously related to the conflict
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
User talk:Christsos#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Discussion concerning Christsos
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 Christsos
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Christsos
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Christsos, if you have anything to say, now would be the time. It looks like all of these happened after you were explicitly left a contentious topics notice informing you of the 30/500 restrictions, so can you please explain why you are clearly violating that? I'll give you a short while to explain, but otherwise I'm very much leaning toward a sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Entropyandvodka
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 Entropyandvodka
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Entropyandvodka (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#ARBPIA General Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
WP:1RR violations and 1RR gaming at Israeli war crimes:
- 02:22, 21 April 2024 (said that Israel had committed genocide → found that Israel had committed genocide)
- 07:05, 21 April 2024 (said that Israel had committed genocide → finding reasonable grounds that Israel had committed genocide)
- Was requested to self revert at 07:51, 21 April 2024. Did so at 22:58, 21 April 2024, saying
Self reverting per request, as that edit can be considered a revert. Will be putting that material back in later tonight for the same reasons.
- Was requested to self revert at 07:51, 21 April 2024. Did so at 22:58, 21 April 2024, saying
- 06:18, 22 April 2024 (said that Israel had committed genocide → found Israel was committing genocide)
I don't know whether 06:18 is a second 1RR violation, but it is gaming of 1RR and seeing 1RR as an allowance, rather than a hard limit - reimplementing a reverted violation 23 hours after initially implementing it and seven hours after reverting it is not aligned with our expectations regarding self-reverting violations.
I requested they re-self-revert; they have refused to do so, and are now arguing that 07:05, 21 April 2024 was not a revert.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 5:10, 13 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka
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 Entropyandvodka
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Entropyandvodka
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.