Azuredivay
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 Azuredivay
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Azuredivay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 4 June 2020 very many things wrong with this diff. Adds 13kb (!) of content without an edit summary, and with no explanation on the talk page. Includes content about "separatist campaign", much of which the sources do not directly connect to Pakistani nationalism. This is particularly true about the sentences discussing Direct Action Day.
The same edit adds a long quotation about Pakistan from M. S. Golwalkar, a leader of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Golwalkar isn't a historian or political scientist, and his views constitute egregious undue weight.In short, edit violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and basic behavioral norms. EDITED: Azuredivay has pointed out that the quote already existed, for which I apologize; the software highlights it when I view that diff the same way new content is highlighted. That doesn't address the rest of the problems with that diff, though. - 4 June 2020 same article as above; removes tags without explanation; adds content without a source.
- 23 May 2020 changes "Pakistani Qawwal" to "Indian Qawwal" without a source and without an edit summary.
- 4 June 2020 Accuses another user of "revisionism"; refuses to explain himself further.
- 14 May 2020; adds redundant links to an article; after they are removed, Azuredivay was warned, to which he responded quite dismissively.
- Similarly, after edit-warring over the primary name of the article at Adam's Bridge (see this, and the previous revisions), responds in this manner to a warning on his talk page.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- No previous sanctions.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Given an alert about discretionary sanctions by Newslinger on 15 March 2020.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I find it quite strange that Azuredivay's command of English is far superior in the first two diffs linked above, than it is in discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Addendum; two additional concerning incidents were brought to my attention via email by an editor who did not wish to get involved at AE; they further substantiate the communication issues I highlighted above. @El C: Would you mind taking a look at this? It's possible that all that's necessary is for someone uninvolved to tell Azuredivay to communicate appropriately, but this is languishing without attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- notified.
Discussion concerning Azuredivay
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 Azuredivay
Diff #1 has been misrepresented. Golwalkar's quote had been added by Arslan-San[1] not me. I just combined it with the previous para and you are free to remove it if you want. The same editor also added a large amount regarding how "Sindh" was different from the rest of India, which is not true. All of the citations I added to article are reliable and were taken from other places of Wikipedia like Direct Action Day article itself. What I added actually traces the origins of Pakistani nationalism, as Muslim nationalism that began in British India among the elite class of Muslims of UP and Bihar. The content also cited the Lahore Resolution that called for a separate state in subcontinent for Indian Muslims. Mentioning Direct Action Day is obviously important because it is after that event that communal riots spread to other parts of the subcontinent resulting in partition and the realization of the Pakistani state.
Diff #2: Per WP:ES, I provided edit summary where it was needed. For the rest it is very obvious that I am only adding the content.
Diff #3: Vanamonde93 has apparently ignored in this edit that I removed puffery, unsourced and unreliably sourced content. There was no Pakistan before 1947 so how a person who was born in 1911 could be called "Pakistani"? I planned to resolve this content dispute on talk page for later.
Diff #4 has been also misrepresented because I engaged as much as it was needed and I cited a discussion (see Talk:Channar_revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?) which mentioned the word "revisionism" three times and concluded that those views were revisionist in nature. Azuredivay (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff #5 happened nearly a month ago and has been poorly interpreted here since my final position on the matter was opposite as I had already modified my response and acknowledged the message appropriately.[2]
Diff #6 happened 2 months ago and at that time I wasn't aware of MOS:TITLE but after this I took time to read it and never added a non-title as main name. Azuredivay (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RexxS: Where did you observed that there have been "
no acknowledgement
"? I don't appear to be indicating that I am going to repeat any problems raised here, in fact I told how I have resolved them. You seem wrong with your claim that a DS alert is made to "avert editing problems by putting editors on their best behaviour", because occasional mistakes are possible especially when an editor is making 100s of edits though they should not be repetitive. Finally, none of the diffs provided here rises to the level of any sanction. Azuredivay (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)- @RexxS: I am absolutely within my rights to point out the misrepresentation of the diffs, one of which has been already acknowledged by Vanamonde93 above per here. I was not aware of that page which you have linked, but then I would still like to know if there is even a single edit which shows that I am not putting "best behaviour" in the diffs coming within a week when this report was filed because the top note of this page alone notes that "Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale". Are there any diffs coming after this report where I am not putting "best behaviour"? I have acknowledged that I should provide more edit summaries as it reflects also in my recent edits, but I still think that a simple notice "provide more edit summaries" would have worked instead of filing this report. Azuredivay (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (other involved editor)
Result concerning Azuredivay
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Since I was pinged (but somehow didn't get an alert for it — sorry), I would agree with Vanamonde93 that improvement is necessary. If Azuredivay were to take these concerns on board, that would spare them from suffering any sanctions. In that case, a warning to do better would be recommended. El_C 10:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- The whole point of discretionary sanctions is to avert editing problems by putting editors on their best behaviour. Once Azuredivay had the alert in March, they should have been scrupulous in avoiding controversial edits. As there seems to be no acknowledgement that they've fallen short of the requirements, I suggest a topic-ban from the India-Pakistan area until they can show they understand how they need to be editing. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Azuredivay: I find all of those five edits problematic, not "careful and constructive", and all I see from you is a defence of making them. You've resolved no concerns that Vanamonde93 raised. You need to read accurately what other editors have written because it's the point of discretionary sanctions that I'm drawing to your attention, not the point of the alert. If you haven't bothered yet, please read WP:AC/DS #guide.expect, and consider all of it carefully before you tell me I'm wrong again. Finally, I'll point out that the uninvolved admins here decide if your behaviour rises the level of a sanction, not you. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would want to see a precise reason for a sanction. For example, the edits at Pakistani nationalism have not been challenged—they have not been reverted or modified, and the last edit at Talk:Pakistani nationalism was in July 2013! The two edits at Adam's Bridge were misguided but that was a month ago without a further problem that I can see. Azuredivay should be aware that this topic requires collaboration and massive edits may not be appropriate, and are definitely not appropriate when not even an edit summary is offered. Further, it is necessary to engage with other editors even if convinced they are wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Azuredivay: I find all of those five edits problematic, not "careful and constructive", and all I see from you is a defence of making them. You've resolved no concerns that Vanamonde93 raised. You need to read accurately what other editors have written because it's the point of discretionary sanctions that I'm drawing to your attention, not the point of the alert. If you haven't bothered yet, please read WP:AC/DS #guide.expect, and consider all of it carefully before you tell me I'm wrong again. Finally, I'll point out that the uninvolved admins here decide if your behaviour rises the level of a sanction, not you. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Zarcademan123456
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.
Zarcademan123456 is topic banned for 3 months from ARBPIA topics. Guy (help!) 09:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Zarcademan123456
Clear violation of 1RR on article under WP:A/I/PIA-sanctions, Huldra (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zarcademan123456I’ve kinda stopped using wiki as intently as in past, but if I broke rules comes from lack of understanding. 1R means 24 hours yes?... With all due respect to @Huldra, I do feel as if he/she is “out to get me” a little bit...again, as I said in previous wiki arbia discussion, if I violate, its out of ignorance, not maliciousness. Not that incompetence shouldn’t be punished, but as a volunteer website, mistakes, IMO, should be dealt with gently, not with heavy hand (violations). Brief aside, luckily I got my job back so I’ll be on wiki less so this will be moot anyways. Good day y’all Statement by Zero0000To editor Newslinger: Kafr Saba is an article covered by ARBPIA and the first diff of Huldra that you indicate was the revert of an IP. Such edits are exempt from the 1RR restriction, see WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions. So it is not correct that Huldra broke 1RR and you should withdraw that charge. Zerotalk 06:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Statement by (selfstudier)Although no action was taken (only 3 reverts, not 4) this recent complaint also included 1R (Is-Pal) violations. Statement by (username)Result concerning Zarcademan123456
|
SpicyBiryani
Request concerning SpicyBiryani
To begin with, the report is strictly confined to the conduct of the reported user, which on the whole has been lamentable. A persual of the relevant talk page discussion alone would show the user's repeated WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, breach of core policies like WP:NPA, WP: ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLE and last but not the least WP:CPUSH (in particular the part that reads, Another thing important to mention here is that the user is essentially an WP:SPA who has obstinately refused to realize faults in their comments laden with policy violations (which have been adequate demonstrated above through a number of diffs), when pointed to them1, 2. User has been incivil from the get-go and has repeatedly attempted to personalize disputes by speculating ethnicities and nationalities of others, among other things.
Discussion concerning SpicyBiryaniStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SpicyBiryani
Firstly, I had been notified of the sanctions well before I had edited the talk page, which you'd know if you'd bothered looking at the page history instead of resorting to WP:CHERRYPICKING as you have attempted to throughout the rest of your allegations. Do not make things up to discredit me. Secondly, I have not speculated anyone's nationality. Here, you can see that User:Kautilya3, who is Indian, as you can see on their userpage, had reverted the page, to clear up un-neccessary discussion about the Kargil War, instead of the about the article. I had left a comment about the infobox that got caught up in this along some others. So, assuming it was a mistake as User:Kautilya3 is a seemingly competent editor, I re-addressed the issue on the talk page, and just to be on the safe side, changed it to remove as much commentary on the actual war as possible and to focus on the article more. Jingoism on such pages by Indian and Pakistani users is not new, the former being more common due to India having the largest (mostly uncensored) internet population in the world. Again, User:Kautilya3 seemed to be a competent editor, and did not further revert any of my comments, I did not attack or accuse or assume anything about them, nor did I even mention them any further. Additoinally, the fact that they did not revert any of my content again indicates that I was not the issue which caused the revert. I had only mentioned his nationality as people from India and Pakistan are obviously biased to their own country, whether they realise it or not. As you can tell, the comment complied with WP:TALKFIRST, and I had discouraged edit warring and refrained from editing the article itself, despite having the rights to do so at the time. So you could understand why I was initially disappointed that it seemed a biased Indian user had already began edit-warring. However, seeing that this revert was not targeted at me, and after seeing Kautulya3 was a competent editor, I realised this was not the case.
Here is the piece written by this user. There is no indication of any sockpuppetery or bans whatsoever on their talk, nor on their userpage which they did not add anything to. A quick geolocation shows that it is a Canadian user, so it's not like they were a biased Indian or Pakistani, as I pointed out. Despite me asking for evidence of sockpuppetery multiple times, User:Aman.kumar.goel resorted to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and called the user 'sockmaster':
I do not know what kind of mental gymnastics it takes to interpret that as a 'personal attack'. I stated that the as a result of the war, there were indeed territorial changes, whether they be in India or Pakistan's favour, and that I was not chest thumping and trying to make the Pakistani military look better, if that was the assumption other users had. In fact, I was agreeing with the person who you allege I was personally attacking.
TL;DR:
If any of my actions are indeed leaning towards the wrong side then I will avoid committing them in the future and change my editing behaviour, if pointed out by an administrator. SpicyBiryani (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
As I've stated above, I apologise for any of my actions which violated any policies and will do my best to refrain from repeating such actions in the future. I realise that my country (and related topics) are controversial subjects on Wikipedia, but unfortunately it seems that I found out the hard way. I'm pretty comfortable with computers and exploring settings and that kind of stuff, but I am new on Wikipedia if that caused anyone to doubt my account age. Additionally, my edits on 2020 China–India skirmishes are mostly attempts to stop edit warring and citing sources out of context. SpicyBiryani (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC) References
Statement by SiddsgSo SpicyBiryani has only 38 edits and he feels that it is fine for him to misuse Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX against "Indians" because of his own perceived but very personal prejudice/hatred/bias against Indians. I see this to be a clear example of WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE. SpicyBiryani also misrepresented CNN and CNN-News18 as "Indian source" in order to sabotage the reliability of the source when he edited 2020 China–India skirmishes.[4] Maybe an indef block (topic ban upon return) would be worth it. Siddsg (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SpicyBiryani
|
Posp68
Posp68 is topic banned indefinitely from the subjects of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 17 June 2020 (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 Posp68
Posp68's edits appear mostly to be intended to justify the current borders of the Czech Republic and the removal of Germans from it. They have some serious NPOV issues and also competency issues in that their editing is often grammatically incorrect and poorly formatted. In the five years they have been registered here, most of their edits have been to Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia and Munich Agreement, always seeking to justify the Czech position. They also had an extended edit war over Polish-Czechoslovak War. It is my belief that the user is WP:NOTHERE. This is my first time filing an enforcement request, so I apologize if anything is not quite as it should be. Edit I've added three more diffs of edit warring I think should be considered, including some where Posp68 edited while logged out. The issue was discussed here [6], where Posp68 gave one of there usual pronouncements for having essentially the same sentence three times in one paragraph:
Discussion concerning Posp68Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Posp68Statement by YmblanterI have blocked the user in May Statement by (username)Result concerning Posp68
|
Mikola22
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 Mikola22
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Sadko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:TOPICBAN
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
A user under 1RR sanctions is going on with the same sort of behaviour which led to his current status and continuing his fringe narrative and disruptive editing/lack of communications, which was just recently observed by another fellow editor - @Slatersteven:
- Removal of sourced content in the same manner in the same way before the imposed sanctions [8] [9]
- Identical fringe viewpoints which were reported multiple times in the recent past (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [10]
- Ignoring other user’s concerns [11] [12]
- Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [13] [14]
- Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editors involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his actions) [15] [16]
Endless disturbing point-scoring (the intent seemes to be to paint the Serbian role in WW2 as black as possible, using questionable sources and logic):
[17] [18] [19] (which is more often than not just wrong or taken out of full context) [20] [21] [22] [23] ! [24] [25] [26]
blunt removal [27] [28] [29] [30]
[31] (on the very same article WW2 fascists were used as "RS" by the same editor [32]) [33] (Marco Polo was Croatian) [34]
It seems to me that nothing has changed and I would suggest a topic ban on the history of the Balkans.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [35] Sitewide block, involved admin was @El C: with whom I had a discussion about this sort of editing on his TP.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- [36] Arbitration sanction
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Constant WP:NOTHERE and refusal to cooperate with other editors.
- Not at all, diffs speak quite clearly about everything, rather than the pile of interpretations which have been presented above. Constant use of questionable sources, ignoring other users and than leaving comments on the TP which just repeat the previous points. That's the modus operandi, which is not bringing anything good.
- I understand that you want to turn a blind eye. There have been several reports on the same user (not done by me) for promoting fringe theories and views.
- I'm not hounding anyone (taking a look once in a while in order to see what some editor/s with history of promoting fringe theories are doing can't be called hounding; I should know considering that several editors are doing the same to me). Being vigilant and pointing out to potential canvassing, which was a serious issue from editors from hr.wiki is not a bad thing. [37] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Mikola22
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.
My additional answer and comment is here: User talk:Mikola22 #Answer.
Does anyone read my answers, false accusations of removing something from articles, false accusations me of using questionable sources and in 95% of cases no one deletes my information with that claim, accusations of adding links to the article or deleting mine information which was later returned by another editor which confirmed this RS as reliable, false statements that someone was banned so that I took advantage of it and the same editor received same punishment like me and I am not banned. Therefore I have explained everything and I ask that all his accusations be verified and not that I be punished for false accusations. I don't know how someone could come here and write false accusations without evidence. I thought that authorities of Wikipedia would punish editor Sadko for that. My evidence for stated are here [39] Mikola22 (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Mikola22
- Removal of sourced content in the same manner in the same way before the imposed sanctions [34] [35] I have not moved anything here but I have added two information to the article from RS.
- Identical fringe viewpoints which were reported multiple times in the recent past (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [36] Yes, it is a talk page and my opinion based on historical facts that I know of. 10 RS presented on the article say that Svetozar Borijević is a Croat, whay would my opinion be fringe viewpoints if I say that he is a Croat? What I supposed to say on talk page if Borojević himself said that he is Croat?
- Ignoring other user’s concerns [37] [38] [37], Yes, added 9 RS [38] Yes, it is a forgery for which the Serbian academic Sima Ćirković talks about in his books. He himself says that he does not know when the use of this false information will stop ("200 thousand Serbs who came to Croatia. Slavonia"). This false information ie forgery is still an integral part of many articles.
- Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [39] [40] [39] Yes, opinion expressed at talk page.[40] Yes, this is from talk page before 1RR restriction, whether I am allowed to talk on the talk page or not?
- Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editors involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his actions) [41] [42]. [41] Yes, added information from various RS.[42] Yes, something I added to the article, something does not belong to the article and that is why we are here, we edit articles.
- Endless disturbing point-scoring (the intent semes to be to paint the Serbian role in WW2 as black as possible, using questionable sources and logic): [43] Yes, Stjepan Filipović article, informations from RS [44] Yes, information from RS "Belgrade became the first city in Europe to be declared Judenfrei ("clean of Jews") [45]Yes, Nedić's, Ljotić's and Chetniks by Semptember of 1944 capture about 455 remaining Jews in Serbia who were handed over to the Banjica concentration camp where they were killed immediately. information from the RS. [46] I don't know what's bothering you here? [47]Yes, "In March 1942 Nedić with suport of August Meyszner establish Serbian State Guard (Srpska državna straža) who together with the Gestapo participated in guarding of Banjica concentration camp, in which among others were responsible for killings, including children." information from RS. [48] Yes, information from RS "with thousands killed in Jajinci, Jewish cemetery and Marinkova Bara" [49] Yes, "but in Germany suspected that this is not true and authority from Berlin sent Franz Abromeit to check situation. After that Ustashe were under pressure to finish the job. In April 1942 Jews from Osijek were deported to Jasenovac, two hundred of them while 2,800 were sent to Auschwich." information from the RS [50] Statement and responses shortened due to far exceeding word limit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Santasa99: You don't see is that I'm on Wikipedia for a few more days and you're concerned because some editor asked me for advice? Don't worry, everything will be fine. Mikola22 (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Santasa99: Any punishment (except some minor) based on this mostly false accusation of editor Sadko if I get I will ask for a permanent block. And everything is going in that direction. Do you know how many books, scientific papers I had to read and translate even though I don't know English and that someone is falsely accusing me. How much forge informations I found without anyone thanking me. See Milan Nedić article before my edit, in year 2020? Not anymore. Mikola22 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Statement by Tezwoo
First, it should be pointed out that Sadko was recently the main subject of a large ANI regarding POV pushing in similar topics, in some of which he had disputes with Mikola22 too. [40] Since the ANI was too large, it was overlooked. Admin Number_57 noted back then that Sadko's edits look "clearly like classic nationalist POV pushing/point-scoring in a contentious area" [41] Due to a potential WP:BOOMERANG, it should be looked at now. Sadko also seems to have been WP:WIKIHOUNDING Mikola22, as can be seen at Mikola22's talk page [42]. Here's a closer look at the report:
1st diff (Slavonia) - the first false claim, as it was not "Removal of sourced content". Mikola22 added new information from a RS.
2nd diff (Statuta Valachorum) - nothing was removed there as well, he added new content.
3rd diff (Svetozar Boroević) - those are not "fringe viewpoints", both Mikola22 and other users provided multiple RS on the talk page [43] that show how the ethnicity of Svetozar Boroević is differently presented in various sources. A consensus was reached that the article should state both the sources that mention his Serb origin (which was strongly advocated by Sadko), and those that mention a Croat origin.
"Complaints about prior “lost battles”" - that is nonexistent in the diffs provided.
"Ignoring other user’s concerns" - 1st diff (Military Frontier). Nothing was removed here, he added sources which are in fact modern historiography. He discussed that on the talk page, and another user agreed that those are reliable sources. Regarding the 2nd diff (Eparchy of Marča), Mikola22 did not add anything to the article following that discussion, so he did not ignore others concerns.
WW2 articles - Again, he added sourced content, mostly about the holocaust. It is interesting that on the 2nd diff provided there, in the previous revert, Sadko reverted an edit that "Milan Nedić implemented Hitler's anti Semitic policies" [44]. That is the only contentious edit I see there.
"blunt removal" - in the 1st diff (Svetozar Boroević), he was right to revert the edit as it was not in the cited source. 2nd diff (Nikolaj Velimirović) is obviously a mistake as he thought this was mentioned already. 3rd diff, he started a section on the talk page and several other users also pointed out to the off topic content in that article. 4th diff, nothing removed there, he added cited information.
Diff no.50 (Marco Polo) is very misleading as he did not write that "Marco Polo was Croatian". For the last diff (Chetniks), the content he added was confirmed with an additional source by Peacemaker67 [45]
That is mostly it. I'll gladly provide additional sources for any of Mikola22's additions. This just seems as an attempt to get rid of an editor with whom the user(s) had some content disputes with misleading explanations of pilled up diffs. Tezwoo (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Boomerang?
Context is important. Regarding "questionable sources", Sadko defended the use of an internet portal article titled "Croats are hijacking our heritage" for an ethnic identity claim [46]. The issue (novosti.rs article) had to be brought to RSN, which made it clear that it is not an RS. [47]
As for "fringe views", some of the above diffs are related to the Chetniks. There is an academic consensus that the Chetniks carried out genocide during WW2. Interestingly, both Sadko [48] [49] [50] and Griboski [51] have a very recent history of contesting or removing the mention of genocide as a statement of fact, contrary to the cited source(s). Tezwoo (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The actions of the reporter are evaluated too. If the user acted the same, or worse, in the articles in question, that significantly undermines the original report. In this case, that applies to all three users who are attacking Mikola22 (see the ANI of 30 April). And claims of breaking the 1RR for diffs where 1RR was clearly not broken, or claims of removal of content on diffs where nothing was removed, also undermine it. There is a much stronger case for a boomerang. If there are any doubts for WW2-related issues, you can ask Peacemaker67 to weigh in as a neutral observer. Tezwoo (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's hard to keep a condensed reply when 70 diffs are presented that imply you should be topic banned, coming from users that are directly involved in content disputes, clearly trying to gain the upper hand there. I hope @Peacemaker67: can give his view on this whole issue. Tezwoo (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Griboski
I can't speak to most of these article diffs as I was not involved in them. I can only comment on what I've observed. My main issue with Mikola22 is his unwillingness to listen to other editors' concerns and to try to understand what constitutes fringe viewpoints and reliable sources. For instance, in this [52] discussion it was explained to him why Ljubica Štefan is a fringe and questionable source to use. Yet he continues to say "but she is a popular Croatian historian" and asserts it is a RS. Here [53] he opened up a discussion contesting the exclusion of two clearly fringe sources which depict death tolls that stray away far from the consensus. Even though he's been blocked before and these types of issues have been explained to him, there's a continued resistance to acknowledging and addressing them. --Griboski (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Your reply proves my point as you double down and repeat much of the same points while refusing to acknowledge the concerns. If a source is questionable or controversial, statements should be attributed to them at the very least but a better source is preferred. No, you weren't specifically blocked for your use of fringe sources/theories but that has been a long-standing issue with you, related to your block. [54] --Griboski (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tezwoo Please don't misrepresent my edit. There isn't a consensus that the Chetniks carried out genocide but rather that some historians state it happened and that is what is reflected in my edit. @Mikola22 "Judenfrei Serbia/Belgrade" is a major talking point used by the Croatian right-wing to try to demonstrate that the Serbian collaborationist government was worse than the Ustasha regime. I'm not accusing you of holding that view but it is concerning then that you've added that bit to several Holocaust-related articles while at the same time adding things like this out of context which minimizes the Holocaust in Croatia [55]. Also your claims that the Milan Nedić and other articles were written "with flowers" (whatever that means) before you came along is not true and a case of self aggrandizement. Much of what you did is repeat a lot of the information already found in the article and re-emphasized it, including using a couple of unreliable sources, with some structural issues which needed cleanup afterwards. You did add some additional useful information that wasn't there before, congrats. I'm all for improving articles. What is troubling is the agenda-driven editing seemingly just to make a WP:POINT. --Griboski (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by WEBDuB
I think that one of the biggest problems with the user's work existed in the article Denial of genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. He removed most of the article, the sourced content, without prior debate on the talk-page or warning using some of a template [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Most importantly, that included the violation of the 1RR rule [63] [64] and [65] [66]. To be honest, he later re-reverted one of his changes [67]. In another article, there is another violation of the 1RR restriction [68] [69] and [70] [71]
Furthermore, I've noticed a strange form of WP:HOUNDING, which included some kind of “countermoves”. This was evident during my work on the article Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, which was followed by similar changes to the articles that the user seems to have perceived as a kind of parallel events (which usually did not make sense). When I contributed something on April 27 ([72] [73] [74]), he made changes to the article Milan Nedić for the first time, without previous contributions in this article in his history ([75] [76] [77]) When I contributed something on May 24 and 25 [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]), he soon made similar changes to the articles The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia ([83], [84] [85]), Banjica concentration camp ([86]) and Chetnik war crimes in World War II ([87]) for the first time. I really doubt that the articles about the Holocaust in occupied Serbia, Banjica camp and Milan Nedić are on the watchlist of the editor who work mostly with Croats-related pages. Of course, there are many examples of the direct following and making changes in the same article after my contributions.
In addition to a sensitive topic such as one of the deadliest genocides, his WP:POVPUSH and WP:CONTENTFORK can also be seen in the obsession with the most important and most famous Serbian personalities such as Nikola Tesla ([88] [89] [90] [91] [92]) and Novak Djokovic ([93] [94]). His focus on removing information about Serbs from Dubrovnik and Ragusa has already been shown in this discussion.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Tezwoo: Honestly, I don't think it's Ok to deviate from the main topic here. You do a great job on Wikipedia, but here we are discussing the violation of rules and about one specific editor. So far, I've not made changes to the articles about the Chetniks, as their crimes have already been described extensively on Wikipedia. Especially, I didn't remove or minimize any crimes. However, I think that the two accused editors didn't advocate fringe views and "deny genocide", but were guided by the main title of the article and discussions on the talk page in which the academic consensus was not confirmed. Personally, I've seen many disputes, when authors compared to the Ustaša genocide, because the Chetniks didn't have a state apparatus and were a heterogeneous group, not unique organization. As I said, that shouldn’t even be a topic here.
- @Mikola22: On this page, I didn't dispute your changes (your contributions on the Nedić and Holocaust pages are correct), but the broad context and the time when you entered them. However, the sources you added about Novak Djokovic were Serbian tabloids and Croatian portals that are indisputably not neutral. He is a world-famous star who is in the media almost every day, there would certainly be a huge number of reliable sources in many languages for any important information about him. Again, I didn't wrote anything about specific changes and source, but about your evident intentions and WP:POVPUSH, WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:HOUNDING. I would understand if you “followed me” on the Croats-related articles because they were on your watchlist. Generally, this is not the first time that I've noticed that someone has taken “countermeoves” and created or expanded a “parallel article” with very similar structure. In addition, the WP:3RR and WP:1RR do not always involve just the use of the undo tool, but any type of change that reverts to the previous version. In your case, removing the same content.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Sadko
I shall not comment attempts to spin the report on myself as the main drive behind those attempts based on free interpretations of my work is fear of being left without editors and support for certain edits, which have been called POV in the past. [95]
The same sort of pushy moves, Red herring, stonewalling, lack of willingness to discuss and present WP:RS and communicate with other editors can be seen on recent edits here [96] That's just tip of the iceberg, and this sort of editing has been present from the very beginning of this user's activity. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Peacemaker67
I'll start by saying that there has been a significant uptick in disruptive and POV editing in the WWII Balkans space in the last six months or so, and there are several editors contributing to that disruption. Much of this report is just false or POV and can only be seen as being included in bad faith to load up the report in order to remove Mikola22 from the area in dispute. Yes, Mikola22 has made some problematic edits, yes Mikola22 has a case of WP:IDHT, but frankly, both are pretty common in this space because feelings are strong on all sides, and Mikola22 has made some excellent additions to articles on my watchlist as well. Regarding the diffs included in the report, point 1. is wrong, neither edit involves removal of sourced content, point 2 relates to an unobjectionable post on a talk page..., assuming good faith regarding the content of the edits being correct per the first diff used at point 3, they are reliable sources and the info should be in the article, contrasted with any reliably sourced information that contradicts it. Aside: This is part of the problem with the disruption in this area at the moment, some editors want only the version of a subject that fits their world view or POV, and therefore fail to compare and contrast where sources vary. The second diffs of point 3 is again an unobjectionable talk page post. Point 4 is unactionable, nowhere on Wikipedia is it said that people cannot complain. Point 5 has two links to the edit history of talk pages, this isn't specific enough to be actionable.
The diffs under "Endless disturbing point scoring" start with a diff in which Mikola22 added that Stjepan Filipović was executed by the collaborationist Serbian State Guard, whereas the article had previously avoided mentioning that fact. Filipović WAS executed by the Serbian State Guard, and Mikola22 provided a reliable source for that information. The next one was Mikola22 adding to the Belgrade article that the city was the first in Europe to be declared Judenrein (free of Jews), which came about due to the willing assistance of the collaborationist Serbian puppet government. Again, an entirely good edit. I haven't examined all of rest of the diffs due to space restrictions here, but if they are similar to the ones I have examined, then this report is extremely poor, and does not support action against Mikola22. I'd be glad to examine all the diffs, but would need dispensation from a reviewing admin to go over 500 words. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony, I'll post more tomorrow Australian time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Calthinus
I have had less interaction with Mikola than some here; I have largely found both Sadko and Mikola to be reasonable in my interactions with them; it is only understandable that one is passionate about matters that involve relations between countries that were quite recently at war. I do, however, ask Sadko to strike this part of his case, where he gives this diff [[97]] for the statement Marco Polo was Croatian
(apparently attributing such a view to Mikola). That diff is an edit about Chetniks, and it is very clear that Mikola views Marco Polo as Venetian, not Croatian. --Calthinus (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Santasa99
I would strongly suggest that you check the situation around both of these editors, that is, Mikola as well as Sadko, they both deserve careful scrutiny. I partly agree with the arguments and examples given by Tezwoo, only I wouldn’t go that far in defending Mikola. I have had very unpleasant experiences with both editors in many cases, only they tend to differ in "modus operand" to the extent that Sadko usually backs down from the disruption of obvious RS, although in most cases he will try to test you and RS to the extreme, backing down only at the very limits proscribed by policies and guidelines - Sadko was almost blocked because of the same thing they are now reporting on Mikola. However, much more unpleasant is Sadko's acquired taste for following the history of targeted editors. Because of this Sadko’s habit, I felt like I was walking through a minefield every time I came to edit, I would feel like I would be ambushed for sure. In the last six months, such behavior has intensified, so I noticed this and tried to leave hints in a few edited summaries, where Sadko appeared to be reverting my editing - suddenly they would appear just because of that. They tried to justify it with the "Watchlist", so I tried to explain to him that it was unlikely that his watchlist was alerting him, and that this could be easily checked. As I further complained, they also decided to take the initiative, specifically selecting the administrator and his TP where they complained why I was not topic-banned as well, and regarding the topic-ban of another editor, insinuating some relationship between that editor and me. Needless to say, the administrator refused even a simple answer. But what bothered me the most was that even that "report" was created behind my back, without an alert so that I could defend myself if necessary. This raised the unpleasantness of my experience by another notch, and as I didn’t want to constantly have to look over my shoulder every time I wanted to contribute something to a project, I decided to contact him directly on his TP. I tried three times and was rejected each time in an impolite and aggressive manner, while my posts were immediately archived. So, whatever you have in store for Mikola, you should also check the other side, because even if their bad habits differ to some extent, they reflect on the community to the same undesirable effect.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- As I was writing my statement I did not see these additional ones written by Calthinus and Peacemaker. I would agree with Peacemaker in full. Both editors, Mikola and Sadko, are capable to contribute relatively good content when they want, with Mikola being even more consistent in that regard, in my opinion.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would also like if @Mikola22: could reassure us that things like these (also noted by Sadko) won't lead to some inappropriate collaboration with a banned user(s) somewhere outside project's pages, and that he can fully distance himself from invitations like these (above post is written in Serbo-Croatia and it needs translation, however it is fairly short and simple so machine trans. will suffice for whoever is interested--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)).
- @Mikola22: there is no reason to be so disheartened and melodramatic, whatever happens here you will have the same treatment as any other user, and I may be overly optimistic, but this still does not necessarily mean that the resulting decision will be full enforcement with toughest and longest restrictions, but even such a full of enforcement would give you quite a bit of freedom to contribute and you would probably be given a chance for an appeal in the future. But first you should wait and see. Whatever happens, this should be a cautionary experience, hopefully for both Sadko and you.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @El C:, thanks, but I would like to make important additional remark - that's just the obvious part of the problem with that report, and there is a less obvious and much uglier part as well, which could be and probably is the very reason why I was never alerted about it, and what really stunned in the first place and annoyed me. He was trying to place on my shoulders reason and a blame for another editor's ban, but what he forgot to tell in his report is that in the dispute, that may or may not really be part of the reason, he was involved all along, and on the side of my arguments and rationals - every time the banned editor was in dispute with me Sadko was there, not as often as I was, but often enough, and "on my side" of the argument sort of speak. So, his report on whole thing, beside being dishonest, also begs the question, why the sudden change of heart. Now, can it really be stressed enough that the administrators who banned that other editor are indeed sensitive enough and intelligent enough to be able to analyze the situation and the circumstances, and make a decision on their own, without being underestimated by anyone.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Mikola22: there is no reason to be so disheartened and melodramatic, whatever happens here you will have the same treatment as any other user, and I may be overly optimistic, but this still does not necessarily mean that the resulting decision will be full enforcement with toughest and longest restrictions, but even such a full of enforcement would give you quite a bit of freedom to contribute and you would probably be given a chance for an appeal in the future. But first you should wait and see. Whatever happens, this should be a cautionary experience, hopefully for both Sadko and you.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would also like if @Mikola22: could reassure us that things like these (also noted by Sadko) won't lead to some inappropriate collaboration with a banned user(s) somewhere outside project's pages, and that he can fully distance himself from invitations like these (above post is written in Serbo-Croatia and it needs translation, however it is fairly short and simple so machine trans. will suffice for whoever is interested--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)).
Result concerning Mikola22
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Mikola22, your responses are nearly 2000 words long. Please condense it to the essentials. Going a little over 500 is not a big deal, but that's much too long. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Mikola22, while in exceptional circumstances somewhat longer statements can be allowed, these are not such, and no one wants to read a massive wall of text to get to the important points. If you do not wish to condense your statement, it will be truncated at 500 words for you. The word limit is not a suggestion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Mikola22, if you ping me, you gotta link my username or I won't get an alert for it. I noticed it in passing this time, but next time I may not. El_C 05:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Mikola22, oh, okay. Yes, I knew this request existed, but have not reviewed it, mostly because of your statement's excessive length. El_C 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Peacemaker67, for looking into this matter. More depth and breadth from you would be welcome. El_C 08:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have substantial concerns with Mikola22's editing, especially in terms of bludgeoning, several edit summaries which could most charitably be described as "misleading", and aggressive interactions with other editors. However, on a review of some of the diffs presented here, Mikola22 is not the only editor who has these issues, either. (Not to mention that Mikola22 was bludgeoning even this discussion; see [98] prior to when I truncated the statement and responses since it was up to over 2300 words.) I would, based upon what is presented, be in favor of topic banning Mikola22 from the topic area, but I am not convinced that this alone will solve the issues present. I'll have to give that some more thought, or would be glad for any suggestions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- 1RR has not fixed the disruption Mikola22 causes in this area. It seems likely that a topic ban is necessary. I don't think he's the only one at fault, and I have reservations about effectively allowing one side in a dispute to remove another and thus "win", I'd be open to a limited exception allowing Mikola22 to log a single, neutrally worded request relating to others in this dispute, but it seems pretty clear to me that the complaint here has merit and that at least a timed TBAN of Mikola22 is warranted. Guy (help!) 09:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, you’re probably our most respected admin who edits in this area. Of course you’re welcome to add additional commentary. You might be involved from a content perspective, but I suspect most people here would appreciate your thoughts. So yes; whatever dispensation is needed you have :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Edithgoche
Edithgoche is cautioned to take more care in interactions, especially in sensitive areas covered by discretionary sanctions, and to refrain from casting aspersions against other editors. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 20 June 2020 (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 Edithgoche
Text-book example of WP:1AM and WP:SPA dedicated to Tipu Sultan for nearly 2 years. The above diffs provide clear examples of WP:EW, WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning EdithgocheStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Edithgoche
Edithgoche (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Statement by RegentsParkWhile I share Aman Kumar Goel's frustrations with Edithgoche, I think it may be premature to sanction them. Sure, they were throwing about dubious claims of adminabuse (which they did retract), censorship (also retracted) and due, but they have since engaged on DRN and, hopefully, will move forward constructively.--regentspark (comment) 13:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Edithgoche
|
Hölderlin2019
Request withdrawn by filer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:25, 21 June 2020 (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 Hölderlin2019
He has already reverted more than 3 times on both articles in less than 24 hours even after warning.[105] This reply by him even after hours of attempts to guide him to understand basic policies shows he is more willing to exhibit WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE than understand what WP:OR, WP:CON, WP:CANVASSING means. Instead it shows that he is more adamant to continue misrepresenting sources. Siddsg (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hölderlin2019Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Hölderlin2019Here’s a simple summary of this situation: a claim is being made, on multiple pages, that the Rigveda — an ancient Sanskrit volume of religious poetry — contains a particular phrase, “vikruti evam prakriti”, which allegedly means “what seems unnatural is also natural”, which is allegedly a statement about homosexuality. The issue with this is that the phrase literally does not occur in the actual text of the Rig Veda, which renders irrelevant questions about what it might mean, or what the significance of that meaning may be. There is no controversy about this among Sanskritists: authoritative sources such as Monier-Williams and VB’s revised edition of Bloomfield’s concordance do not accept that this text occurs in the Rigveda. Neither does Jamison & Brereton’s recent authoritative translation and commentary. In fact, *no* academic source by a Sanskritist accepts that even two of the three constituent *words* of the phrase occur anywhere in the Rig Veda. This fact, which anyone can verify for themselves by searching the publicly available text of the Rig Veda, is not OR. It reflects the universal understanding of Sanskrit and Vedic scholars, and is entirely consonant with their research output. I freely concede that none of my sources deal with homosexuality; there’s no reason that they should, since the question is whether or not a given phrase actually exists in a given text in the first place, and on that matter, the only authoritative sources are those which specialize in the translation and exegesis of that text, and in the language and culture in question. I have also not misrepresented any of my sources, and can only conclude from the claim that I have that the claimant is unfamiliar with the academic literature, and lacking in the competence necessary to understand what the literature establishes. I have not breached 3RR on any of the articles in question, though this may not be clear from the diffs provided, since the same text occurs multiple times in multiple articles, and has been deleted and reinserted twice in each, though in separate, though sequential edits for each section in which it occurs. I have subsequently added text establishing that there is no support for the existence of this text among academic Sanskritists, while preserving the original language to which I object, and defended that language once. I will not edit further pending the establishment of consensus, but will note that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the challenged material in the first place. The user who has filed this case misunderstands what OR is, and also CIR and generally the basic policies he presumes to “guide” me in. As regards canvassing, I have notified a handful of editors who routinely edit on India and Sanskrit - related topics; none of them, to my knowledge, have expressed a stance on this matter. I would like their thoughts, but have no prior knowledge of which side they are likely to take. I stand by the context I provided on the situation, but have preemptively removed it to ensure the pings are ‘neutral’. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde@Hölderlin2019: Regardless of the truth of your assertions, your justification for your edits leaves a lot to be desired. Interpreting the text of the Rig Veda is in fact original research, and not something editors should be doing. If you have reliable sources from reliable publishers supporting your assertion, then you need to demonstrate that; so far I've seen you provide links to a website whose reliability is questionable, and to an entire book. That isn't good enough. If the claim you're challenging hasn't actually been directly contradicted by the sources, then that's something you have to live with. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Hölderlin2019
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mar4d
There exists substantial consensus amongst uninvolved administrators to lift the topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2020 (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, substantial, and active 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 Mar4dI would like to humbly appeal for lifting a topic ban restriction which dates back to May 2018. The restriction in question was applied collectively amongst at least nine other editors at the time, with the option to appeal in 6 months' time, which I did not choose to exercise until now. More than the unfortunate circumstances which fostered the atmosphere for sanctions, I would like to focus here on why the sanctions had to be resorted to and what I personally take out of it. I am cognisant of the fact that the sanctions were a result of several issues pertaining to WP:NOTBATTLE; and that individually, my conduct had been deemed sanctionable precisely because it fell under the ambit of this problem. If I were to reflect on how I've been able to respond and what I've learnt from this experience, my answer will be twofold:
As for the reason of why I'm making the request at this time, the most correct answer will be that the topic ban has been an impediment in being able to edit some existing articles of late, especially in cases where the subject may not even have the strongest of connections to the India-Pakistan conflict. I realised this most recently when I was writing an article on an ethnicity, and understood I could not expand it meaningfully as much of it involved writing about their migration during the partition of India. This is one instance among many other similar and broader examples. 25 months and a wiser yet cooler head later, I am optimistic regarding where I stand . Therefore, I am submitting this appeal and look forward to engaging in this arbitration request. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by GoldenRingStatement by Aman.kumar.goelAs recently as 2019, there was an extended ANI thread where most participants were concerned enough about expanding the scope of the topic ban or block Mar4d indefinitely, and some were opposed to any action. But overall, there was a clear agreement that Mar4d was violating the topic ban, even after 1 block for topic ban violation in 2018. His first edit to the article on Pathans in India[112] which he himself created on 28 May 2020, is a violation of topic ban from "conflicts between India and Pakistan" given the edit mentions "partition" of India two times on the first edit alone. The second sentence of Kashmir conflict article notes that "The conflict started after the partition of India in 1947". This 30 May edit is just more of the same violation. This comes when Mar4d notes in his appeal that he is not able to write about a subject " This page move from 12 May is a gross violation of the topic ban since the article greatly includes the details about a war in which India and Pakistan warred each other. These edits are obviously not the only example where Mar4d has failed to stay away from his topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts. This 18 April which removed a whole section about India-Pakistan conflict involved Kashmir was a topic ban violation, and even after Mar4d appeared to have self-reverted,[113] I would still like to know how this source supports the information which Mar4d added on his next edit to the article. I would recommend declining the appeal based on these facts because Mar4d has failed to stay away from the topic he is banned from. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC) @El C and Black Kite: The topic ban violations are all recent and fly in the face of the standard requiring at least 6 months of problem-free editing before appealing a topic ban. Aside from topic ban violations, I am seeing misrepresentation of sources in the recent edits of Mar4d to Pathans in India. A very simple example to demonstrate the misrepresentation of sources can be seen in this edit alone since the source used by Mar4d does not support the information he added in any way and in fact there is no mention of "ethnic" and "cultural" in the source. How would it be then wise to repeal the topic ban of this editor from a more contentious subject given his glaring inability to edit while adhering to the general wikipedia policies in a less contentious subject? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Shashank5988Mar4d appears to be displaying the same battleground mentality in his responses which got him topic banned in the first place. The topic ban violations have occurred fairly recently. The claim that Vanamonde93 agreed that "a topic ban violation had not occurred" is a misleading claim since he was supportive of expanding the topic ban.[120] It is clear that Mar4d is still not understanding the scope of the topic. I also note that he has not addressed that how this edit is supported by 2 of the sources he added because it seems clear that Mar4d has misrepresented the sources in that edit. @RegentsPark: You should move your comment to involved editors section since you are deeply WP:INVOLVED as you have frequently participated in same content disputes as Mar4d.[121][122][123] The topic ban violations are not ambiguous in this edit because Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is much about 1971 Bangladesh genocide and Bangladesh Liberation War, both are among one of the most important subjects falling under India-Pakistan conflicts. Editing about the partition of India is also violation of the topic ban, especially when the topic ban notes that "further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block".[124] The topic ban wasn't supposed to be ignored but enforce the way it was imposed. Mar4d clearly does not understand the scope of his topic ban and is clearly not adhering to WP:NOTTHEM in his appeal but instead blaming others for any of the recurring problems with his editing. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93The only one of the diffs that's seriously concerning is the page move, but even there, I see a violation made in good faith, rather than an attempt to skirt the ban or to further previous disputes. Color me unsurprised that Shashank5988 is thoroughly misrepresenting my comment at ANI, or that both he and Aman.kumar.goel are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find incriminating diffs. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorI support lifting the ban, maybe you would say per WP:ROPE but I don't want this to come across as a discouraging comment. My usual metric for appeals of enforcement actions in this topic area is whether or not I keep seeing the sanctioned editor's name come up in disputes tangential to the topic, or in behavioural disputes in general; in Mar4d's case I absolutely have not, despite their continuing to be a prolific editor while sanctioned. I remain entirely unconvinced by the ideological enemies who have barely escaped sanctions themselves showing up to argue against their old foe, all the while whining about battleground mentality without a shred of irony. I also don't know if we're supposed to use lv3 or lv4 headers for these statements. Someone feel free to correct me if I've done it wrong. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mar4dTotally misleading allegations using old diffs are being made here. Aman is forgetting that there was no India and Pakistan before the 'Partition'. Moreover, Shashank must know that India wasn't even a direct party in either 1971 Bangladesh genocide or Bangladesh Liberation War. And if anyone here is following WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, it seems to be Aman and Shashank.Ainty Painty (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Mar4d
|
Hijiri88
Email disabled and talk page access revoked by Guerillero. — Newslinger talk 02:14, 20 June 2020 (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 Hijiri88
I was alerted by another user of troubling edits made by Hijiri88 on his talk page. In spite of our IBAN, he accused me of making "a false claim" on my previous topic ban appeal, though I didn't do so. He accused me of violating my IBAN on the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, but that's impossible. Since the IBAN was imposed, he has only made one visible edit to the article, which was made years ago,[126] and I didn't modify that edit. He pinged an admin concerning my previous, now lifted, topic ban, even though this matter obviously isn't IBAN-exempt under BANEX rules. Also concerningly, he says "pinging Nishidani (talk · contribs) to see if anything can be done about the content of the recent IBAN-violating edits." It must be noted that Hijiri88 previously said in 2018, "the text might have been added by TH1980, and when I checked the history to confirm I had to email Nishidani to deal with it." In other words, this is (at least) the second time Hijiri88 has attempted to get around this IBAN by asking another user to edit in his stead. This is surely in violation of the spirit of the IBAN. What is the point of an IBAN if the other editor can just e-mail someone else to ask them to make edits for him? Hijiri88 has a long history of violating IBANs[127] and this is surely just another case of that. TH1980 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
[128] Discussion concerning Hijiri88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Hijiri88Statement by (username)Result concerning Hijiri88
|
Hari147
Indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 16:44, 20 June 2020 (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 Hari147
Honestly, given the diffs I've provided, the previous warnings and blocks, and the recent uploading of a copyrighted image [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Chinese_president.jpg (Sorry, admins only) we're into territory where I would consider an indefinite block over a TBAN; but I think the latter is the minimum that's required. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hari147Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Statement by Hari147Statement by (username)Result concerning Hari147
|
Airavan
Indefinitely blocked as a normal administrative action. — Newslinger talk 08:13, 21 June 2020 (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 Airavan
Discussion concerning AiravanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AiravanStatement by (username)Result concerning Airavan
|
Marvin 2009
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 Marvin 2009
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Note that Marvin 2009 now go by the name Precious Stone as a signature, but his user name remains Marvin 2009.
- 6 June 2020 Engaged in soapboxing, and proceeded to remove WP:SPA labels in a discussion page.
- 11 June 2020 Blanking the Falun Gong article page, accusing it of being biased, removing sourced material and and also misusing the Citation Needed tag over sources he dislike. Warned by admin User:Doug_Weller as a result.
- June 12 2020 In regards to Doug Weller's warning, he claimed that his previous warnings were the result of "biased activists", highlighting his battleground mentality. Further warned by admin User:El_C.
- June 3 2020 June 4 20205 June 2020June 5 2020 In a timespan of 48 hours, continued to insert and revert a paragraph suiting his POV, including several that fail WP:RS such as a Forbes contributor site and the personal site of a conservative activist. A 3RR case was filed against the user but seem to have gone stale.
- June 6 2020 Suggested another editor of being a Wumao (paid editor by the Chinese government).
- June 6 2020 Same as above, using an article from The Washington Times to suggest that the editor was paid.
- June 6 2020 Attempted to link supposed pro-CCP edits with real life Chinese spying, suggesting a moral obligation to out them.
- June 6 2020 Further suggestions that other editors are Chinese spies, using real life spies being caught as an examples.
- June 7 2020 More accusations of other editors of being biased against him and FLG.
- May 1 2009 This old edit on his user page, as well as since deleted uploads [133] showed that he attempted to advertise for Falun Gong affiliate New Tang Dynasty TV, possibly violating WP:SPA, WP:COI, and WP:PROMO.
The following were raised in my previous request:
- 16 June 2019 In my June 2019 ANI case, he dug up some of my old edits, and together some random news articles, engaged in soapboxing and slyly suggested that I'm a CCP spy, and that my behavior on Wikipedia of being "against the freedom of belief and the freedom of expression, those pillars of modern civilization".
- 22 May 2019 Soapboxing about the evils of CCP in a RFC comment about number of FLG members.
- 29 April 2019 Similar soapboxing on talk page, attempting to discredit sources critical of FLG.
- 31 March 2019 Calling for the removal of Chinese government sources, using a US-funded NGO as evidence.
- 31 March 2019 Same as above.
- 27 March 2019 Further soapboxing, accusing another user of being "50 Cent Party" (a slur against users deemed pro-CCP).
- 27 April 2019 Accused another user of being a "CCP apologist".
- 7 February 2016 Previously engaged in 3RR violations and demonstrated a clear disregard of WP policy, launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him [134].
- 6 December 2015 Accusing other users in the 3RR case of being "CCP sympathizers".
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 6 Dec 2015 48 hour block for edit warring
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- March 2016 By Happymonsoonday1
- June 2019 By MrClog
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Marvin 2009 almost exclusively edit the contentious Falun Gong articles, pushing a POV that favors the practice. I previously filed a case against this particular editor in 2019, noting his problematic editing behaviors. He was warned by admins about the discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBFLG, but it's obviously that his behavior has not improved in the year since. Marvin 2009/Precious Stone displays a shocking lack of WP:COMPETENCE in his edits at Wikipedia, including problems with WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEGROUND and possibly WP:COI. I felt that a topic ban might be warranted due to his continued edit warring and disruptive accusations against other editors on contentious articles such as Falun Gong.
- @Pudeo's comments: I have taken a self imposed WP:BREAK and WP:VANISH from WP for over a decade due previous bad experiences and not willing to be caught up in arguments and edit wars, plus some real life health issues. I still read WP, and I have noticed that the Falun Gong articles, despite having two arbitration cases WP:ARBFLGWP:ARBFLG2, over the decade seemed to be worse to wear with more and more single purposes accounts showing up. Marvin's behavior, especially his less than civil attacks against other editors, is what drove me to file the complaint. Furthermore, I do not edit Chinese WP, and only noticed User:Wetrace's edit patterns upon visiting the corresponding Chinese WP article for additional sources.
- @BlueCanoe's comments: Using real life politics to indirectly infer that certain editors are CCP agents still breaches WP:CIVIL, not to mention WP is not a soapbox for politics per WP:SOAP.
- @Admin Guy's comment: The editing tool is misleading in context. The only Falun Gong related article I have edited since I returned to Wikipedia is The Epoch Times, where I was commended for adding better sourcing to the article. As such I felt it's a false equivalence to compare me with Marvin, particularly since I avoided mass reverting of articles and battleground mentality in the talk pages, and I made efforts to seek outside opinions on sourcing.
- @Marvin's comments: Your responses here demonstrates lawyering WP:PLAYPOLICY and a clear battleground mentality, and the fact that other editors may not have clean hands doesn't change your behavior which you continually attempt to justify, including calling my evidence "fake" right here, and that it's some "plot" against you. I called out your behavior in particular because they are in contradiction to WP policy, and you don't see me going after other pro-FLG editors (who while having ideological biases, at least attempt to adhere to WP policies and open to discussion). FYI, what the editor did to the CBC article was using the Wayback Machine to synthesize an argument which contradicts WP:NOR, when the editor's note is clearly on the current article, so I reverted it.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Marvin 2009
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 Marvin 2009
Communication with admin Seraphimblade
@Seraphimblade:, you wrote that you think some of my editing are a cause for concern. Before banning, could you let me know and I will try to clarify or explain any specific concerns you have? I think there are several other editors whose edits also needs to be looked at too, because this is not a one-sided dispute between only two editors. Precious Stone 00:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:, i had not intention to delete Guy's words at all. I did not see these words, nor delete them. when clicking publish changes, somehow there was no reminding of editing conflicts. sorry about it anyway. will answer your other questions soon. Precious Stone 01:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:: Thanks for letting me know the issues you are concerned about. Here is my reply:
- I did not know about the rule “Your username should be in your signature”. Now I learnt it from you. Will follow. Thanks.
- I do not think I have been edit-warring, not even 1RR. On the FLG article, my first four edits this year were conducted on June 3 to 5 - three days. Each time there were new contents added or modified and there were discussions on the talk page in terms of how Bloodofox (talk · contribs)'s and user Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs)'s edits failed with WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. I did not remove sourced materials, but addressed the misrepresented contents. But all of my four edits were reverted.
- I noticed WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views on FLG related articles.
Principles
Wikipedia is not a battleground 1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.
- Passed 8 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox 2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.
- Passed 8 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus 3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The request for comment process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.
- Passed 8 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Point of view editing 6) Users who engage in disruptive, point of view editing may be banned from affected articles or in extreme cases the site. Other remedies such as revert parole may be used to assist an editor to contribute in a more collaborative manner.
- Passed 7 to 1 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral point of view 7) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
- Passed 7 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Samuel Luo 8) Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a prominent anti-Falun Gong activist who operates http://exposingthefalungong.org/. He has engaged in edit-warring ([136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145]) to promote a viewpoint consistent with his outside activism.
- Passed 8 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Tomananda 9) Tomananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154]) and attempts to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy ([155], [156], [157]).
- Passed 7 to 1 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC) "
I am impressed how ARBFLG applied the principle, and do think this guideline should be followed. However I never said who was an agent and did not specifically say who was an activist. In reality, you can see that I am the one who was constantly attacked and reported by the users who had histories edit-warring or being blocked. Take the two users who reported me this month for example, based on another user' summary of Horse Eye Jack's record, it seems that Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs)’s labeling, reporting and attacking others, including me, is not a coincidence; while Pat Cheng had been blocked for 6 times due to some terrible reasons In these recent editing, I can not find any intentional mistakes on my part, yet i was reported by User Horse Eye Jack to AMER and am reported by Pat Cheng here. I am concerned the motives behind the users who reported me or warned me. I worry that it is related to my efforts in following WP:ARBFLG and preventing activism. If you are interested in this topic, I will get into the details.
- For a page under DS, I thought a major change to a stable page, would require some discussions or even consensus first. That is an understanding I have. If I am wrong, I will follow the correct way.
- Nevertheless, I did not do the restoration in my first four edits. What i did was as you mentioned:"everyone may edit, and if anyone else disagrees, discussion then is the way forward." In my first 4 edits, I respected User Bloodofox's edit and did not remove materials, but addressed the misrepresented contents as i discussed in the talk page. But all of my four edits were reverted by Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox.
- For the fifth edit on June 10, I adjusted "extreme-right" to "right-wing" and clearly stated that were reported by NYT & NBC, based on a discussion on June 5.
- For the sixth edit, I moved the newly created first section “Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, and political involvement ” by Bloodofox (talk · contribs) to the overseas Falun Gong section; as the origin section was at the first and those groups were overseas falun gong groups, the moving makes more sense. But it was changed back by Bloodofox (talk · contribs) . After that, Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) also reverted my fifth edit, which had gone through a discussion with no disagreement where it was stated that “I feel it is not a good idea to mislead that NYT and NBC associated the ET with extreme-right, so we should make it clear.”
- At that point, I restored the article to the status in the May before Bloodofox’s change, which was my seventh edit on the article. All my 7 edits including this one were meant to try improve the quality of the article. So the reason that I restored the status prior to the major change of the leader section in May, was not “simply for not being discussed in advance.” If you can go to check the editing history, you will be able to verify this.
Thanks for your patience. If you have further questions, please let me know. I also hope i can get the required time to comment on Pat Cheng's 20 + accusations against me and to comment on admin JzG's opinion. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Reply to User Pudeo's comment
- Thanks User Pudeo for your spending time on this.
- Indeed, Pat Cheng reported me twice one year ago. Now it comes again after one year.
- The 10 accusations Pat Cheng put out are far away from the truth. I am going to address all Pat Cheng's 20 + accusations, which will take some time.
- This year, Pat Cheng also included 9 points his previous accusations in last year's AE report, which were addressed in my reply to his ANI report (that was why I did not respond to the AE report last year) . While negating all untrue attacks, my reply last year also recognized sometimes my reply on discussion pages were a bit long and unnecessary and I would try to improve in this area. Since then, my discussions on article talk pages have been disciplined well - no unnecessary long talk on article page any more. I feel it is an improvement on my end. Precious Stone 00:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Responses to User Pat Cheng's fake accusations
Those accusations from PatCheng above were false. Below are my responses point by point, in which I tried to shed light on what really happened.
- 1. The claim 1 is 6 June 2020 Engaged in soapboxing, and proceeded to remove WP:SPA labels in a discussion page
- The first half is fake. The referred edit was to remove the wrongfully SPA tag User Horse Eye Jack added to multiple users (on the Falun Gong talk page) who disagreed with his edits on the article. This was not soapboxing. As one user summarized, it seems that Horse Eye Jack’s labeling and attacking others, including me is not a coincidence. Yes, I removed those wrongfully added SPA signs for preventing the attack. I provided the detailed explanation of my edit in the summary.
- 2. The claim 2 is“11 June 2020 Blanking the Falun Gong article page, ….
- The refered edit shows I did not blank the Falun Gong article page at all. Please review my detailed response to admin Doug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller#Re:_June_2020
- 3. The claim 3: “June 12 2020 In regards to Doug Weller's warning, he claimed that his previous warnings were the result of "biased activists", highlighting his battleground mentality. Further warned by admin User:El_C.”
- I did not say “the warnings were the result of "biased activists”” as PatCheng claimed. My words were “Yes, I received warnings in the past. My impression is that most warnings were not factual and were from activists who promoted their views with original research on related pages, i tried to prevent them and was threatened by warnings.” I used a word most at that time.
- After seeing Pat Cheng’s report here, I went to count and found that there are altogether 8 warnings on my talk page. 6 of them were from User STSC who was blocked twice. STSC's warnings were over the editng disargeements with me.
- For the other two warnings, one was from Binksterent and the other only left warning is from Doug Weller regarding Falun Gong page. Both were involved in the editing to those related pages. I do not think those are impartial warnings. Binksterent had been blocked 10 times and had over the disputes on Epoch Times page with me in 2016.Binksternet’s warning was refuted by another user. As to admin Doug’s warning, I tried to explain to him with the detailed circumstance info around my restoring edit, but have not got a substantive reply from him yet. Yesterday in my communication with admin Seraphimblade, i further explained the context surrounding my edit on June 10. i still have reserveation regarding this warning, and will talk more about it in a seperate post.
- From Admin User:El_C’s words on Doug’s talk page responding to my message, my understanding is that El_C was mainly explaining the policy that since admin Doug as an involved editor would not block me, but other admins including himself will block me in case of me continuously reverting afterwards. It was stating a policy that Doug has explained, not a formal warning.
- Indeed, PatCheng launched multiple cases against me since last year, so some messages on my talk page were from PatCheng, who had been blocked 6 times for vandalising, racist attacks, personal attacks, etc. From last June to this June, somehow I became PatCheng’s target and have been reported by this user three times with numerous false accusations, which created a lot of pressure for me, I feel it is a kind of personal attack or persecution with a motive to push the user’s agenda and silencing different views from reliable sources on Epoch Times and Falun Gong related page. I will address in a separate post with evidences and supporting differences. I urge ARB not to fall for Pat Cheng’s plot.
- 4. Claim 4: In a time span of 48 hours, continued to insert and revert a paragraph suiting his POV, including several that fail WP:RS such as a Forbes contributor site and the personal site of a conservative activist.
- I addressed this topic in the ANER response as well as mentioned in the RSN response. It was provided with 6 sources, not my POV at all. I did not know that the Forbes site and another might fail RS in the beginning. Even if that is the case, the other 4 sources still support the material. As there are numerous other RS that reported similar info, one can easily verify the materials from the 4 reliable sources and other RS.
- 5.Claim 5 -9 were false. I did not suggest “another editor of being a Wumao (paid editor by the Chinese government). I was the one who was accused for COI, so I provided some real-life examples to show what COI would look like. I did not suggest any one was a CCP spy.
- 6.As to claim 10, I answered a few weeks ago.
- 7.As to PatCheng’s previous ARBCOM case against me, i.e. the 9 points of the previous requests. They were all clearly addressed in my replies to the user’s ANI case last year. So I did not say anything more in the user’s ARBCOM case last year and would not do that either this year.
- 8.As for the 6 Dec 2015 48 hour block for 3RR that was reported by STSC who was himself blocked one time in 2010 and the other time in 2017: Yes. I was blocked for 48 hours in 2015. I accepted it. However, I do think that the reverting times were not calculated carefully by the reviewing admin; otherwise he or she might find STSC was the one who violated the rule. PatCheng mentioned this 3RR case over and over again last year. Now here goes PatCheng again? How about that PatCheng was blocked 6 times? How about PatCheng's claiming the quoted content from a CBC report as OR?
- 9.As to the Epoch Times article's DS alert in 2016 on my talk page, I might have not noticed, but since 2016 I have not edited the Epoch Times article anyway. As to the DS alert added last year, I try to remeber the DS alert while editing related articles since then.
Above is my comments in response to Pat Cheng's accusations. I still need time for preparing the separate post mentioned as well as replying to admin JzG's opinion. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (Horse Eye Jack)
I’ve encountered the same problems with Marvin 2009 re POV pushing, threats, and aggression. They spammed my talk page with the copy-pasted discussions from their talk page [158][159] which remains a unique form of disruption, never seen anyone else do that. After I pointed out to them back in the day that they appeared to be an SPA only interested in the FG space they developed an intense interest in refrigeration although the quality of editing didn't improve (they were still adding unsourced information). I note that in out COI discussion they repeatedly said they had never been paid for their edits but never addressed the other aspects of COI, they appear to believe that without direct payments its not COI. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- I tagged SPA’s as SPA’s if you disagree with my tag you are welcome to do so... On the appropriate talk page, not here. There is no debate that Marvin 2009 was a SPA when I tagged them. Given that you also appear to have a problematic edit history in regards to FG related topics I would watch it lest you get Bommeranged by your participation here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Even if PatCheng is sketchy the core point stands... Marvin 2009 is clearly WP:NOTHERE, I’ve discussed bringing them here with other editors before. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by TheBlueCanoe
At some point this dispute (the broader dispute) should probably be punted to ArbCom. But with respect to this application, the filing editor certainly has an unusual history: no edits since 2006, and then they return with unusual precocity and an apparent axe to grind.
It looks like the OP is really reaching here. Some examples:
- [160] OP accuses Marvin 2009 of WP:Soapboxing. I don’t see any soapboxing. I see Marvin undoing a talk page edit by User:Horse_Eye_Jack, in which the latter had erroneously tagged every editor who disagreed with him as an SPA. Marvin 2009 was probably in the right here.
- [161] – OP accuses Marvin 2009 of blanking content. The context is important: Marvin is undoing significant changes that had failed to gain consensus on the talk page. Although the material was sourced (badly, in some cases), it appeared to fail WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly WP:V. Reverting an edit that being contested on the talk page is not, by itself, sanctionable behaviour.
- [162] - OP says Marvin 2009 was trying to “advertise” for a Falun Gong-affiliated organization by, what…creating a page, whose content we can’t see? We can't draw inferences about an editor's intentions based on a deleted media file.
To the charge that Marvin was accusing others of being pro-Chinese government agents, I’m not seeing it in the diffs provided. I don’t know what the context was, but talking about the existence of a 50 cent army, and noting that the Chinese government engages in international influence campaigns, may be a legitimate matter for discussion. As long as he’s not making unsubstantiated allegations about specific editors, which doesn't seem to be the case (unless I missed it). TheBlueCanoe 21:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Pudeo
What's up with the OP making no edits at all for 12 years and 8 months (2006-2019), and then his first edits are reporting Marvin 2009 to ANI and AE in June 2019? Some comments by Marvin 2009 indeed do seem battleground-y, but it is troubling if the driving force behind this is some kind of a spillover from the Chinese Wikipedia (which Marvin edits according to his global contribs).
PatCheng refers to conduct in the Chinese Wikipedia in another comment directed at Wetrace: Your conduct on Chinese WP demonstrated that you have a very low knowledge of WP:RS and WP:V.
However, according to the global contribs, PatCheng does not edit the Chinese WP. Something does not add up. --Pudeo (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Result concerning Marvin 2009
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- My view: PatCheng and Marvin 2009 both topic-banned from Falun Gong broadly construed as POV-warrior accounts after reviewing [163] and [164]. Guy (help!) 08:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Guy, in a recent enforcement request (I'll try to look it up and link it here) I noted how there seemed to be a lot of long-dormant accounts suddenly becoming active again when a Falun Gong dispute crops up. I think this is a pattern that might need to be examined more thoroughly; this is certainly not the first time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the one to which I'm referring. That being said, Marvin 2009 also has a history of popping in and out of activity, and some of the behavior brought up here is genuinely a cause for concern. So even if there needs to be a boomerang here, I don't think that's all that needs to happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, Plausible. I say TBANs for both, based on edit history. Guy (help!) 23:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Marvin 2009, first off, it always raises my antennae when someone is using a fake signature. Your username should be in your signature (though you could always do something like "Marvin 2009 aka Precious Stone" or "Precious Stone (Marvin 2009)"). If you wanted to actually change username, there is a process for that. That aside, you have been edit warring. I thought that the last discussion placed Falun Gong under 1RR, but I don't see that it was marked as such; if not I plan to swiftly rectify that, but I won't blame you for it since I don't see the notice. That aside, edit warring, even if under the "RR" limit, is still disruptive. You've also been casting a lot of aspersions, such as that other editors are some type of activists or agents. You seem to assert here [165] that one must open a discussion before making an edit, which is exactly backwards—everyone may edit, and if anyone else disagrees, discussion then is the way forward. Edits should not be reverted simply for not being discussed in advance. So, to be quite honest, I agree with Guy, in that neither one of you really have any business editing in such a sensitive topic area at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- In addition, Marvin 2009, could you please explain why you removed a comment by Guy in this edit? [166] Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, Plausible. I say TBANs for both, based on edit history. Guy (help!) 23:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the one to which I'm referring. That being said, Marvin 2009 also has a history of popping in and out of activity, and some of the behavior brought up here is genuinely a cause for concern. So even if there needs to be a boomerang here, I don't think that's all that needs to happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Shuki
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active 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).
- Appealing user
- Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Shuki (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces indefinitely, imposed at
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- WGFinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- User_talk:WGFinley#TBAN_appeal
Statement by Shuki
Several years ago, I was TBANNed from the ARBPIA area. Since then, I made a few hundred edits but moved on to other interests off-wp. Recently, I have noticed that many articles that I created or improved have over the years become stagnant and information is outdated, whether in the direct sphere of the ban or indirectly. While I do not have the same free time to become to contribute actively, nonetheless, I'd like to return to create, update and edit even if infrequently in the area. Shuki (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- The main topic I can contribute in where articles need to be desperately improved is about Israel. Virtually everything is affected by the ARBPIA and at any time for just editing any article I run this risk of getting sanctioned again (as I see others have been sanctioned even recently), including supposedly unrelated articles about local geography, people and politics. I've browsed around the current rules with regard to ARBPIA and frankly am not interested in going back to be involved that 'battleground' atmosphere. As already stated, I don't intend to go back to being as active as before, but also have enough integrity to request a restart by appealing with my old account, and not just the easy thing by creating a new account. Per Seraphimblade and El_C's comments, after the 2012 TBAN, since then I have almost two years of 100s of positive contributions until after the beginning of 2014 and I was assuming that that and the additional extended time by being self-distanced from WP for many years would be another reasonable sign of good faith cooling off. Shuki (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by WGFinley
Statement by Huldra
Shuki's last 50 edits goes back to February, 2014. I would suggest that for the time being they put whatever improvement to articles they would like to see on the articles talk-page, (I assume that is allowed?) Huldra (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, User:Seraphimblade: I did not know that. But is it possible to amend the topic-ban to let him suggest edits on the talk-page? Huldra (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Shuki
Result of the appeal by Shuki
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- It looks like in addition to the topic ban, Shuki then had a block in July 2012 for violating the ban. (There was also a second block in November 2012 for a violation, but that was quickly reversed by the blocking admin as a mistake, so I'd disregard that.) Shuki then stopped editing regularly in March 2013, with only some sporadic periods of activity. That does not indicate, to me, enough positive editing outside the topic area to justify lifting the ban. So from me, while it's not a "never", it would be a "not yet". If Shuki would take six months to a year consistently making positive contributions in areas outside the topic ban, my answer would likely be different at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Huldra, no, that is not permitted, and your advice may lead to people getting blocked. This topic ban, as with most of them, forbids edits in regards to that topic anywhere on Wikipedia, whether article talk pages, user talk pages, or anywhere else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. ~15 edits this year, and before that, the last edit being basically 2016 (with a single edit in 2017), is not enough. Please try again once we have more recent contributions outside the topic ban to weigh. El_C 20:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Shuki, ARBPIA has gone through quite a bit of transformation since 2014 —we are now at its 4th iteration— so I still would like to see more recent contributions outside the topic area. While that is taking place, I hope you would take the time to better familiarize yourself with the topic area itself. It has some arcane rules that you should probably, at the very least, take a passing glance at. El_C 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Urgal
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 Urgal
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Urgal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
[[WP:ARBAPDS] :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- June 22, 2020 - 1st Revert
- June 22, 2020 - 2nd Revert - Violates both page editing restrictions
- June 22, 2020 - 3rd revert - Undid most of this edit
- June 21, 2020 - Misrepresents a source to inject non-WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- May 30, 2020 Blocked for edit warring
- May 31, 2020 Blocked for edit warring
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on May 30, 2020
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Urgal
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 Urgal
What's this even about? I self-reverted every one of the mentioned edits. whats the problem? Its just easy to forget about the regulation in the heat of the moment Urgal (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Urgal
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.