USaamo
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 USaamo
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- USaamo (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:ARBIPA :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 7 June - Violates WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS by incorrectly accusing established editors of being sock/meat of each other: "
I see the finding was WP:DUCK. I started an RfC there to get views over the matter from uninvolved and neutral editors but I see it was also flooded with comments opposing it by the same involved editors who actually indulged in this edit dispute with me except one or two. Same like that case WP:DUCK#Usage WP:MEATPUPPET.
" - 9 June -
"don't like it owing to their ultra-nationalist sentiments. Consensus is also not canvassing or meatpuppetry"
- 2 July - Violates WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS again: "
meat puppetry was done to influence the RfC in democratic style which is against Wikipedia policies. Anyhow RfC is not a binding thing, I seek other way of dispute resolution in this regard.
" - 2 June - Misrepresents sources by claiming that the subject "became the face of Kashmir independence movement and was widely compared with Bhagat Singh" and used the sources,[1][2][3] when none of them talks about any "independence" or a "movement".
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Blocked on 9 June 2020 for edit warring on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, where he was just edit warring to enforce his own WP:OR as his one of the edit undoubtedly indicates.[4]
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- [5]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning USaamo
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 USaamo
The whole point of conflict is the edit dispute on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 which the editor called original research. Why ain’t it be determined, I’ve presented sources [7], he's refuting them [8], why not someone decide on that and end this dispute once and for all. As to my conduct, I’m being dragged into all this. I didn’t mean it and is unintentional out of frustration since I’m not much experienced editor knowing just some necessary editing policies only.
- The 1st and 3rd point where I alleged them to be meatpuppets, if you see the full comment [9], I said canvassing in either way meatpuppetry. My point on both the instances was not specifically directed but in general sense as I observed them all editing on pages concerning India Pakistan Military history pushing Indian POV. The same I saw on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 page that they came one after one reverting my edit [10] most lately User:Trojanishere and when I started RfC [11], they came one after one commenting against it even being involved previously in the dispute and then pushing it as consensus to not include that. This was the point for which I alleged them for canvassing and meatpuppetry in some way. I don’t think it is that much personal attack since editors here even open investigations against other editors for sockpuppetry where they don’t come out to be a sock.
- As to the 2nd point it’s subsequent to the 1st and 3rd points which I answered above that one after one they were appearing and reverting my edit while discussion was ongoing and trying to push the consensus formed by their own votes, so I said that generally in edit summary.
- The 4th point is just the choice of words, the sources are mentioning it as Kashmir unrest, Kashmir militancy, Kashmir agitation, Kashmir problem which is part of Kashmir conflict to which the Kashmir independence movement is a redirect [12]. It’s the choice of a neutral words since it’s obvious that Indian media will mention it as militancy as per their government narrative while for Kashmiris and Pakistanis it is freedom struggle, any other neutral word if there can also be used but Burhan Wani definitely took up arms for Kashmir independence movement as per the article.
I was blocked for this edit dispute over edit warring for reason that they were stonewalling my edits, my changes were being reverted one after one by four of the editors involved in edit dispute and I was reverting their reverts, so the editor went on to get me blocked even though the edit reversion was started by them and I reverted them as many times they reverted me or even less but I came into admin’s radar somehow and got blocked. Now the said editor came here with some loopholes in my conduct but in all this edit dispute why only my conduct is being scrutinized, why not theirs, WP:Stonewalling, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CANVAS, and may be WP:MEATPUPPET as well. USaamo (t@lk) 21:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Update) Requesting administrator to allow this update, it may exceeds word limit of statement. (Continues from 1st and 2nd points of my statement...) User:Aman.kumar.goel himself falsely accused other editors of sockpuppetry at many instances. [13] [14] [15] [16] while a filing is also there against him where clerk endorsed him for sockpuppetry as well as off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry.[17] So he should also be tried for WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS for falsely accusing other editors of sockpuppetry and also for WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:DUCK#Usage, WP:CANVAS as well as WP:EDITWAR, WP:DISRUPT, WP:Stonewalling. USaamo (t@lk) 12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Update Since the case has been unarchived and admin Guerillero is accusing me of edit warring which is not true. That RfC was closed by Legobot on 10 June [18] to which the said admin just recently concluded. The RfC was about adding Pakistan's edge and victory as per sources [19] which I alleged was canvassed and meat puppetry was done to stonewall proposed changes. After my edit yesterday[20] on the basis of new and verified sources provided in a new discussion on talk[21] which was added to article following a discussion to which no further reply came from them for a week. It was reverted by User:Kautilya3 for RfC being not ended.[22] While just after that the said admin came in to conclude the RfC that the whole material be not added which is strange. It's oky to not add victory till dispute is settled but how come verified sources be stopped from adding to the article... I see the element of biasness here from him and seems to me motivated moves. Moreover an indefinitely blocked sock' s comment is still there in that RfC while it's closed and now concluded as well. [23] So I request admins here before passing any judgement do look into that edit dispute and also scrutinize the conduct of persons involved. USaamo (t@lk) 10:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have no problem with it getting unarchived, rather I was surprised over it getting archived without result. As to that RfC, it is canvassed and there are comments by meatpuppetry and sockery, the one of User:Trojanishere is example which is still there and one comment has been previously removed as well for sockery. The manner of comments done there is also doubtful. Moreover your conclusion of RfC is ambigous, you have written it as that the whole material be not added which seems like that those sources should also not be added along with edge and victory while the question in RfC was only about adding edge and victory, other than that verified independent sources cannot be stopped from inclusion when the article has accounts from primary sources even. USaamo (t@lk) 16:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Since AE ain't a place for content dispute, rather conduct which is knowingly or unknowingly because of this dispute may be going wrong, so I be allowed the pursuit to settle this dispute as I'm thinking of taking it to DRN and until then I will not change the result from infobox but I believe the RfC close of the above admin isn't just and independent sources cannot be stopped because of a consensus pushed through a flawed RfC. He needs to consider the points I raised about RfC and reconsider his close since the RfC was only about inclusion of edge and victory, there's nothing I think that stops inclusion of those sources in body without changing the result in lead. I agree to not change result in infobox until dispute gets settled but the sources merits inclusion in the body. Rest you people are admins, as you wish! USaamo (t@lk) 20:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Kautilya3
I am surprised that the editor pinged me while I gave this report a pass. Now that I am here, suffice to say that the editor's disruptive behaviour continues, with comments like, "You're presenting an Indian author's view for your claim against my third party sources and calling them hardly neutral, the same way bharat-rakshak.com an Indian military site can be a source for article but the credible third party sources can't be.., irony died a hundred times here.
" The "Indian author" in question is this one:
- Kainikara, Sanu (2018), "Indian Air Power", in John Andreas Olsen (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Air Power, Taylor & Francis, pp. 327–, ISBN 978-1-351-80273-4
Clearly, the editor refuses to obtain any understanding of WP:RS and is only prepared to argue on nationalistic lines.
The editor also showed up at an RfC on Dhola Post with an entirely superficial comment, which can't count as anything but WP:Vote stacking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to reply to this because I opened the RfC in question. On the allegation of WP:VOTESTACK, the definition is
an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.
However, Kautilya3 provided no evidence that USaamo was notified about the RfC, and therefore I do not see how Kautilya3's allegation of WP:VOTESTACK has any merit.
- Furthermore, I would like to point out that Kautilya3 responded to the supposedly "entirely superficial" comment on the talk page without any accusation or allegation of WP:VOTESTACK. That Kautilya3 disagrees with USaamo's response doesn't make the response "entirely superficial" and certainly, a simple disagreement does not warrant an unfounded accusation of WP:VOTESTACK. Erik-the-red (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning USaamo
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Seems actionable. Yes, USaamo needs to take it down a notch. They cannot be interacting with other editors in this manner. That is not conducive to a collegial, collaborative volunteer project. At the very least, there will be a logged warning. And otherwise, sanctions are on the table pending further investigation. El_C 08:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I guess this report slipped through the cracks. It deserves being closed properly. El_C 15:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Concur with El C. The comments above are needlessly incendiary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- The edit warring has continued. I close the disputed RfC on the talk page, but I don't think that it is going to solve the problem. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @USaamo: Histrionics are unhelpful. I have no position in this dispute. I was alerted that this AE thread was archived before being closed. When I was reviewing the article and talk page I came across the RfC and closed it. (Legobot does not close RfCs, uninvolved editors do.) The close was fairly simple; the RfC was near unanimous. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- @USaamo: Per WP:VNOTSUFF "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." An RfC to not include some information that is verifiable or to not include information in Wikipedia's voice is valid.
- The consensus of the RfC was not to include content about "Pakistan's edge and victory in the aerial warfare." The consensus was clear after I discounted the input from Trojanishere. I stand by my close.
- The more you claim that people who disagree with you are meatpuppets or canvased without evidence, the more apparent it becomes that you need to be topic banned. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- @USaamo: Histrionics are unhelpful. I have no position in this dispute. I was alerted that this AE thread was archived before being closed. When I was reviewing the article and talk page I came across the RfC and closed it. (Legobot does not close RfCs, uninvolved editors do.) The close was fairly simple; the RfC was near unanimous. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't claim it without evidence, a comment in this RfC previously has been removed for a sock and the other of Trojanishere who is banned for sockery is still there. Moreover four of the editors who commented in this RfC were party to this dispute and I'm afraid that they too are counted as votes, as per it I should also have a comment in there as I saw a similar situation on another RfC recently. Also the last two comments in that RfC were done one after one in hours time. So such a flawed RfC can't be taken into account. The comments were asked from neutral and uninvolved editors(neither Indians nor Pakistanis) after failing consensus in previous discussion but the same involved editors came there to comment as well. The only such comment was of User:Cthomas3 who voted for no in lead but yes to include in body below. And as to WP:VNOTSUFF you're refferring for your close, it's strange that sourced information can be stopped from inclusion because most of editors don't want it to be included, it's against the very essence of an encyclopedia. Tomorrow I come up with a dozen of editors to vote for removing some information from an article even though it is sourced, so will that be removed because it was consensus, I believe no. As per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY voting is not a mode of decisions making and I'm not sure whether RfC too is a binding thing and that too a flawed one. The said article has accounts from primary Indian military sources, this is surprising that independent, third party sources cannot be included to that article because most of Indian editors don't agree. And you're accusing me of WP:BATTLE, why don't the same parameters be used for other editors in this dispute who are stonewalling these changes because it's going against their country narrative. USaamo (t@lk) 20:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with El C in about the sanctions that Ed proposed below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- For reference, here is the AN3 case, closed by me on 9 June with a 48 hour block of USaamo. The page in dispute was Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. USaamo is very determined that Pakistan should be recorded in the infobox as the winner of this air war. This is the first of two reverts that USaamo made in the month of July since the AN3 was closed. He changed the result of the war in the infobox from 'stalemate' to 'Pakistani victory'. It looks to me that he isn't going to put down the stick. I recommend that he be topic banned from the domain of WP:ARBIPA for three months. Perhaps during this AE he will make some other assurance about his future behavior that could make us confident that warring in this area won't continue. If he is willing to do that, the AE might be closed without action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
YuukiHirohiko
Closing as stale and without an action --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:16, 16 July 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 YuukiHirohiko
He is aware of what constitutes "vandalism" per this message written by him so I am confident that his reference to my edits as vandalism was deliberate. A report on WP:ANEW against this user with regards to edit warring on 2020 China–India skirmishes is still located on the noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:YuukiHirohiko reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ))Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning YuukiHirohikoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by YuukiHirohikoLogically speaking a page would use as many sources as possible. I have read the Japanese, Chinese wiki pages of the same incident. Both voices are heard, Indian figures and Chinese sources are given on all other language pages respectively. Attempts to do the same on the English site were either reverted without reasoning or deleted on the claim of "using communist mouthpiece". I have not removed the Indian scholarly sources stated in the talk section nor have I moved it. It remains in its original section and I just added my sources. It's more than unusual to use Indian government sources as an official casualty figure of the standing article, more unusual that the objection that I face of doing the same thing for the Chinese side. Indian government statements are well known to be inaccurate and sometimes self contradictory.[1][2][3] So proclaimed "scholarly sources" in the article, backing up Indian government claims, are all written by one person, a professor at an Indian university, which according to the talk section sourced his death figures from "Bidanda Chengappa, working for an Indian think tank". I'd like to question the NPOV of this scholarly source. And "On Wikipedia, vandalism is editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or otherwise degrading." I see you removing my edits as vandalism as I was given 0 prior warning, 0 indication. You didn't show positive willingness to discuss this, I laid out my logic in my talk page regarding how China still has Cho La in its LAC despite the article stating the opposite, you didn't reply or rebut with solid evidence. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC) References
Statement by (username)Result concerning YuukiHirohiko
|
Erik-the-red
Please try Dispute Resolution such as an RfC to solve this dispute --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 16 July 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 Erik-the-red
(350 words) In February this year, I got interested in writing a page on the Dhola Post, an Indian Army post set up in 1962 near the China border, which turns out to be an important topic in the Sino-Indian border dispute. Having found a two-line stub called Dhola, Tibet, which was apparently a reference to this very post, I retitled it to Dhola Post and started expanding it. On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example. When I pointed out that expanding stubs is normal day-to-day activity, his reponse was " The user immediately came over to the new page and started modifying it too. Between the two pages, they made 6 reverts in 24 hours, as documented in this ANEW report. The admins did not sanction the editor. So I set it aside for a while to let things cool. During the debates, the user started calling me " Returning to the page now, after a month's gap, I find the same WP:BATTLEGROUND editing from the user. No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV, not even WP:COPYVIO, but plenty of pomposity, snide remarks, and blatant personal attacks. Sino-Indian border disputes are filled with plenty of subtleties and complications. Without a good faith effort to resolve the disputes, it is practically impossible to get anywhere.
Discussion concerning Erik-the-redStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Erik-the-redI would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments. Because of the 500 word limit, I cannot respond to all the claims, so I will show that Kautilya3's first and last claims do not accurately describe the events and use quotes taken out-of-context. Kautilya3 claim:
My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following:
I do not see how any reasonable person could construe the above statements to be "bitterly complaining that [Kautilya3] had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3. Kautilya3 claim:
My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The context of my words were:
That is, in context, I did not mention Tibet at all. Kautilya3 has thus taken two of my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I am motivated by nationalistic bias. I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3
and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Posted for Erik-the-red who is currently blocked. El_C 12:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Erik-the-red
|
Italawar
Italawar indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) by Bishonen.--regentspark (comment) 19:08, 17 July 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 Italawar
No previous sanctions, but a lengthy list of warnings on their talk page.
I have only linked the most egregious examples; their recent editing history with respect to political articles has nothing positive in it. My attempt to discuss some of these edits ([37]) did not go well. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ItalawarStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ItalawarStatement by (username)Result concerning Italawar
|
Nocturnalnow
Indefinitely blocked by Guerillero, with the first year as an arbitration enforcement action and the remainder as a standard administrative action. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 18 July 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 Nocturnalnow
Nocturnalnow is topic banned from American Politics after 1932
Since the January ANI discussion, Nocturnalnow has made no edits to any namespace but user talk, almost all of them to User talk:Jimbo Wales, and almost all of them to discuss current events in the USA (BLM protests and the like). Many of these edits clearly skirt or breach the topic ban. And these are not occasional outbursts, but the only edits they make to enwiki anymore... Fram (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NocturnalnowStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NocturnalnowStatement by (username)Result concerning Nocturnalnow
|
DrL
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 DrL
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- DrL (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/ScienceApologist#Remedies (DrL):
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 2020-07-16 Aggressive demand for separate article on CTMU
- 2020-07-16 More of same
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
From remedies:
- Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive.
- All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
DrL is the wife of Christopher Langan, inventor and sole proponent of the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe", a fringe theory. DrL is a single-purpose account who has no significant history on Wikipedia other htan promoting Christopher Langan.
DrL was blocked indefinitely on 2020-03-03 due to personal attacks and unblocked on 2020-07-01 on the understanding that these would not resume.
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect following an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which was heavily canvassed. Offsite canvassing continues, according to the evidence of thee Talk page, with vociferous support for restoring a standalone article from DrL and some other WP:SPAs. The redirect target is a short section of just over 100 words. The sources are either by or about Langan, not CTMU. There is one source which meets RS and has some discussion of CTMU on its own merits (there are also a few mere namechecks). Most sources proposed are unreliable.
DrL's most recent statements at Talk are:
This solution is woefully inadequate. Not only does your redirect point to an insignificant mention of what has become an increasingly important theory, but the section is conflated with violations of WP:BPL - using remarks allegedly made by Langan on social media to denigrate him and the CTMU. This discussion is by no means over. The extensive mention by this Oxford publication (as cited by Langan above), in addition to other mentions in RS (both popular and academic) is more than enough to justify a separate entry for the CTMU.
(emphasis added)There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique. Let's open this up to have a real discussion and wait for some less involved admins and editors to weigh in.
This assumption of bad faith and promise to continue demanding until she gets the answer she wants is disruptive, and violates the ban. Further, since mid 2007, DrL has done nothing here other than promote Chris Langan and attack those who do not accept CTMU. Indeed, for most of that time she has been inactive (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/DrL).
I advocate a full topic ban form articles connected to Langan and CTMU, broadly construed. There is enough off-wiki coordinated nonsense with this topic already. Notably, Christopher Langan himself has been able to resist any such aggression. His argumentation is prolix, but calm and polite.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning DrL
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 DrL
I was very surprised to receive this notice. I'm merely weighing in on a talk page as I'm allowed to do (at least to the best of my understanding). When the CTMU article was deleted in 2006, there were several administrators who seemed very invested in getting it removed. When I stumbled upon this debate about the redirect and saw what I thought might have been one or two of those admins, I became concerned lest the topic of the article again be unfairly criticized as it was in 2006, when it was misclassified as "intelligent design creationism". But of course, you're right - I should assume good faith no matter how bad it might look. Your advice is appreciated. DrL (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning DrL
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I don't see how we can do anything here with that case. I guess we could use NEWBLPBAN or the Pseudoscience DS, but they have not been notified. I suggest you bring this to ArbCom. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Guerillero, I doubt they'd be interested: one COI user who's already banned from the article and under a non-disruption restriction at the talk page seems like the kind of thing we ought to be able to fix ourselves. Guy (help!) 18:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: I don't know what hook we have at this time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Guerillero, I doubt they'd be interested: one COI user who's already banned from the article and under a non-disruption restriction at the talk page seems like the kind of thing we ought to be able to fix ourselves. Guy (help!) 18:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- The most recent block of User:DrL was an indef on 3 March by User:Bradv who is an arbitrator but I don't think he was invoking any Arbcom sanctions. He stated that his block of DrL was for personal attacks and outing. Per the thread at User talk:DrL#UTRS 31095, after a UTRS appeal, User:Johnuniq lifted the indef block. I think this was a 'community' unblock, not an Arbcom unblock, so to speak. So if there is new evidence since Johnuniq's unblock which suggests the unblock should be reversed, an administrator could reapply the conventional indef block. Neither an AE report nor a return visit to Arbcom seems to be required, in my opinion. Any administrator who is considering a new block should weigh DrL's behavior since 1 July and ask if they are living up to the promises in their last unblock request. Their only edits since 1 July are a series of posts at Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. A typical comment:
Yes. There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique bent on minimizing the reality of the situation by redirecting to a defamatory section of Langan's bio.
- I can see this might set off the personal-attack alarm ('coordinated clique', and so forth). But a longer discussion here before a reblock might be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I blocked DrL twice, both times for repeatedly outing other editors despite numerous warnings. Both blocks were regular administrator blocks, and the latter was lifted once DrL was able to assure the unblocking administrator that they wouldn't do it again. Regarding the matter at hand, I don't see how this violates the 2006 restriction, but recent events might suggest that the current restriction isn't strong enough. – bradv🍁 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bradv, also: what the actual fuck is this? Guy (help!) 18:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I blocked DrL twice, both times for repeatedly outing other editors despite numerous warnings. Both blocks were regular administrator blocks, and the latter was lifted once DrL was able to assure the unblocking administrator that they wouldn't do it again. Regarding the matter at hand, I don't see how this violates the 2006 restriction, but recent events might suggest that the current restriction isn't strong enough. – bradv🍁 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Per the above from Guy: I realize it isn't recent, but I still revdeleted that copyvio. El_C 22:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- This report does not appear to be actionable. Recommend WP:DR. Will close soon. accordingly El_C 23:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know the status of that text but have no objection to the removal, particularly since it was not an appropriate use of a talk page. However, for the record, it started with "
I am studying the Tractatus and decided to leave a copy here ... It is in the public domain.
" If that last bit is correct, the post was not a copyvio. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus#External links links to several versions of the text, including Gutenberg with the claim "Public domain in the USA." Re the issue: I haven't yet examined the matter but agree that SPAs promoting fringe topics are very undesirable. There is an RfC which is susceptible to Wikipedia's open process. I see that User:Chris Langan had an impersonation block a couple of days ago with a notice that shows what has to happen for the block to be removed. There might need to be a community discussion on how to handle the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Undeleted. El_C 23:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
JzG
JzG has self-reverted. Report withdrawn by filer. El_C 22:52, 17 July 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 JzG
There must be some irony here. JzG himself requested this restriction be imposed on the article, and then violates it...perhaps this proves that such restrictions do not work. The administrator who imposed it refuses to have anything to do with it. Are we going to actually enforce this, or just forget about it? RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JzGStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JzGIt was nice of RGloucester to raise this through a polite note on my talk page reminding me of the restriction, since Twinkle doesn't show the edit notice. Oh, wait, he didn't do that. I self-reverted. I suggest a trout for RGloucester for needless escalation. Guy (help!) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by LevivichWP:Dispute resolution's section WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says Statement by PackMecEngSeems like a weird bastard of a restriction. Most concensus required restrictions that I remember go like Statement by AquillionI was under the impression that the Consensus Required restriction was being phased out due to the way it leads to stonewalling. On Donald Trump, for instance (probably the highest-profile and most controversial article where it was used) it was replaced with a 24-hour BRD cycle restriction stating Statement by (username)Result concerning JzG
|