Kautilya3
Erik-the-red is topic banned from all pages related to India's borders, broadly construed. They may appeal the ban after a period of not less than six months.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 28 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 Kautilya3
I believe the WP:BULLY diffs above best demonstrates the problems with engaging in WP:DR (such as RfC) with Kautilya3, and why I am requesting WP:ACDS. At 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC following the suggestion from a closed AE report which Kautilya3 filed against me. Subsequently,
How can RfC work with an editor who doesn't accept other survey responses as valid?
Diff Erik-the-red (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kautilya3Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kautilya3Thanks to Number 57 for checking the reverts made. I actually count two reverts in 24 hours, not even three. As for the allegation of "BULLY", obviously evidence is presented to admins when a case is made against an editor. Whether those allegations make sense or not is for the admins to assess. I find it hard to see how this can count as "BULLY". As to "how can the RfC work?", the answer is that an independent closer assesses the input provided by various users. Meanwhile, I would like the admins to consider if this editor is being given too much WP:ROPE. I brought a genuine 3RR violation report, for which no sanction was applied. In response to this substantive ARE report, the user was let off with a light sanction. Is this emboldening the user (and perhaps others) to try more extreme measures to take out the "opposition"? Notice also this very long ANI report on quite a related topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by SerChevalerieThis ARE looks like an extension of the content dispute that the editors are having. The diffs provided prove the same. K3 has been invaluable in India-related articles; I hardly think sanctions are necessary. As has been previously pointed out by the admins, a dispute resolution would be ideal before entertaining stricter requests such as this ARE. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by USaamoI replied to User:Kautilya3's allegation against my comment which he stated in his statement in my case above, I'm posting it here again to clarify my position. "As to my comment on Dhola Post RfC, he's(Kautilya3) wrongfully alleged me and the other editor(Erik-the-red) involved. I commented in that RfC with having a background over McMahon Line since the history of India Pakistan before of 1947 was common history under British India and the said discussion is of a 1914 event which is taught to us in history. I came across this discussion while looking through different RfCs and here I commented on another I found during that[1] and I came across this as well and as I have read the case involving User:Erik-the-red below(my case) so having a background on it I went on to comment in that RfC. And my comment there is backed by sources and is not merely a comment. He is just showing up the same attitude he is showing on other side (In edit dispute with me) and tending to stonewall sourced content." An admin here didn't understood my comment in that RfC at all interestingly. Perhaps I have a very bad grip on language's syntax. I tried clarifying it for him as well in this respnose I added there. [2] Hope it clears my stance. Also I wanted to know whether a user can be questioned for his response to RfC like that or not? USaamo (t@lk) 22:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by BirdValiantI've just popped in after seeing the RfC going on for Talk:Ayurveda, where I noticed that one of the users in that discussion, User:Siddsg has been both blocked and indefinitely topic banned on the topic of pseudoscience. I scrolled up and happened to notice that User:Kautilya3 was the subject of arbitration enforcement. This very much surprised me, because I had come to know Kautilya3 while being involved with the Indigenous Aryans RfC. I remember Kautilya3 being a level-headed voice of reason during these typically emotion-ridden debates. Looking the differences in Dhola Post, it seems to me that Kautilya3 made the right decision to revert; it seems like a case of POV pushing to me. One might as well change the map on the Arunachal Pradesh article to be a map of China and say that it's southern portion is claimed by India. These kinds of major changes require a consensus to be achieved first, which User:Erik-the-red did not achieve. I would like to point out the language in one of Erik-the-red's edit summaries: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR." That sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me; not something one would expect out of a collaborative project. Also, Erik-the-red accuses Khautilya3 of "blatant hypocrisy" in the Dhola Post content dispute. Finally, I would hope that there is more discussion on Talk:Dhola Post from disinterested parties. BirdValiant (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Kautilya3
|
Urgal
Urgal is siteblocked for one year for repeated violations of their WP:ARBAP2 topic ban. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:34, 24 July 2020â |
---|
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 Urgal
The following edits are all topic ban violations:
The inital topic ban notice was removed by Urgal on 30 June 2020 with the edit summary "Lol".
Discussion concerning UrgalStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by UrgalStatement by Ian.thomsonIt looks like the pre-ban edit war at InfoWars was to claim that it's a news site. Not just a fake news site, but a news site. Now, they weren't removing the "Fake news" label, but I must admit that whenever I see a new user questioning why we call InfoWars "fake news," I might give them a single warning shot before indefinitely blocking them under WP:CIR. Oh, wait, here they are arguing that the fake news was in the past and that they shouldn't be called a fake news site. Their actions in the above report show that they won't respect the their ban, and frankly the only reason I can imagine for not indeffing them are their prolific editing combined with their history of sockpuppetry: by letting them continue to edit in other topics, we're (hopefully) reducing the risk of producing an LTA case. I'm only saying I can see that reason, not saying I agree with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by MrXThere is a clear pattern of flaunting the rules here, so Urgal is probably about to be indef blocked. This is probably worth looking into as well: [4] - MrX đ 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Noting for the record that I have filed an SPI: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WhatsUpWorld. - MrX đ 13:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorI saw Newslinger's revert this morning on Infowars which referenced the topic ban, and started to do an investigation of their last few weeks of edits since being banned, but I see it's here already; thanks for doing the work, Newslinger. I only got as far back as a series of boundary-pushing edits to Clint Eastwood (e.g. this edit about Eastwood's political positions, though Urgal later self-reverted). My analysis was an indef partial block from InfoWars was in order, and was on my way to their talk page to begin the process when I saw the note there referring to this discussion. Given Newslinger's evidence of multiple ongoing violations and evidently no willingness to abide by the sanction, a sitewide block is clearly in order, the only question is for how long. Taking everything here into account and including the recent abuse of multiple accounts, I suggest the answer is indefinite. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Urgal
|
Symphony Regalia
Symphony Regalia is indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes, controversies, or social movements. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:34, 27 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 Symphony Regalia
This editor has provided three poor-quality sources to try to claim that reliable sources do not agree that MGTOW is a misogynist movement. I didn't even know that members of MGTOW themselves disputed that MGTOW is a misogynist movementâafter all, the core belief is that women are so terrible they must be avoided completely. They have yet to provide any quotes from these sources that actually refute the descriptor, and continue to maintain the sources are somehow usable without providing any evidence the authors are "field experts" as they claim. For clarity, the sources they have produced are:
A topic ban from the subject area strikes me as appropriate, as well as a reminder that not every "book" you can find on Amazon is a reliable source. They have stopped replying to the talk page discussion (Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Not all RS describe MGTOW as misogynistic) and have moved on to POV-pushing elsewhere in the article: just now they've removed the quotes around "female privilege" in the sentence It appears based on their talk page that this user has also been troublesome in other topic areas, including pushing for COVID-19 to be called the "Chinese virus" or "Wuhan virus".
Discussion concerning Symphony RegaliaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Symphony RegaliaGorillaWarfare is directly involved and what you are witnessing is an attempt by her to weaponize sanctions against someone she holds ideological disagreements with. I haven't violated any sanctions, there is currently no ongoing conflict, and I've engaged on the talk page every step of the way. Her diff explanations are also misleading. Diff 1 was not a removal, it was me restoring the contribution of another editor who is also currently in disagreement with her. In the spirit of collaboration my edit summary also suggested using a qualifier, but this was of course left out of her account of the events. Diffs 4 and 5 are talk page edits. Diff 6 isn't related to any of the other diffs. The quotes in diff 6 were removed to remain consistent with the rest of the article, as the term is not jargon, and because they are completely redundant in a sentence that begins with A quick look at the edit history for the article will directly demonstrate the clear WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that GorillaWarfare consistently engages in. This report appears to be backlash for violating that sense of ownership. You will also notice that she is the one who requested sources that were not self-published, so I gave her two published by reliable independent publications, and stopped editing the line. Now she is attempting to improperly weaponize sanctions against me because she apparently does not personally like that one publisher has Catholic affiliations, which I did not know, and of course should not matter anyhow. I have nothing more to say and will not be engaging with any of the ad hominems from her acquaintances, or her new attempt to modify the original report to "refute" this statement. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by JormThis is pretty open-and-shut. Symphony Regalia has been rolling deep in "I didn't hear that" territory and edit warring to delete sourced writing. A topic ban feels like the right path.--Jorm (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC) AlmostFrancisFor what its worth their username comes from an obscure Japanese anime in which the main rebel faction is called nudist beach, for which Regalia is a member. It seems likely given their username and area of interest that they are here to push a POV and annoy everyone and not build the encyclopedia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson:, I am content with your disagreement. With your crudity, and pedantry about anime, I suspect we would disagree about much. I see little difference between choosing a name after the character or after an article of clothing the character wears. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ian.thomsonSince I locked the Men Going Their Own Way article, I wasn't gonna comment but @AlmostFrancis: your reasoning is... Honestly awful. Like, really, really bad. I'm saying this as someone who thinks GorillaWarfare has built a solid case that Symphony Regalia needs to be topic banned from gender-related disputes (and opened the door for a case regarding politics) and as someone who has not watched Kill la Kill. The show is not obscure (it was on Adult Swim and so pretty popular with the western anime fandom and there's still plenty of merch floating around here in Japan), and there are fans of the series on every part of the political spectrum (whether they get that the series's creators intended it to be anti-fascist or ignore that to interpret it as libertarian individualism, whether they think the message is troubled by the sexualization of its female character or that Hiroyuki Imaishi is satirizing fan service as he did in Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt, or whether they just pretend that media couldn't possibly have deeper meanings). And Symphony Regalia isn't even a character, it's an article of clothing worn by a character. And I really hate myself for being this pedantic about an anime I've never even watched right now but my God, your argument is so bad that it risks derailing the case against Symphony Regalia (possibly with the help of childless single men who masturbate to anime) with a red herring of "why does Wikipedia hate anime fans?" Your argument is ignorant and unhelpful, please strike it and do not make similar ones in the future. (The links are not meant to imply that anyone currently present is a member of the alt-right but there's no informed and good-faith argument that an alt-right editor would not want to take a particular side on this case). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Symphony Regalia
|
Mr Miles
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 Mr Miles
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Rab V (talk ¡ contribs ¡ deleted contribs ¡ logs ¡ filter log ¡ block user ¡ block log) 05:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Mr_Miles (talk ¡ contribs ¡ deleted contribs ¡ logs ¡ filter log ¡ block user ¡ block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history ⢠in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [5] 3RR violations on the trans woman article
- [6] more 3RR violations
- [7]
- [8]
- [9]
- [10]
- [11]
- [12]
- [13] WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM derogatory references to trans women in the talk page
- [14] more WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM violations
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [15] Temporary ban for 3RR violation where admin suggested also seeking topic ban.
- 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 [16].
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Mr_Miles
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 Mr_Miles
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Mr_Miles
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- There is a procedural problem with this request. All the diffs are from before the editor was blocked for the edits aforementioned. I am a bit wary of sanctioning someone twice. Unless there are new violations, I would not go beyond a warning at this time. El_C 14:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella
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 GizzyCatBella
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Notrium (talk ¡ contribs ¡ deleted contribs ¡ logs ¡ filter log ¡ block user ¡ block log) 03:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GizzyCatBella (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
- Talk page notice of the topic ban, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236#GizzyCatBella ARBENF topic ban :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 2020-07-05T04:23:09 Soviet civilians included the half of Poland annexed in 1939. The article specifically refers to Kortelisy.
- 2020-07-19T14:42:12 Second World War in Poland in this and previous paragraph.
- 2020-07-19T14:55:30 The article topic encompasses WW2 in Poland, as that's when and where a large portion of this Genocide happened. (Search for Poland in the article.) Also see previous diff.
- 2020-07-29T08:41:43 "Poor" is mainly WWII in Poland, described in the previous paragraph.
- 2020-07-29T22:31:06 The Slovak uprising was connected to the Russian attack on the Germans from Poland, and as planned should have enabled a direct terrestrial connection between Slovak forces and the Ally forces in Poland: see the Battle of the Dukla Pass, a battle on the border between Poland and Slovakia; the Soviet Air Force and the liberated Slovak air force flew from/to Poland; and 1944 Slovakia included parts of Poland.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 2018-04-26T14:44:53 Blocked for violating an arbitration decision with edits on the "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" article.
- 2019-05-18T09:50:45 Blocked for violating an arbitration decision and for violating their topic ban.
- 2020-06-26T23:21:16 Blocked for both again.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Not applicable, I think.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The previous enforcement request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella.
I'd like to note that AFAIK GizzyCatBella has also been been warned on their talk page many times for violations without a sanction happening, including in April 2020 by El C. The many discussions on GizzyCatBella in the Arbitration Enforcement Archives are also relevant.
Because of the volume and degree of repetition (after warnings) of GizzyCatBella's TBAN violations, I think it's fair to say (assuming good faith) they either have trouble discerning what is and what is not covered by the ban or have no respect for Wikipedia policy. Thus it might be beneficial (by preventing misunderstanding, and thus further violations) to widen the scope of the topic ban to encompass, e.g., Eastern Europe in the 20th century and Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former. Notrium (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:El C have you read WP:TBAN, especially "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic"? Apart form that, I think the Roma diffs are especially obviously violations. Notrium (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella
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 GizzyCatBella
Unbelievable battleground attitude! I can't believe it!! This is a continuation of this! [18] And this report [19] already reported by Notrium earlier following my prior disagreement with that user. There is no word "Poland" or any subject related to Poland from my edits presented above. They just can't stop until they get their way. See this discussion too [20] on RexxS talk page. I'm carefully avoiding any word POLAND in WW2. Article about Roma people?! Because of what?! Because some Roma communities lived in Poland during WW2 and Poland is mentioned somewhere else in the article!? What an ill-disposed report! This is absurd. I even state it clearly in the edits summary when I'm correcting ANYTHING where there was a mention of Poland somewhere else in the article, like here [[21]] when I was repairing Slovakia section. Notrium please get it over with and move on. I have nothing to do with your latest block [22] Just move on. I can't take it anymore. Dear administrators, PLEASE. Please, remove or alter my topic ban, so this kind of malicious reports don't happen anymore. I understand what I have done that resulted in my topic ban OVER two years ago already. [23] I know that I have to be careful with references, and I'm already. VERY CAREFUL. The topic ban doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever anymore, causes me significant distress and only attracts battleground oriented editors. They file insanely bad faithed reports and use it as a weapon to get back at me for God to know what. GizzyCatBellađ 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Notrium OMG. Pushing for diff [24], which is very clearly related to pre-war Germany (the Romani situation in Nazi Germany) and trying to pass them off as topic ban violations when they're not, just further shows how bad-faithed this report is.GizzyCatBellađ 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- or this one about Roma community they presented [25] itâs about communist governments policies against Roma community way after the war. I canât believe they have the nerve to continue claiming a TP violation.GizzyCatBellađ 05:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Note - Also, please note because this is VERY interesting.
All the diffs the user Notrium presented above are related to the Roma community, Germany, Soviet Union and Slovakia.
User Notrium, however, advocates for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote - widen the scope of the topic ban to encompass, e.g., Eastern Europe in the 20th century and Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former.
WHY Jewish History?
There is nothing about Jewish history in the above diffs.
I wonder if this report has anything to do with a now permanently banned user Icewhiz [26] because of whos complain the sanctions were imposed in the first place.[27], who charged against me on later occasions [28] [29]. His sockpuppets were involved in a recent slander campaign against me and other editors (TonyBallioni is aware of that) Tony could you please take a look at it when you get a chance?
Can user Notrium please explain the "Jewish history" thing? GizzyCatBellađ 11:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
User François Robere who was a close friend of Icewhiz ,supposed to stay away from me following this discussion [30] but arrived here to comment. He also breached the interaction promise earlier here [31] and here [32] and here restoring my edit [33]. He pushed for sanctions together with Notrium here [34] on RexxS' talk page also. François Robere do you have anything to do with producing this report?GizzyCatBellađ 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Piotrus
Hmmmm. Something is fishy. Or at least doesn't look pretty. Do correct me if I am wrong, but Notrium has never edited Polish history articles much, nor interacted with GCB. In June they got into a minor disagreement at Talk:History_of_Poland#Human_activity_in_Poland_in_antiquity, then took care to investigate GCB's topic ban which concerns topics Notrium never edit themselves, presented well formatted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella last month (their first AE report ever) and now they are filing one again (this time really scraping the barrel, the presented evidence - fixing a few typos here and there - is really weak IMHO). It is interesting that Notrium has never edited the articles he reports GCB for; he is clearly not interested in this topic area and instead is just looking for any and all technicalities to 'stick it' to someone who dared to disagree with him. This seems to me to be awfully far from WP:AGF and in turn too close to WP:NOTHERE, and given that Icewhiz is still active behind the scenes (for example he is actively harassing me in real life, which led to his recent site/SanFran-level ban), I have to wonder if he isn't sending diffs/pre-formatted AE's to some people hoping to see 'if they'll stick'. Frankly, WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior would be, IMHO, worth considering here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere
- Diff #1: The rename from "German war crimes against Soviet civilians" to "World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union" could be construed to include about half of Poland that was occupied by the Soviets; and would certainly include hundreds of thousands of Polish refugees and exiles on Soviet soil, as well as border counties that were split from Poland and annexed to the Soviet Ukraine.
- Diff #3: The Romani genocide, insofar as it was perpetrated on Polish soil, falls within the extent the T-ban.
- Diff #4: Direct reference to wartime events...
@Piotrus: You don't have to be close friends with someone to report them (you probably shouldn't if you are :-P). Her T-ban appeal drew comments from several editors who follow the TA but don't interact with her personally.[35] You shouldn't be surprised that other editors notice her as well. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning GizzyCatBella
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Actually, from those diffs, I'm seeing GizzyCatBella being quite careful not to contravene her sanction. Is it ideal she's flying this close to the sun? Probably not, but that remains her prerogative. El_C 03:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Notrium, I have read WP:TBAN, having imposed and enforced it on multiple occasions. El_C 03:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- François Robere, to say the USSR-related diff constitutes a topic ban violation is a bit of a stretch. Like Notrium, this approach widens WP:BROADLY beyond its conventional usage in determining WP:TBAN violations. To reiterate, this report should be closed as not actionable due there being No violation. El_C 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, I agree that François Robere has not been following the advise of RexxS. Perhaps formalizing that advise as a one-way WP:IBAN sanction toward François Robere is due. Or at least a final warning that it is imminent. I would welcome further input on that question. El_C 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)