Abrvagl
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 Abrvagl
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBAA2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14 April 2022 removes sourced information from lead
- 16 April 2022 removes sourced information from lead
- 29 April 2022 removes sourced information from lead
- 22 May 2022 removes sourced information from lead
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 26 January 2022
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Abrvagl repeatedly tries to remove the 2020 Ganja missile attacks being a response for the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert from the lead, despite there being multiple sources confirming this, as has been explained to Abrvagl many time on the talk page.
Abrvagl also tries to add expressions of MOS:DOUBT further down in the article by writing, "According the Armenian sources, Ganja was hit in response to...". Eurasianet is clearly not an Armenian source, and the article leaves no doubt about what Abrvagl is trying to dispute: "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja."[1].
The constant WP:SEALIONING of the issue on the talk page, edit-wars, and refusal to drop the stick (doing the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edit even after a month) leaves me no choice but to bring this to AE's attention. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but what in the hell was this 7000+byte wall of text? For now, I'll just address these accusations against me.
ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [58] and personal attacks[59][60]. I observe the same behaviour against me:
- You're literally showing my first block when I registered here a year ago and a 72hour block, in an AE case against you, in an attempt to achieve something / browbeat me? I'm so confused.
1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing.
- And you were edit-warring and being disruptive, not that it's the first time. That talk consensus is still against you btw, Talk:Melik_Haykaz_Palace#Azerbaijani_sources_refer.
2. Here, I raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani responded: You need to finally read that policy and understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for bullshit.
- Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. You pick one of my comments, no not even a comment, part of my comment from an overall discussion and present in an AE case against you for what purpose exactly? Do you think I'm going to walk away my statment or something? Yeah, Wikipedia isn't a repository for bullshit and I made my reference clear in the full comment (hint: extremely undue gov claim).
ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [61] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN[62]. He stopped only after warned[63]
- Another example of god knows what that you already showed in ANI against me that resulted in nothing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#User:_ZaniGiovanni. I'm not even going to answer this again. If anyone is interested, please check my first comment in that thread (5th point).
Here [64] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times.
- Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions about random talk discussions in here, you need to understand that. I don't plan to reply to every WP:CRUSH comment, and I explained myself pretty clearly in my last comment. You even brought that source in RSN 3 days ago Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Hyperallergic, what is the relevance of it here? Are you just throwing as much pile at me as possible at this point?
Here[65] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN[66] and RfC[67]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry
- What the actual f*ck is happening, what is this essay of rants even suppose to mean? There was a discussion, Abrvagl opened a DRN about it [2] and it resulted in an RfC [3]. Now what are you trying to say again, that I MUST comment in that RfC? To be honest, I'm not interested about that discussion anymore and consensus seems to be formed in that RfC. Now why is this something weirdly being brought up against me, hello?
- Tbh I feel like gaslighted by all of these rants against me when I simply showed tendentious edits / edit-wars of Abrvagl and wanted to see a simple and valid explanation. Instead, I received absolute nonsense rants against me in a browbeat attempt and belittling of the actual report against Abrvagl, more than half of those rants were already tried and failed in the past. This editor is too nationalistic for AA topic area, like other editors have also suggested (diff1, diff2, diff3). This rant by them is just another sentiment to it. Sorry for the long comment, most of it was just replies to this slanderous nonsense against me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll address the underwhelming explanations by Abrvagl now:
The statement was added by banned[42] user Steverci. Diff:[43]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR.
- Gross misinterpretation of events. Looking at the RfC, it had no consensus against or for anything, it was literally closed as "Consensus is that this RfC did not conform to WP:RFCNEUTRAL"[4]. This doesn't prohibit users to edit the article (btw a user's ban after 7 fucking months of that edit doesn't mean anything, another attempt to belittle something you disagree with) and has nothing to do with the stable version of the article for more than a year that you changed without consensus and edit-warred over a month.
- Everything you show below is your attempts of overwriting stable version of the article without any achieved consensus. On their last revert, Abrvagl is casting doubt on a third-party source and attributing statement from it to "Armenian sources" [5]. Clear example of WP:TENDENTIOUS edit and this user's continual disruption of the article.
The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral.
- This doesn't even make sense. Do you have a source disputing Eurasianet? The article makes it very clear that 2020 Ganja missile attacks was a response to 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja.", and you have been explained this many times in the talk discussion. Third party user in talk also disagrees with you [6].
- Your misinterpretation of events and unreasonable justifications for your edit-wars and reverts of stable version aren't convincing. Coupled with the groundless and disgusting rant you posted against me below this "explanation", which btw counts as a personal attack just like all baseless rants/accusations do, I firmly believe that this user isn't qualified to edit in a very contentious topic area like AA2. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rosguill Please note that this is the second time this user makes personal attacks against me either by baseless accusations or misrepresenting things I said, and they do it in a polite way. I'll reply for the final time if this continues, as I don't plan to reply to everything seasoned with WP:CRUSH, just like with some of their talk comments.
The statement was added by the Steverchi, who knew that majority of the editors are against his edits on Talk-Page, and It was left unnoticed for a while.
- This doesn't change the reality that it was the stable version for almost a year and you edit-warred over your changes for a month without a consensus.
The last edit was done after I made a consensus proposal on the talk-page but was ignored for weeks.
- When good faith editors provide new sources and ask you to stop with sealioning, you even discredited Eurasianet and accused me of sealioning instead, that's when I stopped replying to you. You then went and changed the article again without consensus. You couldn't remove everything just like previous times, so instead you added expressions of doubt further down in the article by writing "According the Armenian sources". And you still haven't provided a WP:RS that disputes a reliable third-party source like Eurasianet.
Reviewing this case, please consider that ZaniGiovanni continuously does not follow civility rules... It is visible even from his replies on this report: "groundless and disgusting rant you posted", "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions", "What the actual f*ck is happening", and examples I brought earlier. All editors are equal in Wikipedia.
- After I adressed your groundless accusations point by fucking point, you're still making accusations against me and taking my quotes out of content? "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions about random talk discussions in here" - this is the full quote btw, don't you think it's extremely disingenuous to quote me out of context and make accusations based on it? And I explained why with diff, since you were WP:SEALIONING the issue in that discussion as well. You raised the same "NewsBlog" question even in RSN, where you also received opposition [7]. Going to your second example, saying "wtf is happening" isn't prohibited on this website, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point aren't we? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Abrvagl
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 Abrvagl
I NEVER removed sourced information.
1.14 April 2022[8][9] I rephrased the statement. Reverted by ZaniGiovanni[10].
2.16 April 2022, I reviewed the case in details, and identified following:
- The statement was added by banned[11] user Steverci. Diff:[12]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR.
- Provided sources didnot support the statement. All sources are either primary or just quotes primary sources. The statement is WP:SYNTH and not in line with WP:NPOV.
Considering the above, I removed the statement, and in detail explained myself on the talk-page[13]. Zani replied [14], but his reply was ignoring my points. So I wrote even more detailed explanation for him [15]. Number of times I tried to get solid justifications and answers to my concerns from the Zani [16] [17] [18], but Zani continued repeating The Armenian sources said it was a response to the Stepanakert shelling, and third party sources covered what the Armenian sources said
although I had proved that opposite. Then Zani started ignoring me, and discussions stopped.
3. On 29 April 2022[19] I reviewed case again, ensured that statement definitely violates Wikipedia policies, and removed it again. On 30 April 2022 ZaniReverted edit[20].
4. On 31 April 2022[21] ZaniGiovanni added new source. As new source was supporting the statement partially, I proposed a consensus[22], but Zani ignored me for 3 weeks.
5. On 22 May 2022 I rephrased the statement in line with WP:OR and WP:NPOV and according to last source provided by Zani, in order to reach consensus. Also removed unrelated sources[23]. I left a note on the talk-page[24]. I attributed it to Armenian sources, as an article in the body referring to the Armenian sources.
Then I was going to take it to the NPOV/noticeboard because experts who conducted investigation do not support above statement HRW Amnesty. The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral.
ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [25] and personal attacks[26][27]. I observe the same behaviour against me:
1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing.
2. Here, I raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani responded: You need to finally read that policy and understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for bullshit
.
ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [28] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN[29]. He stopped only after warned[30]. Here [31] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times. Here[32] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN[33] and RfC[34]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry.
Reply 2
Rosguill, This is not a case of WP:BRD. The statement was added by the Steverci, who knew that majority of the editors are against his edits on Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks#2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, and it was left unnoticed for a while. However, that was not the reason for my edits.
My point was that the initial statement was WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Provided sources didn't support the statement at all. Later, Zani provided a Eurasianet article that partially supported the statement, based on which, as I explained earlier, tried to reach a temporary consensus. I did not remove but rephrased my first and last edits[35][36]. The last edit was done after I made a consensus proposal on the talk-page but was ignored for weeks. Only then I made an edit to see if there will be any positive or negative reactions to my proposal. I also left a note on the Talk-Page about that. By the way, I summarized my point on the Talk-Page[37] of the article. It is not for this report, but you can look at it to see the full picture behind my decisions.
I want to assure you that I had no intent to edit war, and my active participation on the talk-page also supports that. Edit wars are disruptive and never help reach consensus, and we should avoid them. I always tried to stick to the 3 revert rule. From now on I will do my best to stick to the one revert rule, to eliminate misunderstanding. However, I'm not sure what to do when another editor is ignoring me or reverting my edits without proper justification.
However, assuming good faith and keeping everything civil is as important as avoiding edit wars. Reviewing this case, please consider that ZaniGiovanni continuously breaking civility rules. He often gives personal remarks and uses hostile language. This creates a hostile environment, inflames disputes and ruins the collaborative atmosphere. It is visible even from his replies on this report: "groundless and disgusting rant you posted", "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions", "What the actual f*ck is happening", and examples I brought earlier. All editors are equal in Wikipedia. I may be right or wrong; I might make mistakes, which is normal. We are all humans, and we are not perfect. But it does not matter if the editor is wrong or right or makes a mistake; no one has a right to use hostile language and mock editors for their views or errors or past. I find the tone/words that Zani uses insulting. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Abrvagl
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- As far as the original complaint goes, there's two components: allegations of POV-motivated misrepresentation of sources, and edit warring. I'm somewhat inclined toward lenience on the former because it appears that the only source that actually directly states in its own voice that the Ganja attacks were in response to the Stepanakert attacks wasn't added to that claim directly (it was present elsewhere in the article for other claims) until May 1st, after the first three edits listed here; based on the BBC, Telegraph and Armenian news citations present when this dispute started, it is accurate to state that only Armenian sources connected the two events to the degree that the lead did. There are further attempts to discredit the Eurasianet coverage due to its use of Armenian sources by Abrvagl on the talk page. These attempts are a bridge too far: if Eurasianet is a reliable source, we can trust their journalists to evaluate primary sources and synthesize reliable secondary coverage in their own words––that is the whole point of journalism, and their claims should only be superseded by stronger sources (i.e. peer-reviewed publications or a chorus of journalistic sources with more clout), but I don't think that's necessarily sanctionable in itself, in the absence of a pattern of opportunistic exegesis. However, the edit warring is nevertheless problematic, and I would characterize even the early edits as edit warring, as the implicit consensus of nearly a year of silence erases the murkiness of the consensus when the content at-issue was first introduced. Beyond that, I haven't analyzed any of the tit-for-tat accusations made here in the AE discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 03:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Abrvagl, I believe I already addressed the status of edit-warring and OR and do not see anything in your most recent comment that changes my assessment. As far as "intent to edit war", 3RR is a bright red line but not an entitlement to revert freely prior to hitting that limit: by May, it should have been abundantly clear that the changes you were proposing were contested and you should have proceeded to seek some form of dispute resolution rather than continuing to revert. I'm undecided on whether the polite accusations and rude expressions of exasperation here (by either of you) rise to the level of meriting sanctions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
WatanWatan2020
Indefed as a normal admin action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning WatanWatan2020
I addressed this dispute on the talk page with a long, detailed message that thoroughly explained how the proposed addition failed verification. The gist of my comment was that WatanWatan2020 had taken a Small Wars Journal article entitled "The Afghan Air Force: A Harsh Lesson in the Expensive Game of Airpower Reconstruction" and misused it to support a sweeping claim that Afghanistan Two other contributors—LaundryPizza03 ([39]) and LouisAragon ([40])—expressed disagreement with WatanWatan2020's additions in the ensuing discussion, with the latter lamenting that I will concede that WatanWatan2020 is a relatively new user—the account was registered in 2020, hence the name—and that it may be just barely possible that he did not initially see the prominent discretionary sanctions notice that displays whenever editing Afghanistan. Nevertheless, his willingness to ignore the tentative talk page consensus and reinstate a clear-cut—one might say rather extraordinary—failure of verification after being formally notified—along with his mocking, ill-advised reply to the standard notification template (e.g., "I have also not shown much interest in Pakistan or India, that is the first error by @TheTimesAreChanging")—is so shocking to see in this sensitive topic area that I felt it had to be taken to AE immediately for at least a stern warning or short block, especially given how poorly WatanWatan2020 seems to understand the seriousness of the situation, even now.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WatanWatan2020Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WatanWatan2020(moved from directly below the initial complaint Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)) This user, @TheTimesAreChanging is conflating the Afghanistan article with the Herat Principality article. This is the first error. In the Afghanistan article, this user deleted an entire paragraph with citations and links, accurate information that is also reinforced on other articles pertaining to the matter. He deleted all of it because he took issue with one sentence; How is this not a violation of WP rules? If you take issue with that one sentence, ponder upon that one sentence. @TheTimesAreChanging has a history of undoing mass edits of other users; it does not seem he puts in the least effort to contribute to these articles. You do not reserve the right to undo an entire paragraph that has information to other things because you take issue with one sentence, and even that sentence is cited with sources. It is high time for your activity to get checked. Individuals like you are quick to run to the admin boards the moment there is pushback against your ways on WP. I hope that the admins investigate his edits thoroughly and inform him that, rather than undo cited sources and information, you deal with what you specifically take issue with. I already compromised by changing the wording of that sentence, even though it didnt need to be changed due to the compromise. This user has not responded to the disucssion, did not compromise, and continues to disrupt not only the Afghanistan Article, but others as well. To add, the user @Tartan357 thanked me for my edits. The user took issue with one sentence which I then deleted. He then thanked me after. @TheTimesAreChanging should actually learn from Tartan357 in which you should contribute to articles and be fair, not delete entire paragraphs that have something to do with totally something else. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Noorullah21I am here to contribute to the discussion about user WatanWatan2020, this user has been disruptively editing on multiple pages and Language POV pushing on multiple pages, he ignored 3 editors (including me) on page Herat (1793-1863), completely ignoring us even when given sources. He has also gone on to multiple pages to push his language pov, you can check his contributions for different pages for reference on what I mean. I am here to attest to what Time is saying and can back up their claims. (I believe this is the appropriate section for a discussion, if I am wrong please don’t be afraid to tell me or delete what I said here, or move it to the correct area) Noorullah21 (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by Kansas BearA cursory search through WatanWatan2020's recent edits show a battleground mentality direct towards other editors. At least 6 different edits WatanWatan has used the term "Pan-Iranian(s)" towards other editors.
And, 4 instances of calling another user's edits, vandalism; I am not convinced this editor is here to build an encyclopedia.--Kansas Bear (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by LaundryPizza03Well, this is a hard case to analyze, since there are so many so-so edits mixed in with the bad ones. Aside from the clownery at Afghanistan, this user has been language POV-pushing as of late, not just with Afghanistan but also with other Persian-speaking Middle Eastern countries. They are currently blocked filing an AN3 report involving Noorullah21 (talk · contribs). Examples include:
Overall, they seem hellbent on asserting that the Persian spoken outside of Iran is not Persian, and that Pashto is the only legitimate language of Afghanistan. Note that this user has fairly constructive edits on other topics, such as this minor grammatical correction at Egyptian Air Force, so the recommended action is a topic ban from language-related edits. I am cutting off here because I have to leave for a meeting at the University of Houston, and the pattern of recent language-related disruption is already clear. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by Qahramani44All I can say is his edits have a severe case of WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially since his edits like [50] and the other ones that have been linked here usually involves him deleting reliably sourced material, his repeated attacks on multiple other people accusing them of being "pan-Iranians" doesn't seem to help Wikipedia either, and he seems to be involved in multiple edit wars at the same time. Would support either an indeff block or a topic ban on everything relating to Iranic, Turkic, and Semitic-related topics/countries. --Qahramani44 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by HistoryofIranAt [51], WatanWatan outright rejected seven, highly academic sources, preferring to follow his own personal opinion instead. This is quite concerning. As already listed here, this too was one of the places where he threw around the word "pan-Iranian". --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning WatanWatan2020
|
Fad Ariff
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 Fad Ariff
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Fad Ariff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- In this diff (12:07, 27 May 2022) Revert of material against the consensus of two other editors, as openly admitted by the editor themselves in a talk page post minutes earlier in this diff (11:57, 27 May 2022).
- Just over a week ago, this revert (13:14, 17 May 2022) by Fad Ariff was undone (13:50, 17 May 2022) by a previously uninvolved editor, SkidMountTubularFrame, who noticed the edit warring, only for the material to be reverted again (12:06, 20 May 2022) by Far Ariff - again reverting multiple editors without compunction in a conflict area.
- In what appears to be a WP:1RR breach, this diff (12:05, 15 April 2022) followed this diff (12:06, 14 April 2022) - the latter being a revert of this diff (14:00, 13 April 2022).
- Another WP:1RR breach in this diff (12:56, 12 March 2022) following this diff (15:37, 11 March 2022) - subsequently self-reverted ... after prompting.
- Fad Ariff also brushes up against WP:1RR (with a second revert just outside 24hrs) on a regular basis in a manner that conveys a clear sense of entitlement to one revert a day. This includes:
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
n/a
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Placement of DS alert on 12 March 2022
- Express explanation of WP:1RR (14:00, 12 March 2022), as clearly received and understood in this self-revert (14:00, 12 March 2022 )
- Another example (12:42, 19 April 2022) of an invitation to self-revert following the 19 April second revert after 24 hours and 3 minutes (an invitation that was ignored).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Despite a clear demonstration of an awareness of what DS and WP:1RR entail, and subsequent warnings that their double reverts in just over 24 hrs represents an entitled approach to WP:1RR that could be interpreted as WP:GAMING, they have only become bolder in doing just this, as well as edit warring against multiple other editors over the same material despite this being a conflict area with stronger than usual requirements for consensus. Reversion is being deployed to prevent any changes to the page that the editor just doesn't like in a manner that is increasingly reminiscent of WP:OWN. There are also civility issues with the repeated accusations of edit warring (with no apparent sense of irony). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- In response to @Fad Ariff's claim of a WP:1RR breach on my part, I would like to note that the two diffs in question where both part of the same series of consecutive edits, so, for the sake of counting reversions, would be considering part of the same, single revert. I would also like to reiterate that, as you can see from Far Ariff's response on the subject of ignoring two other editors, they seem to think that they can justify this by slinging accusations of there being "problematic POV issues", which is obviously an extremely accusatory and not particularly WP:AGF stance to be taking. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: And another, so make that four reports. Fad Ariff has had a busy day. It's incredible the things you can achieve when you are an WP:SPA in a conflict area. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fad Ariff: I didn't allude to you being a single-purpose account; I suggested it quite clearly (and, quite obviously, you have, for many months, only editing within the post-1978 Iranian politics conflict area, and with a slightly pro-MEK leaning), but please also note that it is not necessarily a bad thing: why not read the essay? As for my COI enquiry, it's more or less a yes/no question. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Fad Ariff
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 Fad Ariff
Hello. It’s my first time in one of these. May I please have a couple of days to familiarise a bit with this process? Thank you. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for allowing me some time to respond.
1. I had posted an explanation for that revert, so consensus for adding this to the article had not yet been reached. What Iskandar323 calls "consensus of two other editors"
is actually Iskandar323 and Ghazaalch (another editor with a problematic POV issues who I'll discuss in a separate report) piling on each other’s posts in that article and then using that as a means to jump over substantive discussions in the talk page.
2. Here Iskandar323 again tried to make modifications to the article by jumping over the talk page discussion. I just reverted some of Iskandar323’s edits back to the article’s original version and then proposed reaching a consensus together for those edits on the talk page. The article’s rules does not allow to reinstate edits that have been challenged (via reversion), and Iskandar323 broke this rule here.[52][53] SkidMountTubularFrame, an editor that was not aware of what was going on, thanked me when I notified them in about this their talk page.
3. Here I did seem to have broken 1RR. If I been notified in good faith (as I have done with notifying Ghazaalch in good faith when they broke 1RR), I would have self-reverted (just like I did on point "4" below). Still, I apologize for this and it won’t happen again.
4. Here I still didn’t know about 1RR, so I self-reverted when I was informed.
5. If editing some minutes over the 24hrs period is not allowed in an article with 1RR then I won’t do it again.
Iskandar323 has been making many big changes to that article in the last weeks often jumping over the talk page discussions and reinstating edits that were challenged via reversion (something that is against the article's rules). They have also broken 1RR (for example, 14:05, 13 May 2022 and 14:13, 13 May 2022) but I wouldn’t report them for that because they could easily be notified instead. All of Iskandar323’s diffs in their report shows that I reverted edits to the article's original version whenever I found their edits to be problematic or in disagreement with talk page discussions. I did slip up breaking 1RR (Iskandar323’s point "3"), which happened after I had first become aware of 1RR (point "4"). I apologize for that and as noted it won't happen again. About Iskandar323’s claims that "There are also civility issues with the repeated accusations of edit warring"
, I will post a separate report so I can explain that in a clear way. Fad Ariff (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Since there has been a suggestion to merge the "Fad Ariff", "Iskandar323", and "Ghazaalch" reports (which I think makes sense) I think I should explain more clearly the connection between these.
- I wrote "piling on" on the response to this report Iskandar323 made against me, and did not explain that well. For example Ghazaalch first reverts me saying
"The article is already too long"
[54][55], Iskandar agrees with Ghazaalch ("I agree with @Ghazaalch that the article is already too long and that we should in general be looking to remove material, not add "
)[56], but then when I try to shorten the article Iskandar323 nullifies my proposal with comments like"And then its the usual bollocks about the article being too long"
[57] (Ghazaalch does a similar type of gaslighting nullifying my proposals with comments like"The question here is that why you are focusing on shortening this section, while there are other sections that are longer than this? "
[58]).
- Iskandar323 accuses me of stonewalling but the talk page shows I aim to find compromises. It is actually Ghazaalch and Iskandar323 who have been stonewalling as shown by their lack of trying to reach compromises. For example, in this discussion[59] I make a proposal and ask that if they don't agree with my proposal they can post a proposal themselves (but they don't offer a proposal of their own, they just shut mine down). I even tried solving disputes at WP:DR, but when a mediator offered to mediate the dispute if all parties agreed to participate through some basic GF rules, both Iskandar323 and Ghazaalch stopped responding[60].
- Then Iskandar323 reports me here even though I have constantly followed the WP:CRP and WP:BRD cycles (and self-reverted if I unknowingly broke 1RR and was notified). And Iskandar323 is now also resorting to alluding that I'm an "SPA"[61] and asking if I'm a "COI"[62], which are more bad faith and groundless insinuations.
- Since much of this evidence seems obvious to me but may not be to others, please ping me if anything is unclear. Thank you. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ghazaalch
Since I was charged with some accusation above, I need some time to respond. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Fad Ariff
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Awaiting Fad Ariff's response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Brad, it looks like some of Fad Ariff's response is the retaliatory filing below. Clearly, it would have been better if they had kept inside this section here, but I wouldn't throw the book at them for that; it's not really surprising that some users don't understand the WP:AE system perfectly. Fad Ariff's following attempt to take out another opponent concerns me more. Probably all three reports should be assessed together. Bishonen | tålk 08:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC).
Roxy the dog
The complainant has stated that they are happy to withdraw this request following a retraction and apology by Roxy the dog signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 30 May 2022 (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 Roxy the dog
I realise that some of the diffs I've provided are older than the ds/alert received on 27 May. While not sanctionable because of that, they are I believe necessary to understand the background and how Roxy has been approaching content editing on the Quentin Crisp article. Only diffs 12-18 are after the ds/talk notice. The other important piece of information, at least for the content dispute, is that Quentin Crisp came out as a trans woman approximately one year prior to their death, though this was not widely known until the posthumous release of The Last Word in 2017. While Roxy was reminded by ArbCom in March to be civil and collegial in their editing, in light of Roxy's variation of the transphobic attack helicopter meme, I do not think that Roxy is capable of editing in the GENSEX content area. I am concerned that this failure to follow MOS:GENDERID has been or will be replicated on the articles of other trans or non-binary individuals. Also I'm just barely within the word limit. Could I request additional words please to respond to any admin questions? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Roxy the dogStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Roxy the dogDear me, this is unfortunate. As can be imagined following my recent brush with ARBCOM, I have been very carefully minding my p's and q's in all my interactions on the project. As I have indicated at the talk page I was unaware of the possible misintepretations of my comment, (now struck), in an area where I do not have much general interest. I have a few LBQT pages on my watchlist, but not many. I have been an admirer of Crisp for many years, probably since I saw him wipe his finger through what appeared to be an inch of gathered dust on his mantlepiece in the 1971 TV documentary. Of course, my memory is poor, and it does not appear to have been his finger, nor an inch. I suppose that could have been in the Naked Civil Servant a few years later. The documentary is linked in the article. I particularly approved of his attitude towards the Princess of Wales later in his life, and Peter Tatchell. I do hope this explains my interest in our article, and why I feel strongly that we should not misrepresent him. Note that I always go with consensus, when it emerges. Trypto has made observations regarding my behaviour at the Talk page, for which I thank him, and I would like to suggest that this diff on another LBQT talk page indicates my aim of improving the project, as do other comments I have made at that page. It is a pity there has been no response to that. I would like to apologise for any offence taken at my innocent remark, and note again that I would not have made the comment had I known how insensitive it was. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishI want to begin by saying that I consider myself to be wiki-friendly with both Sideswipe and Roxy. Admins should read through Talk:Quentin Crisp. It quickly becomes apparent that there are multiple well-established editors there, who argue on both "sides" of the content dispute, so it's not like Roxy is acting alone against a consensus, or acting against consensus at all. And this is a content dispute, largely about WP:DEFINING rather than about text content, and where some editors seem to be arguing that there is an element of WP:RGW going on among the editors who prefer using the transgender categorization. I also note that the trans information is currently in the lead section: [83] (at the end), where it does not appear to be contested; it's been there in some form for a long time: [84]. The context is incomplete unless one also considers these comments by Roxy: [85], [86] – that's respectful of consensus in my book. And [87] is an honest statement of editorial interpretation, not disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Statement by AircornThe only thing above that relates to AE is Roxy the dog saying they "identify as a dog". Everything else is a content issue and doesn't belong here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Comment by GoodDayI've recommended an RFC at the bio article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by Ixtal:I won't comment on Roxy. Just to clarify for Tryptofish, there is no article on the meme itself on wiki. The article is about a short story written about a decade after the meme surfaced. For better information on the meme itself, I would recommend reading this knowyourmeme entry. We frown on this website for sourcing, but the description there is accurate to my experience with the meme online and reading the full copypasta might be more edifying than our article on the story. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by WanderingWanda:Just noting that Roxy did, at least, strike the inappropriate joke.[95] WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by BishonenI believe Roxy deserves to be taken at his word when he says he was unaware of the "attack helicopter" meme or its implications. We can't all be aware of everything, especially in topic areas we have no great interest in. Roxy is quite prone to speak of himself as a dog, or to sign woof!, in all sorts of contexts. The reason I'm posting here, rather than in the uninvolved admin section below, is that I'm on too friendly terms with Roxy, and like him too much, to see myself as entirely neutral. Bishonen | tålk 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC). Result concerning Roxy the dog
|
Aman.kumar.goel
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 Aman.kumar.goel
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Hemantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS 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
- 2022-05-29 19:54:31 - reverts significant parts of a controversial article to years-old version and is edit-warring now without addressing any of the issues raised. This is similar to the article on China (2022-04-29 18:58), where he had reverted lede to an old revision with a misleading edsum. See also this from Feb 2022 where he reverted intermediate improvements from other users, in order to revert a sock.
- 2022-04-06 19:13:12 - removed sourced info. Seen in total isolation, the edit doesn't merit scrutiny, but he followed up with an edit war and an SPI filing. This appears to be in continuation of his drive from 2021 about religious conversions (related AE filing which was redirected to ANI)
- 2022-05-29 19:48, 2022-05-29 19:38:25 - restores content sourced only to a primary quote, on two articles. This was after non-cooperation on his talk page about concerns I'd raised about his poor additions from 2019 and selective removal of my comments. Following diffs, all recent, illustrate his lazy approach towards sourcing in certain topics -
- 2022-05-26 16:30 - addition from an existing graph in the article without checking that it was OR
- 2022-05-29 20:32 - reverts, without explanation, an IP which had removed unsourced content
- 2022-05-28 23:34 - WP:OR comparison not in the source (as well as other issues)
- this from Feb 2022, where he reverted multiple improvements and edit warred, only because the editor had been blocked for a week for socking.
None of the above are from policy ignorance. He has extensive history of quoting policy correctly in disputes when it suits his POV. A stellar example of his POV is how he adds "riot" without a single source in his edit mentioning the word (I can't easily find a single RS on web as well) to 2021 Bangladesh anti-Modi protests, but silently changes a "Gujarat riots" section heading to "Gujarat violence" in a large edit. Further any communication with him is difficult due to, what I can only term as, deliberate misinterpretation. (see also this instance) Hemantha (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 2020-02-14 01:06 blocked for edit warring on Siddha medicine
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Extensive history of alerting others. I'll pick an ("apparently retaliatory") one from 2021-07-09T08:53:27 as appropriate for the time-frame of diffs presented above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
His significant content contributions appear to be before 2021 and I think are mostly concentrated in Indian space exploration related articles. I believe them to be of poor quality, suffering from the extensive use of government and company releases. His current focus is mostly patrolling, where he is as spare in his communication as he is quick to revert. Because of AE restrictions, I've limited the filing to recent diffs which I believe show a pattern of poor edits and bad communication. His aggressiveness is probably of some use in sock-hunting (also weaponised by Aman), but disruptive in fraught areas. Hemantha (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The dissembling employed as an offensive tactic below by Aman is indicative of his routine behaviour. He's careful after the previous block to stop at 3 reverts, but he's been involved in eight edit wars in the last one year - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It's impossible to have any kind of discussion in the face of such misinterpretation and hostility. Hemantha (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Special:Diff/1090794555
Discussion concerning Aman.kumar.goel
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 Aman.kumar.goel
Do you really think that nobody is gonna be surprised when you are participating in a discussion about removing particular content, and when the edits are implemented per that discussion you start acting as if such a discussion never happened by asking "where is the discussion about this btw?
"? But what is even more absurd that you put the effort into creating a superficial report by citing the diffs that you don't even understand only because you have failed to justify your unwarranted edit warring with your apparent WP:STONEWALLING on the talk page.
I expect a WP:BOOMERANG given this user's history of filing the same superficial reports with misleading diffs in the recent times.[96] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I find it suspicious that this is the first ever edit made by StellarNerd to this noticeboard and their first ever edit to the article in question is reversion of my edit. Their talk page input can be only described as classic WP:STONEWALLING.[97] In their statement below, they are sticking to misrepresenting the discussion when the months old discussion clearly involved restoring "last stable version before it happened to provide coverage to these non-notable incidents
",[98] with which Vanamonde93 had also agreed. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 I avoid pinging because others may deem it as canvassing. But in your case I will remember next time.
@RegentsPark First it was necessary to agree about the scope before evaluating which incidents should be included. With Hemantha saying "Scope of the article is nowhere restricted to physical violence
", and StellarNerd saying "Lynchings aren't minor
",[99] these editors refused to accept that the article does not allow the inclusion of minor and non-notable incidents but only the significant incidents.[100] I had provided the explanation of what I changed after the scope was clarified once again. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 01:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by StellarNerd
I looked at this. The discussion in February https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Violence_against_Muslims_in_India#Hemantha's_reverts was about this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_against_Muslims_in_India&diff=1072726719&oldid=1072726547 1,452 letter removal, which included two bullying incidents, that maybe count as too minor. Aman.kumar.goel has been presenting that discussion wrongly, and is removing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_against_Muslims_in_India&diff=1090750469&oldid=1090750352 12,543 letters. Not only that, some of the content removed is by no means minor. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_against_Muslims_in_India&oldid=1090856433#Approximate_total_victims_due_to_major_incidents this entire summary table tabulating the dead in all the major riots and massacres was removed. Much of the language in the article was changed. The article was taken two years back, to 2020. There is no agree to that there, and Aman.kumar.goel is making it out to be as if there is an agreement to taking the article back two years, but there simply isn't. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do not see User:Vanamonde93 agreeing anywhere to take the article back to where it was in 2020, removing summary tables and many mob lynchings that weren't at all discussed in the section Aman.kumar.goel links to, that discusses a quote and cyberbullying, but not at all what Aman.kumar.goel is doing now. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93
I'm unsure why I'm being name-dropped here; yes, at some point I made the statement that Violence against Muslims in India should cover the general phenomenon, and touch on major incidents of violence, rather than containing a long list of (relatively) minor incidents. I have not engaged in this discussion in quite some time, and have certainly not supported either party in this current dispute. AKG, I do not appreciate that you are citing my statements in support of your position at an admin noticeboard without pinging me or otherwise letting me know. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Uanfala
I'm not acquainted with this case, but the mention of aggressive reverting and poor communication rings a bell. In one instance from March, which I've described in another thread, Aman.kumar.goel did several rounds of unexplained mass reverts of a new user's contributions (only some of those contributions were unhelpful, none appeared to be in bad faith), and their only communication that I could see was a series of escalating template warnings (starting straight at level 2) for unspecified disruptive behaviour. – Uanfala (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Aman.kumar.goel
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Aman.kumar.goel: A cursory look at the talk page shows that Hemantha and StellarNerd are making a fairly reasonable request of you. They want you to make small, explained changes rather than a wholesale reversion to an old version. Hemantha, for example, seems fine with what appears to be your main objection - the removal of minor incidents as long as you explain the removals. I need to take a deeper look but you do need to explain why you find this unreasonable. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323
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 Iskandar323
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Fad Ariff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Iskandar323 breaking the article's "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)"s rule
1) Edit, reinstated, reinstated. And when I ask them to please stop edit warring, Iskandar323 responds "Cease and desist or be reported"
2) Edit, reinstated.
3) Edit, reinstated.
4) Edit, reinstated.
5) Edit, reinstated.
6) Edit, reinstated.
7) Edit, reinstated.
When notified about this, Iskandar323 doesn't admit to any wrongdoing but instead makes accusations of others being "not WP:CIVIL" (or for example in their report Iskandar323 describes as me having "civility issues with the repeated accusations of edit warring"
)
8) Deletes a lot of content and reliable sources with the edit summary "Removing huge pile of anecdotal news and opinion that merely duplicates what is already said, which is that the MEK is surveilled."
Yet many of the sources Iskandar323 deleted were not "anecdotal news" or "opinion pieces" or content "duplicates" (like articles by NY TimesRadio FardaVoa NewsJustice.govAP News). After I revert asking to "please discuss in the talk page"
, Iskandar323 deletes this content again.
9) Deletes content supported by a Newsweek article with the edit summary "Removing opinion piece supporting a vague statement - article references the 'Trump administration' without naming a spokesperson”
. (Yet the Newsweek article is not an "opinion piece.")
10) Says (multiple times) that we should delete a quote from the article by using different groundless reasons (some of these reasons are pretty absurd): "Removing more material absent from the body copy (again in violation of MOS:LEAD) + quote parroting a primary PR source)"
[101], "primary source quotation"
[102], "it expresses the MEK viewpoint"
[103], "it outlines the objections of the article's subject towards a third party but not vice versa"
[104].
11) On March 28, an administrator warned Iskandar323 to "not clerk an RfC of which you are the filer. You are as involved as it gets. And don't use the words "vandalism" needlessly. Yikes."
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Not that I am aware
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- (04:59, 18 February 2022) An editor explaining sanctions notification to Iskandar323
- (12:02, 20 May 2022) Iranian politics general sanctions notification in Iskandar323’s talk page
- (12:24, 27 May 2022) Iskandar323 posting this notification in another article
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
These seem similar problems to when Iskandar323 was last warned and then topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict at WP:AE. Fad Ariff (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Iskandar323
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 Iskandar323
First off, and perhaps needless to say, this is of course a retaliatory filing (for the case above) by Far Ariff, who, as you can also see, seems to be having a problem with not one, but two other editors here, making this a clear example of WP:1AM. In this filing, Fad Ariff belatedly makes much of the "consensus before reinstating challenged edits" component of the Iran politics DS. I say belatedly, because Fad Ariff has been plenty remiss in following this themselves. If I am guilty then they, having A) ignored consensus, and B) exceeded WP:1RR, are thrice guilty. However, insomuch as I may have myself have reinstated some edits, as noted above, without explicitly obtaining consensus, I may possibly be slightly at fault. The problem, for several months, has been that Fad Ariff has been reverted almost any attempt to edit the page, more often than not on the flimsiest of excuses, such as in this diff, where they essentially present the justification that because there is general agreement that the article is too long, they can block the addition of reliably sourced content (while chucking in an accusation of POV). Now in my mind, ANY reversion should be justified by a pretty solid reason, ideally grounded in policy, and I believe that whimsically reverting other editors for no good reason is an abuse of Wikipedia's core advice on when to revert. In examples such as the instance above, the blocking of the addition of reliably sourced content appears to me to also be a pretty classic example of WP:SQS, but that's just my opinion. In any case, where Fad Ariff has provided utterly paper-thin grounds for reversion, I have indeed been viewing the "consensus before reinstating challenged edits" as somewhat negated, because indeed, if no good reason needs to be provided for a revert then the Iran politics DS are just utterly ripe for abusive stonewalling. I'll leave it there for now pending questions. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Iskandar323
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Ghazaalch
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 Ghazaalch
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Fad Ariff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Ghazaalch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
1) WP:NPA: "Saying one thing and doing another thing is an act of hypocrisy, and the "hypocrites'" is another name used for The People's Mojahedin of Iran."
(13:44, 23 May 2022) (comment directed at me and at the subject of the article)
2) WP:BATTLEGROUND: "If I were an admin, I would blocked People like you from discussing; and from editing, in the first place"
(11:39, 25 April 2022)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Not that I am aware
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- (14:51, 7 February 2021) Talk page notification
- (15:53, 21 May 2021) Talk page notification
- (22:49, 25 July 2021) In the case that led to WP:GS/IRANPOL, administrator User:Vanamonde93 said Ghazaalch had been a
"party to this dispute"
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Ghazzalch has an obvious WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS stand towards the subject of the article as shown by their comment on point "1". Ghazzalch also shows constant "us vs them" battleground mentality with editors they disagree with (as shown in point "2" ). Fad Ariff (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Ghazaalch
@Bishonen: I do agree with your comment that merging the 3 cases would make the reading of these cases easier, and thank you for your consideration of me being new to AE. About Ghazaalch's comment (point "1"), sorry but reading that again I don't think I explained myself well there. In Islam, the term "Munafiq" (or "hypocrites", or false Muslim) is used in a derogatory way. The Iranian regime consistently refers to the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (an Iranian political group that also happens to be Muslim) with this derogatory term ("The regime, claiming that the Mojahedin were unbelievers masquerading as Muslims, used the Koranic term Monafeqin (hypocrites) to describe them"
[1]). Ghazaalch's comment is alluding to that (making an attack on the PMOI’s Muslim identity, and trying to associate me to that through a vague “act of hypocrisy” comparison). Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- In case this needs more clarification (which may have escaped me), the article itself clearly describes the "hypocrites" term with relation to the subject in two different sections.
"Monafiqeen (Persian: منافقین, lit. 'the hypocrites') – the Iranian government consistently refers to the organization with this derogatory name. The term is derived from the Quran, which describes it as people of "two minds" who "say with their mouths what is not in their hearts" and "in their hearts is a disease"."
"The regime claimed that the MEK were "unbelievers masquerading as Muslims", and used the Qur'anic term "monafeqin" (hypocrites) to describe them. This label was also later used by the Islamic Republic to discredit the MEK. According to Ervand Abrahamian, the Iranian regime "did everything it could" to tarnish the MEK "through a relentless campaign by labeling them as Marxist hypocrites and Western-contaminated ‘electics’, and as ‘counter-revolutionary terrorists’ collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists""
- Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ghazaalch
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Ghazaalch
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I don't see the two expressions of irritation that Fad Ariff links to in this report as worthy of sanctions. Indeed, I see this report as an obvious attempt to take out an opponent. Note also that this is the second report against an opponent that Fad Ariff has posted within five minutes [sic]. Inspired, I suppose, by Iskandar's report against himself which can be seen higher up. Fad Ariff, this board is for serious, intractable problems. Please don't waste admins' time. Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC).
Pahlevun
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 Pahlevun
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Fad Ariff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Pahlevun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Pahlevun deletes many citations and content from the article Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class (also known as "Peykar"), changing the article's narrative that this group is not also called the "Marxist Mojahedin":
- In their (15:55, 20 May 2022) edit, Pahelvun deletes:
1) A citation published by University of California Press (author is Ervand Abrahamian, who Pahlevun referred to as an "expert") that says "Immediately after the revolution, when the Marxist Mojahedin renamed itself Peykar"
[2]
2) A citation published by Harvard University Press that says "PEYKAR (DISSIDENT MARXIST WING OF THE MUJAHIDIN EKHALQ) Leader Hossein Ruhani (arrested 1982). Maximum strength (from 1980 to 1982): 3,000 fighter equipped with light weapons"
[3]
3) "membership Maximum 3,000 equipped with light weapons"
4) A citation published by Routledge that says "In 1975, the Mojahedin split into two factions. One faction denounced Islam and declared its loyalty to Marxism-Leninism through a Maoist interpretation. This faction renamed itself Peykar (Struggle) and emerged as one of the most active leftist revolutionary organizations during the 1979 revolution."
[4]
- In their (15:52, 20 May 2022) edit Pahelvun deletes:
5) A citation published by University of California Press (also authored by Ervand Abrahamian) that says "After the split, Ruhani served as the Marxist Mojahedin's chief representative in Europe and the Arab world. ... Immediately after the revolution, when the Marxist Mojahedin renamed itself Peykar, he ran as its Majles candidate in Tehran. ... He also caused a major scandal in 1980 by divulging for the first time the secret Mojahedin negotiations with Khomeini."
[5]
6) A citation published by Princeton University Press (also authored by Ervand Abrahamian) that says "Paykar organization” (Marxist Mujahedin)"
[6]
- In their (15:50, 20 May 2022) edit Pahelvun deletes:
7) "also called the Marxist Mojahedin, was a splinter group from the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMoI/MEK)”
8) A citation published by Palgrave Macmillan that says "Rahman (Vahid) Afrakhteh, Foad Rohani, Hasan Aladpoush, and Mahboobeh Mottahedin, formed a new Marxist organization, later known as Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class or simply Peykar."
[7]
- Gaslighting in the talk page (full discussion here):
9) When I show Pahlevun over 16 academic sources that contradict with their changes, Pahlevun gives a dismissive answer ignoring the sources I provided, and concludes with "...it is simply a matter of subject-matter expert vs. non-expert scholar"
(15:47, 24 May 2022)
10) When I show Pahlevun that one of the authors Pahlevun refers to as "expert" was also cited in the 16 sources I provided, Pahlevun responds with "You are putting your words in the mouth of "the majority of academia" and acting like the more, the merrier. Anything written by a non-expert that contradicts with what an expert says, should be taken with a grain of salt"
(13:35, 25 May 2022)
(I’m on my word count limit already, but can show more examples if requested)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Not that I am aware
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
In the 2021 IRANPOL case an administrator said Pahlevun (though no longer an "active participant"
), had "participated in some of its nastiest episodes"
, and links an 2019 ANI case where Pahlevun is also shown deleting a lot of similar content from Wikipedia. There Pahlevun said "I saw some user has argued that I should punished because I made edits after I "returned from a short wiki-break". It is not clear, even to myself, that how much I can continue my contributions because of the hardships that I'm facing since a few months ago. So, there's possibly nothing to prevent "
. About the recent edits linked above, when I asked Pahlevun to explain why they deleted all this content from the article, Pahlevun stopped responding. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- This [110] may also be helpful here, although I am not involved in that discussion. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Pahlevun
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 Pahlevun
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Pahlevun
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Rp2006
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 Rp2006
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006_topic_ban_(2)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 16:22, 14 May 2022 Citing a book by Robert Bartholomew, who is a living person associated with the skeptical movement.
- 00:41, 14 May 2022 Rosemary Crossley is a living person of interest to the skeptical movement
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Topic banned by ArbCom from
edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Also see this relevant discussion on talk page [111]
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Rp2006
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 Rp2006
Statement by Geogene (filer)
Pinging @Firefangledfeathers: and @ScottishFinnishRadish: since they participated in that user talkpage thread I linked to. Geogene (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Rp2006
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
3Kingdoms
Appeal by <3Kingdoms>
- Appealing user
- [[User:<3Kingdoms>|<3Kingdoms>]] ([[User talk:<3Kingdoms>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<3Kingdoms>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<3Kingdoms>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<3Kingdoms>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<3Kingdoms>|block user]] · block log) – 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- {{{Sanction being appealed}}}
- Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction
- [[User:<Newslinger>|<Newslinger>]] ([[User talk:<Newslinger>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Newslinger>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Newslinger>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Newslinger>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Newslinger>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Newslinger>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Newslinger>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Newslinger>|RfA]]) / [[User:<Newslinger>|<Newslinger>]] ([[User talk:<Newslinger>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Newslinger>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Newslinger>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<Newslinger>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<Newslinger>|block user]] · block log)
- Notification of that editor
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise.
Statement by <3Kingdoms>
Yeah I was too hot-headed and edit-warred a lot. I've cooled off and have a firmer understanding of the revert rules. Plus I am under a 0rrr for about another 2 months and than a 1rrr for another three, so I will not be engaging in any wars. I have not had any issues since coming back regarding edit-warring or clashing with other editors. I have no intention of starting any fight over this sensitive topic, just plan to patch up pages and make the odd addition. Since Newslinger has not responded to my request on his page, which is understandable given the circumstances, I am asking for it to occur here. Hope this clears things up. Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by <Newslinger>
Comments by others about the appeal by <3Kingdoms>
Result of the appeal by <3Kingdoms>
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.