(→Statement by Mhorg: +answer) |
My very best wishes (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 580: | Line 580: | ||
*I did follow strong advise from El_C to avoid interacting with Mhorg for as much as possible. However, when Mhorg initiated a contact on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=1087775057&oldid=1087519402], I asked El_C, and he responded that it is OK to interact with Mhorg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&type=revision&diff=1087788230&oldid=1087783398]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) |
*I did follow strong advise from El_C to avoid interacting with Mhorg for as much as possible. However, when Mhorg initiated a contact on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=1087775057&oldid=1087519402], I asked El_C, and he responded that it is OK to interact with Mhorg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&type=revision&diff=1087788230&oldid=1087783398]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Reply to statement by Mhorg'''. Mhorg is making various accusations about me, but it would take a separate WP:AE request to respond. As about alleged wikistalking - no (in some of his diffs I do not change or modify his previous edits; in other cases I do, but this is not wikistalking). It was rather Mhorg who followed my edits. For example, he came to blindly revert several my edits on page [[Vladimir Zelenskiy]] in a matter of hours after my edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=1087581275&oldid=1087548098]. He never edited this page before. In edit summary he tells about Pandora papers, but reverts everything. He continued with other reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=1087775902&oldid=1087707508],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=1088020168&oldid=1087984666]. In edit summaries of the last 3 diff, Mhorg makes it clear that he specifically targets ''my'' edits |
*'''Reply to statement by Mhorg'''. Mhorg is making various accusations about me, but it would take a separate WP:AE request to respond. As about alleged wikistalking - no (in some of his diffs I do not change or modify his previous edits; in other cases I do, but this is not wikistalking). It was rather Mhorg who followed my edits. For example, he came to blindly revert several my edits on page [[Vladimir Zelenskiy]] in a matter of hours after my edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=1087581275&oldid=1087548098]. He never edited this page before. In edit summary he tells about Pandora papers, but reverts everything. He continued with other reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=1087775902&oldid=1087707508],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=1088020168&oldid=1087984666]. In edit summaries of the last 3 diff, Mhorg makes it clear that he specifically targets ''my'' edits. While doing this, Mhorg ''did not participate in discussions on article talk pages on the content he reverted'' although such discussions were ongoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Volodymyr_Zelenskyy/Archive_2#Pandora_Papers],[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Volodymyr_Zelenskyy#%22former_actor,_and_former_comedian%22]. This is an example of confrontational editing by Mhorg. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 11:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
::I am sure there is a significant editing overlap for me and Mhorg, but one should look at every specific page (as I just did above). For example, a contributor A coming to a page X soon after B to fix something that B did not edit is not wikistalking. On the other hand, if user A tells in their edit summary, "Hey, I am revering YOU!" that is clearly a wikistalking, even if they both edited page X before. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 12:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
Revision as of 12:57, 23 June 2022
Seggallion
No violation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Seggallion
Here, the response also indicates awareness about reverts
The editor when initially requested to self revert expressed confusion about how one edit was a breach of 1RR. When eventually explained here the response was to blank the page. When given a final chance to self revert here the response was again to blank with edit summary "Did not breach anything. Why threaten like this?". This pattern may by now be familiar, an editor reaches 500 edits and immediately jumps into the middle of an ongoing content dispute.
Discussion concerning SeggallionStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SeggallionWhy was my name wrong in some sections here? I made one edit to the article and one edit is just one revert. I was told by Selfstudier on April 9th to wait until I had 500 edits before more Arab-Israel edits. I had around 400 edits then. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1081780290&oldid=1081732694 I followed instructions and waited. At the end of May I saw a requested move advertised on the al-Aqsa article and I voted on it, just like I voted on other advertised moves. I checked before voting that I met the rule. The changes to the naming have been opposed by other users too, I have been watching this pair of articles since the requested move. I didn't wait until 500 to edit the topic. I was told to wait by Selfstudier after I edited a church in April that he thought was in the topic. I also made a request in January to edit an article in topic I was blocked from. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramla&diff=prev&oldid=1065377343 In this month I saw the Aqsa move advertised. Also fixing errors like novellist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marie_Linde&diff=prev&oldid=1065211857 scheluded https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_Antonio_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1065794748 Borwn https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_Mississippi&diff=prev&oldid=1072564164 Mississipi, not p but pp, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nate_Dogg&diff=prev&oldid=1072762154 Is not a game. Can someone scrutinize Selfstudier's reverts and threat on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092010968&oldid=1092010433 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092012794&oldid=1092012058 I felt under the gun with last one. Statement by NableezyThat's a single revert, it does not matter how many edits were reverted if it happened in a single revert. However there is blatant extended confirmed permissions gaming, with the overwhelming majority of their first 500 edits being single byte additions and removals. Then their 501st edit is to a restricted topic's requested move here. Curiously, the single byte changes started to pick up steam right around when this happened. nableezy - 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323It is a single reversion, but by undoing the work of two other editors, it is also in essence a restoration of a prior version. The basic requirement with any revert, not least a restoration effectively rollbacking edits by multiple other editors, is a fairly fulsome explanation of the reasons why it is being done, and
Statement by OnceinawhileI would also like to discuss what can be done about 500/30 gaming. Coming up to 500 edits through mass automated / semi-automated / very minor edits is not consistent with the spirit of the rule. This editor made >350 edits in Jan/Feb this year, by finding and replacing common typos. A useful job of course, but the interest in clean-up edits disappears at 500. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by ShrikeFirst of all the premise of this filing is frivolous the filer is experienced enough to understand what revert is. Regrading the gaming it seems that users has continued to do minor edits in other topics contrary to what claimed here so it doesn't seem like gaming to me --Shrike (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBellaSeggallion, could you explain why you didn't sign your comments above and you formatted the links so poorly? You displayed a deep knowlege of the links formating (note "here" added) back in February [1] and you also nicely signed your comment. What happened? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Seggallion
|
Zusty001
Two edits with the discretionary sanctions alert issued after the first does not warrant a sanction. Zusty001 is advised to discuss issues on article talk and not repeat challenged edits in a topic under discretionary sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Zusty001
From the edit summary at [4] they knew they are fighting against WP:CONSENSUS, nevertheless chose to put What does it mean that the meaning of pseudoscience is oblique? What does it mean that it is occulted? Who treated pseudoscience as monolithic and what's the evidence that they did so? The talk page of the article is crammed with explanations about WP:PSCI, so I felt no need of adding extra explanations. The problem with Steiner's fans is that they have a thoroughly in-universe view and no longer know how mainstream science views Steiner. But I once met an important Anthroposophist who was fully aware that the Institute for Beautiful Sciences (Schöne Wissenschaften) sounds completely ridiculous to outsiders. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zusty001Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zusty001SeraphimBlade, my reasons were explained essentially in the comments of the relevant edits. If this is not deemed sufficient, and if these comments can be viewed anywhere (It appears cut off in the public view of the edit), then I do not think I should try strenuously to achieve some victory in a litigatory struggle against a user of this site far more prolific and powerful than myself. I would explain myself more elsewhere outside of this context, but here I will, for the most part, simply note that in the wide array of citations attached to the section initially removed by myself, there are a great many in which 'expertise' or authority is simply not there, even in some academic sense. (The latter part may be the more considerable here. I noted the use of Dan Dugan in my original comment as a particularly striking example, whom is also used as a main and positive, or encyclopedic, source for another section of the article which I have not edited.) I do not regret noting such 'expertise' in quotations, here or in my edit. As for the 'anonymous' edits you note, I should say that they are not my own. Statement by (username)Result concerning Zusty001
|
LearnIndology
LearnIndology is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed (WP:ARBIPA). Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Request concerning LearnIndology
LearnIndology (LI) is not a prolific editor: they are often inactive for weeks and engages in routine anti-vandalism, maintenance tasks etc. This necessitates a scrutiny into their activities across a long span of time, which might be unnecessary otherwise. The evidence presented above supports that the losses accrued by letting LI edit in this area — reduction in content accuracy as well as waste of editorial resources in combating his POV-laden activities — outweighs the positives. I wish to emphasize that LI is cautious enough to not run afoul of any bright-line rule but nonetheless, tests the boundaries as evident from the 3RRN example. Multiple established editors — me, Kautilya3, Fowler&Fowler, RegentsPark, Joshua Jonathan, and maybe others — have warned him about NPOV violations but they show little effect.
Discussion concerning LearnIndologyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LearnIndologyNearly all of the diffs are dating back to 2020 and 2021 and concern some usual content disputes and some include misleading claims such that I created this article. I find this reporting to be lacking any sense. Though I would still comment on the recent diffs. 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy was created[7] over 28 hours after Nupur Sharma (politician) was created.[8] It was being redirected to Nupur Sharma because it was a complete POVFORK created in violation of copyrights per WP:CWW. Just compare these two versions: [9],[10]. Only difference was the creation of more sub-sections and some quotefarming, but that was also insignificant. The discussion on Talk:2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy#Opinion of Dutch politician and Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability shows that I am regularly responsive and abiding by the consensus. My edits aren't even violating WP:SYNTH like your recent edits on this page, let alone justifying them like you are doing. ARE shouldn't be misused just because you disagree with some of my edits. LearnIndology (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare: With this message I was saying that either we should keep statements like that of Dutch politicians and others, or we should only keep statements related to the foreign ministry and the main administration. At that time there was no particular criteria set, and selective removal was not helping in setting consensus this is why I only restored the stable version with that regard. This is not mind-boggling because ultimately the consensus supported my view, contrary to the view of those who wanted to only remove the statement of the Dutch politician but keep statements of politicians who are not even notable. @Bishonen: There is clearly no doubt that I did a number of mistakes at Romila Thapar dispute in Feb 2021 but I learned a lot from that and have made more than 1,300 edits since. By saying "per discussion" on this edit summary I was talking about this discussion where I had mentioned the sources. While there was a content dispute at the Religion of the IVC article, I was correct with each of my messages there as it can be read here but TrangaBellam's main objection was that the article is a POV fork and should be a redirect.[12] The ultimate consensus was against this view. LearnIndology (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Post-filing statements and responses by TrangaBellam
Statement by VanamondeResponding to Abecedare's ping. I do not recall whether I have interacted with LI in a non-administrative capacity. I'm traveling and have limited internet, so I cannot research it either; so I'm posting here, out of an abundance of caution. I find numerous diffs here to be seriously concerning. This diff (The Mughal Harem) is appalling; in an experienced editor, that alone would be something I'd recommend sanctions for. The double standards on display here (Nupur Sharma's remarks) equally so. I recall some of the dispute about links between the IVC and Hinduism; the diffs here substantiate my memory that LI was more interested in digging up any source that supported what he wanted to see, rather than dispassionately summarizing the sources. A similar problem is evident here (Raksha Bandhan); I would guess, though I cannot be sure, that LI began be googling the sentence he wished to add to the article, rather than by reading the best sources about the subject. Given that this is a long-term issue, with innumerable warnings along the way, a TBAN seems very necessary. I see the crux of the issue being the application of the labels "Hindu" and "Indian" to various aspects of culture and history; but I don't see a clean way to delineate a TBAN around those. I believe any of the proposed TBANs ought to work, but my recommendation would be "history and politics within ARBIPA". I don't think the line around history is very fuzzy in this case; conversely, the Indian-not-Indian debate has been a problem area, and I suspect it'd lead to more wikilawyering. 22:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Statement by (username)Result concerning LearnIndology
|
73.158.47.129
Blocked; nothing more to do --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:41, 16 June 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 73.158.47.129
The IP editor claims to be the article subject, but the article subject is blocked from using Wikipedia. This appears to be a case of block evasion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 73.158.47.129Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 73.158.47.129Hello, I posted on a discussion page that was directly about me, and immediately identified myself and the ban. As for the ban, I was never told why I was banned other than "offline & online conduct." I was never even told I was even being investigated. I had no notice negative action would be taken against me. In fact i had reported misconduct against me, and the investigation apparently pivoted to *me* at some point. I was given no warnings, ever. My account was in use for over a decade with no prior warnings & only praise. There was no specific ban/block before a wider ban/block, there was no temporary ban before an indefinite ban. was never provided an explanation of why I was banned or how to appeal, or if I could appeal. I was told I was banned from editing, but it was unclear if that meant only editing articles or if that also applied to administrative matters, like an article deletion discussion. The order was vague and overbroad, and I've struggled to interpret it. It does seem quite unfair to prevent me from weighing in on a deletion discussion about the article about me, without explicitly telling me the ban applies to administration discussions as well as articles. In fact, I was given notice and this text box to edit as part of this enforcement notice, which is confusing if I'm supposed to be banned. Why would I get notice or an opportunity to provide input, if i was prohibited from providing input? I worry that I'm violating the ban again by even responding now here. 73.158.47.129 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 73.158.47.129
|
Спидвагона
Blocked as a sock --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:24, 16 June 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 Спидвагона
Extended confirmed restriction
N/A
N/A as a general sanction, but informed here. pretty obviously a sock account, but no matter, should be blocked as an account whose single purpose is to violate an arbitration restriction.
Every single edit by this user since registering has been a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction.
Discussion concerning СпидвагонаStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by СпидвагонаStatement by (username)Result concerning Спидвагона
|
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) 13:17, 21 June 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
- 29 May 2022 - WP:HOUNDING and "jumping" into a discussion between me and another user
- 20 June 2022 - WP:HOUNDING hours after my edit
- 21 June 2022 - Possible WP:PACT and WP:GAMING violations, further explanation below
- 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
I'm following up on this as I find Abrvagl is still being problematic and needs AE's attention. The first diff is a WP:HOUNDING by them, where they randomly "jumped" into a discussion between me and another user. This confused me at the time but I tried to not pay attention to it. However, because of their recent repeated hounding, I couldn't just restrain myself and ignore it; after my edits yesterday in Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, made this edit in the article among others, hours after me. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language [25], which isn't an improvement and shouldn't have been added. This kind of behavior with hounding is unpleasant to me and discourages me as an editor.
Third diff; some time after the previous AE case, they left this comment in the same discussion, which I believe breaches WP:PACT and WP:GAMING and I'll explain why shortly; considering the fact that Talk:2020_Ganja_missile_attacks#The_missile_attacks_happened_one_week_after_Azerbaijan_began discussion was linked in that previous AE case and Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;
- "Saying that bombardments of civilian areas of Ganja, which resulted in the death of civilians, was in response to Stepanakert civilian areas bombardment, which also resulted in the death of civilians, is an unsourced attempt to justify war crimes and insert of the wartime ethnic retribution logic into article. It is gross violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral and there no place for that in Wikipedia."
And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.. Please also keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me on the talk page ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1) How convenient to "jump" into the middle of a discussion with me and another user, despite never editing on that article, and now claim the "page was on my watchlist".
- 2) The specific diff I linked isn't an improvement, you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article, hence it is hounding. And you did so hours after my edit despite hardly editing through 13-20 June. And again, you didn't have a single edit on that article prior.
- 3) I didn't cut anything from your conclusion segment, I included it as a whole, it's a publicly available diff. It's also convenient that you link your own comment judging what's "sufficiently substantiate" by a third-party editor, but didn't link my reply to you [26]. Considering all of this and the above, pretty sure your demanding good faith from me at this point could be considered WP:GAMING and perhaps WP:PACT. I'll leave that to admins to decide. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Rosguill Perhaps I should've provided more diffs/context, but I didn't want this to get long. This isn't the first time Abrvagl is hounding someone, their hounding against a different user was brought up on this ANI report, which I happened to take part in. From that thread, there are quite a few other examples;
- [27], [28], [29], [30] [31] (these specifically show them hounding the user and edit-warring over an info cited by a partisan source, see discussion).
- So this isn't the first time Abrvagl hounds someone, and the articles are very niche for them to randomly stumble upon, such things cannot happen repeatedly.
- Regarding Ganja attacks, BBC reports that it was a response, attributing it to Artsakh. Eurasianet reports that it was a response with no attribution. Talk consensus is also against Abrvagl, as even the third-party user still disagrees with them. I honestly don't know what else I should do, it's not on me at this point to reach anything with Abrvagl. They could've used any mechanisms necessary like RfC, third opinion, etc. instead of dragging me every time to the talk page, since clearly as of now, talk consensus is against them. Bottom line is, I would kindly ask you to evaluate your opinion regarding hounding, since clearly this isn't the first time from them. And regarding Ganja strikes, I have nothing else to say. It's been enough already, I'm not planning to waste months of time just to appease this user. They know all the necessary tools, they should've already used them if they didn't like the talk consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not obliged to read through a 4000byte+ wall of text, so I'll address the diffs you brought up against me. I also think some of these were already brought up by Abrvagl in the previous AE, it's just repetition all over again;
- 1) Had it watchilsted way before you, proof? I'm not just going to say "I have it watchlisted" like you did, here my edit. Also, not a personal attack.
- 2) Same scenario as the first [32]. And what's the personal attack?
- 3) You probably found that discussion on my talk page User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Golden, so you should've seen just below that I, in good faith, also asked about it in the TeaHouse User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Your_thread_has_been_archived ([33]) because it was still unclear to me whether discussing user conduct on article talk pages should always be prohibited. I'm certainly more careful about this now, and I make sure just for good measure to raise complex conduct issues on user pages instead or appropriate noticeboards like I'm doing now.
- You say I brought up 2-month-old diffs (which I only brought up as backup to my current accusation of your hounding and only after Rosguill's comment), but what are these then, and why are you bringing up these irrelevant even older diffs in AE case regarding your hounding; 26 March 2022, 10 April 2022?
- And why are you discussing Kadyrova here? Have you forgotten the extensive talk page discussion? I thought we reached that RfC conclusion which you still have to launch, I'm so confused. Rosguill please tell me if I need to address anything here regarding Kadyrova or if this should be discussed on talk instead, I'm not sure about this essay comment and the purpose of it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:32, 21 June 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
Seriously Zani, you could have at least tried to talk to me before dragging me into this unnecessary AE only 9 days after your last report.
1. 29 May 2022 This page and talk page are in my watchlist. I saw a conversation between two editors and shared my own view on the conversation. How is it Hounding? WP:HOUNDING clearly states: if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behaviour
, my comment did not mean any of that. it was aimed to help conversation. It is really strange to hear such concerns. If my comment is hounding, what is this then, where you jumped into a discussion with +1,879 bytes of text and raising personal remarks about me? I believed you did that with good intentions because I assumed good faith every time you joined discussions like this and expected the same from you. But it seems I shouldn't have.
2. 20 June 2022 No hounding or else here. Page is on my watch list. It brought my attention because there were recent changes. I actually expanded and improved the article. Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week,
- as I mentioned earlier[34], I had emergency surgery and was having a rest. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language
- [35] is the official webpage of State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, which is perfectly fine for statistical information about missing persons, especially considering that I correctly attributed it in the article. If you believe that source is not RS for that information, you could have talked to me or at least raise it to RS board.
3. 21 June 2022 - not sure how me asking you to stop writing personal remarks on the talk pages and informing you that we need to take this case to the dispute resolution is WP:PACT and WP:GAMING. Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;
I never said that Eurasianet is not reliable. You actually cut the conclusion out of the context which may lead to misunderstanding. Here is the full comment[36] read the paragraphs 9 and 11 about Euroasianet. And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.
- Zani, making personal remarks on the article talk page is not appropriate, I and other editors[37][38] already told you that many times. If you want to discuss anything unrelated to the article you are always welcome to use the editor's talk page. keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me
- this third-party editor did not sufficiently substantiate his comment[39], as I already told him[40].
Reply 2
Rosguill I am not sure why Zani brought up diffs which are more than 2 months old and was not even related to him to say that I am hounding.
Diffs mentioned by Zani were a case when I noted that one of the editors was going through the Azerbaijan-related articles and removing tons of information(sometimes obvious information) from the articles with "unsourced" comments. At first look, it may look like edit warring, but in reality, I was reinstating removed material and adding sources. For example: Revert[41] and added source[42]. Revert[43] and adding source[44]. Revert[45] and added source[46] and so on.
ZaniGiovanni, didn't link my reply to you [26].
- I did not, because I did not want to show you in a bad light as you were making personal remarks about me there [47].
Zani, we shall always judge other people as we judge ourselves. If you saying that my good faith edits are Hounding, then can you please explain a few examples listed below? Do you think that they can be considered as hounding? I personally don't, as I assume good faith, but looks like you have a different view on what the hounding is.
- [48] - you jumped into conversation writing personal remarks.
- [49] - 17:21 I made a revert as consensus was not reached. 9 minutes later, you, who was uninvolved created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text again with personal remarks.
- [50] - here you jumped into the conversation and made personal remarks about other editor's behaviours by bringing up eight 1-2 years old diffs.
you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article
- I agree that the source generally not reliable as it is not this party source, however official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Not sure how it is hounding, but you could talk to me if you had concerns or at least take it to the RS board.
Zani, again, we shall judge others such as we judge ourselves. Here[51] you added two sources about the living person(WP:BLP). One of the sources is the Russian search engine Rambler.ru[52], which refers to not existing webpage Kdpconsulting.ru. When you click to open Kdpconsulting.ru, it actually opens an unknown yellow pages website runews.biz. The second source[53], which seems to be personal blog[54] focusing on IT from France perspective, does not even know if Kadyrova is male or female, and wrongly says that she is male, and focuses on her nationality calling her Azerbaijani journalist, while not mentioning that she is actually Russian journalist ...Azerbaijani journalist Saadat Kadyrova revealed to the Russian TV... He compared the residents to terrorists.
Do you believe that sources are reliable for information about the living person?
Long story short - I never hounded anyone or had intentions to hound anyone, don't have anything else to add.
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.
- Noting first for the record that both ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl contacted me on my talk page to ask for advice related to this dispute, reviewing the evidence here, I don't think that the HOUNDING accusation holds water. Having compared both editors' contributions on and immediately prior to June 20 and May 29, this looks like coincidental overlap on topics of mutual interest and don't see any clear-cut evidence of hounding. Reading through the entirety of the discussion at Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks, while Abrvagl's conclusions cited here in ZaniGiovanni's additional comments (with additional emphasis add by ZG) are hyperbolic, I don't think that the argumentation is tendentious overall: they acknowledge Eurasianet as an RS and make an argument that the reference in question does not fully support the claims made, then provide an analysis of other sources. While one need not agree with Abrvagl's argument, I don't think it's sanctionable. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, the additional diffs you provide are certainly edit warring and possibly hounding, but they're also around 2 months old. I'm open to hearing disagreement from uninvolved editors as far as my initial assessment on hounding, but at the moment I stand by my initial assessment of the recent edits. As far as the continued discussion regarding the Ganja strikes, you have no obligation to continue responding to Abrvagl's arguments; it appears that the stable status quo is your preferred version, so the ball is in Abrvagl's court to call for an RfC, since a third party has already weighed in and you're clearly not interested in taking it to DRN. Given that the state of discussion on the talk page is an extensive back-and-forth between you and Abrvagl, plus a single-sentence affirmation in favor of your perspective from another editor (we can also count Kevo's revert as another voice in favor), I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, no I don't think that Kadyrova needs to be discussed here. It's not really relevant to either of the allegations you raised in this case, and the argument as presented falls short of the evidence of persistent or willful failure to respect community standards and processes around sources that would justify sanctions in my view. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, the additional diffs you provide are certainly edit warring and possibly hounding, but they're also around 2 months old. I'm open to hearing disagreement from uninvolved editors as far as my initial assessment on hounding, but at the moment I stand by my initial assessment of the recent edits. As far as the continued discussion regarding the Ganja strikes, you have no obligation to continue responding to Abrvagl's arguments; it appears that the stable status quo is your preferred version, so the ball is in Abrvagl's court to call for an RfC, since a third party has already weighed in and you're clearly not interested in taking it to DRN. Given that the state of discussion on the talk page is an extensive back-and-forth between you and Abrvagl, plus a single-sentence affirmation in favor of your perspective from another editor (we can also count Kevo's revert as another voice in favor), I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Mhorg
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 Mhorg
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Mhorg (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
- Eastern Europe
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [55]– Mhorg inserts the following text: “Rada member Pavlo Frolov suggested that she "failed to gather enough evidence", which made it sound like the Rada determined that Denisova was lying or spreading misinformation about the nature of sexual violence, rather than simply diverting attention.” However, this is a misinterpretation of the in-line reference [56]. The source does not say “which made it sounds like the Rada determined that Denisova was lying or spreading misinformation”. Yes, her dismissal was controversial, and she was criticized, but she was not found in RS to promote any specific “lies” or misinformation.
- [57] [58],[59] [60],[61] - placing negative claims about Denisova to multiple pages where such claims do not belong.
- [62], [63], – Mhorg removes statements made by Denisova in her official capacity as Ukrainian Ombundswoman . Well, even if an official would be found to promote multiple falsehoods (she was not!), such blanket removals of all his statements just “because he is a liar” would not be appropriate.
- (edit summary). This is an inventive approach. Mhorg combines “everything by Denisova” in her section “even if it contains content by other people” (!) to discredit all such claims altogether by discrediting Denisova. [64] - this is highly misleading because Mhorg incorrectly attributes some claim by other people (or claims made also by other people) to Denisova.
- [65] [66]. A highly damaging claim (one in the beginning of this section [67]) was attributed to a Ukrainian politician. The politician publicly denied he ever said it; there is no documented proof he said it, and his multiple rebuttals are well sourced. Mhorg removes his rebuttals.
- [68]. Mhorg implies that Ukrainian president Zelenskiy is associated with Neo-Nazi based on unreliable sources. He uses this ref: [69], but the link includes a reference to Russia RT on the bottom. Mhorg says he would rather not include such content, but still posts the suggestion on article talk page. Based on their response [70], that was not a WP:POINT, but rather a desire for this material to be included to the page.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them - see User_talk:Mhorg#Azov)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Based on the diffs above, Mhorg does not like certain people and therefore present them as negatively as possible. These people are usually Ukrainian officials or politicians, but there are other examples. More diffs can be provided if needed.
A number of BLP violations or highly POV edits by Mhorg have been mostly fixed by other participants, but the contributors wasted a lot of their time to do it.
- P.S. Speaking about the bias by Mhorg, I think this his posting is telling. Many sources he refers to (you can follow his links for #1,2,3,etc.) is WP:PRIMARY, and Mhorg interprets these sources according to his bias in this posting. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- P.P.S. I would not file this request, but Mhorg push his own interpretations about living people not supported by sources [71] and behave confrontational not only with regard to me. To show the later, here are a couple of examples where I was not involved in editing:
- [72],[73], [74], [75], [76] [77], [78] – sustained slow-motion edit war to remove sourced content about alleged neo-Nazi on page Sparta Battalion. Note that the removed content was included by at least four different contributors. The discussion was conducted on article talk page, and people probably came to an agreement (I am not sure [79]), but how much time and effort they have spent!
- [80], [81],[82] edit-warring to restore an unsourced info without even any attempt of explanation, even in edit summary. No any explanation on talk page [83] Note that Third position is a set of neo-fascist ideologies, hence the meaning of reverts by M. is not at all clear. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Paul Siebert.
- Seaking on my diff #1, no, Mhorg can not blame another contributor. Not only that was his edit, but he clearly made also other edits (#2-4) based on his personal conviction/bias that she is spreading lies about war crimes by Russian military forces in Ukraine. And he said just that himself [84].
- Speaking about Bieletsky, yes, I also do not like the guy, but we have an obligation to provide his well sourced rebuttal per WP:BLP.
- Yes, I do believe that sources like this [85] are self-published or at least not peer-reviewed. More important, no one objected to these removals. Yes, in one of the edits I removed whole para because it started from a phrase sourced to WP:SPS. I never meant other sources in the same para to be WP:SPS. Now fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pravega (talk · contribs) proposed making such changes [86],[87] on Page Alexei Navalny, but they have been rejected on an RfC as a BLP violation [88]. We did had a disagreement with Mhorg on this page who suggested such edit [89], which I thought would also be a BLP issue as a highly biased summary and repetitive content to disparage living person [90], but this seems to be resolved. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did follow strong advise from El_C to avoid interacting with Mhorg for as much as possible. However, when Mhorg initiated a contact on my talk page [91], I asked El_C, and he responded that it is OK to interact with Mhorg [92]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reply to statement by Mhorg. Mhorg is making various accusations about me, but it would take a separate WP:AE request to respond. As about alleged wikistalking - no (in some of his diffs I do not change or modify his previous edits; in other cases I do, but this is not wikistalking). It was rather Mhorg who followed my edits. For example, he came to blindly revert several my edits on page Vladimir Zelenskiy in a matter of hours after my edits [93]. He never edited this page before. In edit summary he tells about Pandora papers, but reverts everything. He continued with other reverts [94],[95]. In edit summaries of the last 3 diff, Mhorg makes it clear that he specifically targets my edits. While doing this, Mhorg did not participate in discussions on article talk pages on the content he reverted although such discussions were ongoing [96],[97]. This is an example of confrontational editing by Mhorg. My very best wishes (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am sure there is a significant editing overlap for me and Mhorg, but one should look at every specific page (as I just did above). For example, a contributor A coming to a page X soon after B to fix something that B did not edit is not wikistalking. On the other hand, if user A tells in their edit summary, "Hey, I am revering YOU!" that is clearly a wikistalking, even if they both edited page X before. My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- User notified [98]
Discussion concerning Mhorg
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 Mhorg
Dear colleagues, unfortunately I have to defend myself against the slanders that are part of a WP:Battleground mentality that MVBW has never definitively abandoned, such as when years ago (he was called User:Biophys) was part of a political 'battle squad' that coordinated off-wiki[99] with a mailing list to fight his 'enemies'.
This AE request comes after MVBW:
- Was warned by an admin for WP:WIKIHOUNDING against me[100] together with User:Nicoljaus, who was Tbanned instead.[101]
- Made an absurd and inconcludent SPI against me and other 5 users (they were all users with whom he clashed in discussions).[102] Note that Nicoljaus, after 3 months of inactivity,[103] intervenes in the SPI against me (perhaps warned by MVBW off-wiki?).[104]
- Was warned by an admin for massively removing sourced content[105], while he was trying to get @M.Bitton: sanctioned with his little games. My comment was crucial, and since that day he has become increasingly aggressive.[106].
- From then on he started again to check my contributions daily, WP:FOLLOWING me from article to article (I make a list here of all the times he has recently intervened in articles, in which he never made a single contribution before, because I already deal with the user on dozens of articles):
- [107],[108],[109],[110],[111],[112][113] and started to meddle in talk pages with other users again.[114] I would like to recall that he had been warned by @El C: precisely because he had intruded on my talk page by replying to users asking for things from me.[115] The user now writes
I asked El_C, and he responded that it is OK to interact with Mhorg
, does "interacting with users" mean checking their contributions daily and constantly intervening in the articles? Is it normal that this user is constantly breathing down my neck?
It was rather Mhorg who followed my edits.
At this point I ask for the intervention of an administrator who maybe can check whether I searched the history of his contributions and then went directly to that edit. This user systematically lies, in fact, as I have already explained, I had gone to Zelensky's article precisely to ask the question.[116] Before asking that question I looked at the history of the article and found its usual removal with sources. As I wrote to El_C, I have no pleasure in interacting with MVBW, I have always tried to keep contact to a minimum. Please, some administrator check this out and save me from this hell of lies.[117]- Blatantly violated an RFC verdict (in which he himself participated) by removing one of my reverts (I was just trying to enforce the verdict on other users.[118]). I point this out to him,[119] and instead of apologising he lies:[120] "That change was made not by me, but by another contributor who edited just before. I started from editing his version.": FALSE.
I ask you for the opportunity to exceed 500 words so that I can fully defend myself against this user, who has practically harassed me on every possible occasion in recent days:
Denisova - (list of the sourced accusations against her:[121])
- 1. That part was inserted by user Cononsense (with another source).[122] And MVBW knows it very well, because he deleted that part.[123] Unfortunately he has a habit of removing massive chunks of text, or heavily altering the content, to make it difficult for other users to edit. To see how I had organised that section (later disrupted by MVBW), read here the Frolov part.[124]
- 1a.
Mhorg can not blame another contributor
: Mystification, I did not accuse Cononsense (also read my edit summary[125]). Instead, I restored their stuff but the source was lost in the process, thanks to MVBW's mass removals and manipulations. - 2. I opened a discussion to talk about this.[126] Perhaps the user intends to resolve it by means of an AE Request?
- 3. As I have shown in point #1 (all material removed from MVBW) Denisova has been accused by members of parliament, journalists, academics, of being highly unreliable with her rape reports. Somehow we will have to deal with her statements, either by deleting them, giving them less weight, or adding parts of text explaining to the reader what happened. MVBW, on the other hand, would like to minimise everything.
- 4. Yes, I still think that any statement she made should be grouped in a section to give the reader important information about the accusations made against her.
Other
- 5. MVBW speaks of 'A highly damaging claim', yet the same politician wrote: "the writer argued that human races are divided into higher and lower. He considered the White race to be the highest, and Neanderthals, N_gro_s, and Papuans to be the "lowest." Other races occupied an intermediate position. According to Frank, the "lower races" first differed from the monkeys. And from them ("lower races") stood out higher, more perfect forms. By the way, in modern science, this is one of the main hypotheses of anthropogenesis. [...] I would like to wish our "real" friends to read "uncircumcised" censored classics."?[127] But if you want to know more:[128]
- 6. Mystification. I was just saying that for both cases the importance was zero. I never included that part in Zelensky's article, and in fact for me that nonsense should be avoided for both presidents.
Additional comments
- 1. Resolved on talk page by consensus. Thank you for showing how mystifying you can be.[129]
- 2. They were all edits without source\motivation by anonymous users. What would you be insinuating? That I shouldn't have reverted them?[130]
Answer to TyrelBurden
- 1.
Mhorg was a strong advocate of the Azov Regiment being described in Wikivoice as a ″Neo-Nazi″
, defined in that way in a large and very participative RFC. At least 17 users voted as I did, many of whom cited my argument as valid. - 2.
They would use questionable at best tactics such as striking an RFC option
, this is our discussion on that fact.[131] I simply did not know the rule. - 3. Each of my contributions is supported by sources. As for the accusation of POV, I can say the exact opposite of you and MVBW, but that is not why I would have asked for a TBAN.
Answer to Dennis Brown
- @Dennis Brown: may I ask you which part you think was manipulation? Maybe I can try to give you an explanation. Thank you.
I hope with all my heart that other users who have had a bad experience with MVBW will intervene in this AE request.
Statement by Paul Siebert
First of all, let me quote these words
Below, I am going to demonstrate that these MVBW's words perfectly describe his own behaviour.
Thus, the evidence #6 is the talk page post, where Mhorg says that this type information should NOT be added to the article. IMO the only idea this evidence demonstrates is that MVBW is following the above described tactics in an attempt to eat up the defendant's 500 words limit and to link his name with highly discredited "Russia Today".
Next, the evidence #5. The ostensibly "highly damaging claim" was supported by three reliable sources, the Guardian article and two books, each of which have been widely cited by peers ([132], [133]), so each of them are without any doubts RS. In contrast, the text removed by Mhorg was supported by Ulmand, who writes:
- "Bilets’kyy asserted that he had not written the articles to which Hromadske referred, and admitted that only his video and audio statements, available on the world wide web, were genuine. The racist texts under his name were, according to Bilets’kyy, fabricated by Russian propaganda, in early summer 2014 when Azov was starting to take shape.
However, it is inconceivable that Likhachev, as a highly experienced researcher of the post-Soviet far right, would have reproduced the above quotes on his blog, without being certain of their genuine nature. Bilets’skyy’s outspoken rejection of his racist statements and their association with Russia’s information either were an expression of cognitive dissonance or were designed to cover his pre-Euromaydan political biography.
" (the colored text was not included into the article).
In other words, the text removed by Mhorg contained a very selectively cited source (Umland), whose main idea was totally misinterpreted. That means, Mhorg just fixed a blatant misinterpretation of the good source (Umland), thereby improving the artilce.
I can perform the same analysis of other evidences, but the 500 word limit does not allow me to do that. I would like to to point out the following.
Dennis Brown, hasn't specified which sources he looked at, so it is hard to me to comment on concrete examples of misinterpretation. However, it is necessary to discriminate between the text written by Mhorg and the text that was written by others and restored by Mhorg. Clearly, it is a big difference between non-critical restoration of someone else's wrong text and writing misinterpretations by themselves. I suggest to look more carefully on the diffs and to verify who exactly wrote each piece of the problematic text, who deserves a real topic ban, and who needs just a warning.
Similarly, regarding the evidence #2, the statement added by Mhorg seems quite relevant. The style of each edit is uniform: to the text saying that Denisova made a clam X, Mhorg adds that some politicians criticized Denisova for that claim. This criticism refers to the claim made by Denisova, and that claim is the very same claim that is presented in each of those articles. How can that be seen as "irrelevant"?
Frankly, I strongly recommend admins to carefully examine other evidences presented by MVBW, for virtually every statement made by this user may be problematic. As an example, I can provide this recent diff: [134] this user has removed three good sources, that were added by Mhorg previously [135]. MVBW claims these sources were SPS, but that is a lie: one source is a conference paper authored by an expert in the field, another one is a peer-reviewed publication cited 33 times, and the last one is the book cited 108 times. By removing this text, MVBW removed information about murder of Jews and of gentile 3000 civilian during WWII. Denial of the participation of some nationals in the Holocaust is considered as one of the forms of the Holocaust denial. Ironically, that was represented as an attempt to improve the Holocaust related article.
In connection to that, I have a question: if relatively minor misinterpretations made (or ostensibly made) by Mhorg, deserve a topic ban, what should be an adequate reaction on MVBW's misleading statements and removal of the information about the Holocaust made under deceptive edit summaries?
I fully understand that accusations of misbehaviour that lack evidences may be considered as a personal attack, and I declare that I do have enough evidences that support my general claim about MVBW's behaviour. I am ready to present them upon a request, but I cannot do that here, for they do not fit the 500 word limit.
In summary, I strongly suggest BOOMERANG.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is not my intention to go into the details of the situation around modern Ukrainian Nazi (and I even cannot tell for sure if they are real or perceived Nazi). In my opinion, during the ongoing war this topic should be edited very carefully (I prefer to to edit it at all). However, two facts seems obvious and non-questionable.
- 1. Many WWII time Ukrainian nationalists had strong ties with German Nazism, and they were active Holocaust perpetrators. Some modern Ukrainian nationalists consider WWII time Nazi collaborators and Holocaust perpetrators as "founding fathers" of Ukrainian statehood, and they expressed racist ideas.
- 2. Currently, many Ukrainian nationalists are fighting for freedom and independence of their country against Putin's invasion, and it is unclear to which extent they still support ideas of Nazism (if support at all).
- Clearly, any user who is editing in the Ukraine related area must do that very cautiously to avoid focusing too much on the first or the second aspect. And if we topic ban the users pushing just one of above described aspects (those who tries to emphasize the linkage of Ukrainian nationalists with Nazi collaboration, Holocaust ct=rimes and racism, or those who is trying to deemphasize such a linkage beyond any reasonable limits, thereby whitewashing real crimes and denying the Holocaust), we introduce a strong bias into this very controversial area.
- It cannot rule out a possibility that Mhorg's editorial style is strongly biased. I myself think we all should minimize editing this topic during the war, and do that only if that is absolutely necessary (and that is why I stopped editing). However, I do not see any strong evidences of Mhorg's disruptive activity in the evidences provided by MVBW. --Paul Siebert (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by TylerBurden
I have never commented on this page, but everything I have seen from Mhorg lines up with the concern that there is too much political motivation and bias at play with their edits. Mhorg was a strong advocate of the Azov Regiment being described in Wikivoice as a ″Neo-Nazi″ battalion(at the time, now called regiment) despite confliction amongst reliable sources which in my brief time on this site was the biggest and most blatant WP:NPOV mess I have seen. They would use questionable at best tactics such as striking an RFC option that unrelated people had voiced support for because the OP had been blocked afterwards to support this cause. They owed up to it on their talk page when it was called out, which is fair enough, but one only needs to take a look at their edit history to see that they spend most of their time on the site linking Ukranians with Nazism and other general anti-Ukranian POV edits. This would be one thing if they also made edits from the other perspective, but they don't. People who get in their way are accused of whitewashing 1 2. I agree that there is too much bias with this editor, and that they have an obvious POV that they are pushing above all others, Wikipedia is meant to be built on WP:NPOV and people like this are tearing that pillar down. Support topic ban. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Response to Mhorg: Accusing me of being a POV pusher in response to me calling out your (obvious) WP:TENDENTIOUS editing is a rather weak retort. In that RfC, I voted for the option covering both Nazi past/allegations, but without stating it in Wikivoice. You voted for a WP:NPOV violation. I think that, along with our edit histories would show that I am nothing like you. My frank opinion is that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, maybe you were at some point, but your mission here now is to push agendas and you're willing to use dirty tactics to do it, as seen by your misrepresentations and other antics. That's all I have to say about this. TylerBurden (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier
Normally I don't edit in this area, I accidentally ended up involved in the Azov battalion saga and interacting with some of the editors there. Mhorg has very forthright opinions but from my limited experience, he is not alone in that, there are those with equally strong opinions on the other side of the (Ukranian) fence, so to speak, things get heated from time to time. A warning to dial it back is certainly in order, any repetition, go to jail, do not pass go. Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Pravega
Tyler Burden's claim that Mhorg should be topic banned because he wanted to retain status quo on Azov Regiment by retaining "neo-nazi" in wikivoice is absurd. Even the RfC closure noted that such a view "received the most !votes, both in favor and against it".[136]
What I have seen until now is that Mhorg is in fact doing a great job with his editing and MVBW is causing disruption. I am describing all of that with proper diffs about the disputes where both MVBW and Mhorg were involved very recently.
1. A very good example of POV pushing, WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALLING by MVBW is on display at Talk:Alexei Navalny#Proposed addition to "Political position" section where he is trying to reject reliably sourced content without citing a policy-based reason. After he failed to justify his content removal, he asks "Why discuss it now?"
2. MVBW made the above responses only after he failed to turn BLPN against his opponents at Talk:Alexei Navalny. On BLPN he brings the issue as if editors were committing BLP violation and he is misrepresenting me, mhorg, and other editors to be engaging in an "effort to misrepresent Navalny as a far-right ultranationalist
." An uninvolved editor, Curbon7, noted there "I think you're misreading the room.
" Note that none of the participants were ever notified of the discussion as required by either informing in the existing talk page section or starting a new section to notify editors. This BLPN displays WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of MVBW.
3. MVBW's unnecessary edit warring to whitewash Alexie Navalny which is on 1RR.[137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145] MVBW is falsely claiming to have "consensus" by citing an RfC that was closed for being impractical with regards to the fate of the content. Only 2 users: MVBW and Alaexis are opposed to the content while 5 other editors (including this one) are in support and/or have no issue.[146]
4. Again, false claims of BLP violation on Alexei Navalny by MVBW. No users could find any "BLP violation" and MVBW after seeing lots of opposition himself tries to wiggle out by saying "If no one else thinks that was a BLP problem, let it stay.
"[147]
5. MVBW cites 100% correct edits by Mhorg above about Sparta Battalion (Mhorg was following WP:BRD to remove fake news promoting sources per consensus) but MVBW omits that he was violating WP:BLP by adding fake news sources (meawww) getting their information from WP:DAILYMAIL to Vladimir Zhoga on that same day by falsely claiming him to be a Nazi.[148]
6. Edit warring at Azov Regiment by trying a new edit every time.[149][150]
7. Back-to-back removal of highly acclaimed scholars such as Richard Sakwa, Stephen F. Cohen on Far-right politics in Ukraine and falsely claiming to have consensus on talk page to remove long-standing content.[151][152][153]
In all of the above disputes, Mhorg is the one complying with WP:BRD and WP:CON, while MVWB is engaging in clear misrepresentation of sources, rampant edit warring against consensus, false claims of gaining consensus, WP:IDHT and battleground mentality. I am also citing WP:CIR with regards to MVWB due to claims of BLP violation when none exists. So Dennis Brown, if anyone deserves a topic ban then that is MVWB for disruptive editing and making this report only to get rid of a far more sensible opponent in a content dispute.❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 15:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Mhorg
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I checked several sources, translated, and it does seem pretty clear that Mhorg is misrepresenting the sources, exaggerating the claims against Denisova. Topic ban is likely the only solution. I can only guess, but my best guess is there is a serious bias at play here, one that Mhorg can't overcome and be neutral about in this topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- My stance hasn't changed, but I will ping El_C who is likely familiar, for a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- As noted on my talk page, my interactions and actions wrt to these 2 disputants were over a year ago, events which I scarcely recollect (I've close literally tens and tens of AE reports during that time). As for the latest, I've reviewed little of anything, so am unable to opine at this time, one way or the other. El_C 20:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- My stance hasn't changed, but I will ping El_C who is likely familiar, for a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- To the person or persons who keeps emailing me about this case (I have not replied to any of these emails) — please stop. See my comment above. After one closes +50 AE reports in the course of a year, it isn't easy to remember individual cases. I don't have the time (or energy/stamina for that matter) to investigate this AE complaint, so I have nothing further to add atm, which is unlikely to change. Thanks. El_C 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)