SPECIFICO
Simply put, there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO for 48 hours as a standard admin action. Blocks serve two purposes, to stop disruption now and/or to act as a deterrent to undesirable behavior in the future. This block is obviously for the latter rather than the former. To be clear, SPECIFICO's final revert was against policy as breaking the Consensus Required restriction on the page. There was no BLP or other exemption under 3RRNO that could have applied, it was simply editorial preference. I don't think he is lying, but I do think he understood there was risk to the path he chose, and risks often have consequences. In this case, a block. While I'm quite sure this sanction is sure to displease everyone, and perhaps in equal measure but for different reasons, it was done after careful and long consideration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:23, 10 August 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 SPECIFICO
remedy the post-1992 American politics DS regime
Sorry I'm having problems with this form. The remedy instructions and exemptions says to report immediately here. SPECIFICO quite often reverts other peoples edits and then stop anyone putting in the change unless there's been extensive discussions or an RfC establishing clear consensus against them.
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOResponding to request of Dennis Brown: In case anyone is not aware, this complaint is the fourth concurrent open thread in which NadVolum has filed complaints against me, for whatever reasons. The others are, 1 2 3. All of these relate to the BLP articles in the Julian Assange orbit, where there have been ongoing BLP problems that I would say may be underlain by a few editors' insistent and unduly credulous acceptance of various narratives of Assange and his supporters -- even when acceptance conflict with WP content and sourcing policies. The community's lack of endorsement of any of those complaints does raise the possiblity that the current complaint is part of a campaign of forum shopping by OP to vent their personal frustration with me over content issues. For those who are not familiar with OP, this is a Single Purpose Account that has made very few edits outside of pages on Assange or setting the table to support content on the Assange page. There have been discusions on the article talk page for some time about the importance of trimming Assange's personal biography page so as to include only the significant details of his life (including those at Wikileaks) but not the actions of Wikileaks for which there is no content linking Assange to those action. Similar issues arise in many bio pages of public figures in politics and related fields. @Softlemonades: removed some such content, for which as far as I can tell no prior discussion that would privilege it as established consensus, and as I stated in my edit summary undoing OP's rapid reinsertion, I think there should have been talk page discussion prior to reinstating that content. It's evident that I think that's consistent with "consensus required" -- I would hardly cite own edit as a violation of the page restriction, as OP seems to claim. It is also evident (though not discussed in the past 6 months) that non-Assange but Wikileaks content creates BLP problems for this article. We should not be including every adventure and every scandal of Wikileaks as if it is Assange's hand at work or Assange's personal responsibility. OP has participated in at least one such discussion and is aware of various editors' BLP concerns One such discussion is here. This issue has come up many times. Softlemonades raised the issue on the talk page after she removed the content, which is what prompted my revert of OP's reinsertion. We also have OP very carelessly posting clearcut BLP violations on several occasions, e.g. when he stated as fact that Hillary Clinton wanted to kill Assange with a drone, offering a sheepish retraction at the bottom of this thread, saying he really didn't check into it. This followed a long discussion of the issue at the David Leigh (journalist) page and OP's own posting of related thread at BLPN. Finally, OP went straight to this AE complaint without even coming to my user talk page to voice his concern or warn me that such a complaint was imminent. I can't recall the last time a complaint was made on any editor no attempt at prior engagement. It wastes lots of editor and Admin resources. @Dennis Brown: Could you explain "out of process by the number of reverts"? I am not understanding that. My reading of the sequence is that Softlemonades challenged the BLP/Wikilinks content and then NadVolum reinstated it instead of going to talk. Meanwhile, when Softlemonades opened the talk thread, I undid what I believe was the out of process reinstatement of challenged article content (with the associated BLP issues). As I said in my edit summary, I think the reinstatement of the challenged content violated the page restriction "consensus required". SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Thanks for the reply. I am aware of that essay. In fact I made several edits to it a couple of years ago. However, there have been many discussions among longtime editors and among Admins in which that simplified rubrik is disputed or rejected, just as we have ongoing disagreement among Admins as to the definition of "revert". As you may know, there's current ongoing discussion of WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON at WT:V concerning the status of "longstanding" content that has not been positively affirmed consensus even though it's been in the article for a while. There is also discussion at talk page of the Consensus required essay. I don't think it's correct to state in absolute terms that my removal of the disputed content pending talk page was violating a consensus. Obviously, per my edit summary, I didn't think so at the time of the edit, and I am fairly experienced editing pages that require differentiating established consensus -- documented by prior talk page discussion, editing activity, or agreement in principle -- vs. content that's stayed in the article a while without much notice and attention. The Assange page's ongoing BLP issue viz a viz Wikileaks had been identified and repeatedly discussed on the talk page in the presence of OP. Editors never agreed, in effect, to transclude all of Wikileaks' controversies and alleged misdeeds into Assange's personal bio. As you already know, I do not agree that this Wikileaks content was consensus and I have not seen that essay treated as an absolute bright line, regardless of the content or circumstances. Anyway, that's why I did not hesitate to undo OP's reinstatement of the challenged content. And as I said, if he had informed me of his concern, I see no reason to think we would have ended up here at AE. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Thanks again for your reply. To be sure we are not talking past one another: No, I am not claiming there was consensus for anything. I said and still say there was no consensus for this BLP content that transcluded Wikileaks deeds and controversies onto the biography of Assange the man. Accordingly, when this was pointed out by Softlemonades and a discussion started on talk that it should have remained out. It's an ongoing problem that about half our editors would cite WP:ONUS to keep the problem text in the article as "implicit consensus" while half our editors would say to keep it out per ONUS. In this case, where there had been no affirmation of the content and the BLP problem had repeatedly been discussed and acknowledged, I felt that the immediate reinsertion without consensus in the talk page thread went against consensus required. Further, to be frank, it appears to have been another case of OP's long-voiced frustration and impatience with discussion and consensus-seeking on this page. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC) {ping|Ealdgyth}} I think it's begging the question to refer to my edit as "this kind of edit warring". I'm careful not to edit war, and I and others have pointed out the issue relating to BLP material -- and prior and current talk page discussions of same. I've tried to present my view of the issues of implicit Consensus and ONUS and the ongoing discussions on WT pages about what constitutes implicit consensus for longstanding text, and other factors. I was the editor who requested DS page restrictions on this article due to repeated edit warring. As Dennis Brown points out, the CR page is an essay from one point of view, not a policy. I read the CR restricton in the context of the community's views on consensus, which do not provide a bright line rule such as 1RR. It's evident that my understanding is not something I cooked up to deflect responsibility for disruptive edit warring, because I cited CIR in my edit summary for the diff in question. I do not believe that any WP Consensus policy is intended to lock down content, recent or longstanding, that has been reasonably challenged. That having been said, any Admin who rejects my understanding and concludes that my handling of the content issue was disruptive is empowered by DS to sanction me on their own discretion, regardless of my intention or anything I say here. So I don't know that it's helpfiul for me to go on at length or repeat myself about the article, BLP, consensus, etc. and I'll stop. I'll only add that it's clear to me that this was a vexatious complaint by NadVolum after they failed to get me sanctioned or my BLP concern rejected in the 3 other threads they had open at ANI and BLPN at the same time they filed this complaint. Moreover NadVolum openly flouts BLP -- that was the subject of their trip to BLPN regarding David Leigh (jouirnalist) -- they recently posted another BLP violation, linked above, saying Hillary Clinton wanted to kill Assange. These overt and implied BLP violations have come up over and over on this page and a minority of editors there do greatly frustrate many others who do not share our concerns. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: With considerable respect for your efforts, I don't think it's fair to conclude that I am "doubling down" by stating my understanding and documentation of Consensus and BLP issues regarding this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Comment by GoodDayWhich Arbcom case, is being requested to enforce? GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC) It's the red-link above, that's confusing me. Thus my question, which Arbcom case is being referred to? GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Ok, now I know which case. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Recommend the disputing editors open an RFC at the Julian Assange page, in order to clarify the consensus-in-question. If there's doubts about what that consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: If it hasn't already been restored. I recommend that you restore the content-in-question (i.e. undo your revert). Then seek a new consensus at the Assange talkpage, to have the content removed. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by AquillionUnless I'm misunderstanding the situation... per WP:BLPRESTORE, in situations where BLP does apply, the default when there is a conflict over BLP-sensitive material is to leave it out, not in. This is a specific exception to the usual WP:BRD procedure and the way we handle WP:NOCON situations. In order to restore the text in question you would have to argue that it is not BLP sensitive or that there is an existing consensus for it, and even then, one revert removing it wouldn't normally be WP:AE-worthy. The "teeth" of WP:BLPDS - the stuff that calls for an immediate AE action even from one or two bad edits - is intended for things that could potentially harm the reputation of article's subject. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Mr ErnieThat isn't how it works and SPECIFICO knows it, as they were topic banned about two years ago for almost the exact same thing.. An editor removed long standing text (which implies it had consensus to be there), NadVolum reverts it back in, and SPECIFICO reverts it back out insisting on a new consensus. If SPECIFICO's edit summary was valid, it would give editors license to revert stuff they don't like out of controversial articles and require new, fresh discussions to find consensus for it to go back in, regardless of how longstanding it was. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by NadVolumIn response to Aquillon, there is no BLP issue. Neither the person who originally removed the text nor SPECIFICO said there was a BLP issue and it has been around for a long time. In the discussion by the original person on the talk page Talk:Julian_Assange#Why_list_things_Assange_wasnt_actively_involved_in? you can see they talked about why if this was okay wasn't it okay to list all the major scandals and criticisms of Wikileaks too and I pointed to WP:BLPPUBLIC for that. They said at the end of the back and forth that their problem was bloat - which I can sympathize with to some extent but this is not the way to deal with that. NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC) In response to Gooday, I was following the instructions on the talk page under "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"
So that's what I did. It isn't as if SPECIFICO hasn't removed new text and warned people against adding it again and often an RfC is needed to establsh consensus before it can be put in. I think I'd prefer it left the way it was before and any discussion be about removing the long standing text instead. NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC) In reponse to Mr Ernie. It sounds a bit in what you say like I was involved in that previous discussion. I wasn't and didn't even know abot that. I looked up SPECIFICO's log when raising this and I didn't see anything about it. NadVolum (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC) In response to Guerillero, I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking for. Discretionary sanctions as talked about at the top of this page sounds fine to me or is there a list of possible sanctions I should try to choose from thanks? NadVolum (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Thank you very much Jéské Couriano. Yes that sounds right, I see that WP:ARBAPDS was linked to in that text on the article talk page. NadVolum (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC) In response to SPECIFICO I guess people can check most of it themselves but about the BLP violation I changed a sentence which had just been inserted saying "WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to share a claim by Assange that Hillary Clinton had wanted to attack him with drones." Assange did not claim that bit of conspiracy theory. The source cited this other conspiracy site that I did not recognize as such. This had nothing to do with anything else. And yes I did come here straight. SPECIFICO does not edit in a collegiate manner. they are very non-neutral on the topic [1], and slags off editors that don't agree and engages in canvassing [2]. Worse than that I think they are a clear case of following WP:DE like a rulebook. fFr instance one of those things they complained above about me going to ANI was them not bothering to give a decent reply about what BLP problem they were supposed to be fixing with their edits[3]. And they couldn't be bothered to find a source and said the actions of a grand jury are SKYBLUE in another.[4] NadVolum (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Here is a previous discussion in December 2021 in which SPECIFIO talked about removing non-biographic content Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_35#Trimming_and_relocation_of_non-biographic_content. They removed all mention of the US diplomatic cables incident after stopping inclusion about the unredacted files and password being released. The content has finally been included after an RfC, see Julian_Assange#Release_of_US_diplomatic_cables which covers that content complete with the unredacted cables. As to going to their talk page and asking for a revert - I haven't seen anything here about being sorry they made a mistake or would have reverted! NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC) I am not sure why admins are so unwilling to do anything about SPECIFICO. Maybe you think they are doing a good job stopping Julian Assange's followers turning his article into a hagiography and biasing any connected articles? If that was just what SPECIFICO was doing I certainly wouldn't object. But they seem to be acting out of hate for Assange and determined to do anything they can to remove anything that might be in his favor even when well documented and obviously relevant and due. And that includes disruptive editing techniques to try and get their way and remove editors they don't like. NadVolum (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Jéské CourianoBased on the linked DS alert and the talk page notice referred to, I have to assume this is being filed under AP2 as the case and the post-1992 American politics DS regime as the remedy. @NadVolum:, when you file a request here, you are obligated to link the case and specify the remedy you're filing under. (For bans under DS, link to the DS authorisation and the ban notice/thread.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersI encourage SPECIFICO to admit, as quickly as possible, that their understanding of the CR restriction was incorrect. I hope to see NadVolum commit to politely bringing up possible 1RR or CR violations at the offending user's talk page before bringing the issue to the next step of conduct dispute resolution. It would help if we discussed formalizing the CR restriction and including a link to the explanatory essay WP:Consensus required in any talk page banners or edit notices, as the text commonly used (and used at Talk:Julian Assange) is not explicit about how removal is handled. Assuming SPECIFICO and NadVolum can both own up to handling this imperfectly, I ask that admins refrain from sanctions in this matter and nudge us all to move on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by ActivelyDisinterestedEeurgh I came across this and was involved with the discussion on the talk page. I'm unsure if there was a BLP issue here, but the content was definitely highly skewed to paint as much blame on the articles subject as possible. I would still object to the content as is because of that (although that's not relevant here). It doesn't look like this is the only page with this issue. I dropped out once it became apparent that we were just going in circles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by NableezyThe number of times I see a report and think you know if you just apologize and say my understanding was wrong and Ill be mindful to make sure I follow the rules as you have just patiently explained them to me this would be closed without even a logged warning, but if youre going to argue no Im right and this is why youre going to get sanctioned increases by one more. Oh, and you could still probably say that and this would still probably be closed with at most a logged warning to be mindful of the CR restriction. nableezy - 14:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SPECIFICO
|
Kendall Clarks
It would be better if more admin would participate and I were not closing so many of these, but this is pretty obvious and their insisting on continuing to edit after it was pointed out makes it a simple matter. They have used to talk page but have refused to discuss this issue at hand. It seems they were filed on at AE once, but someone withdrew it after they started using the talk page. (see editor's talk page.) Unquestionably, they know and understand the restriction but refuse to abide by it. Blocked one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:28, 11 August 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 Kendall Clarks
Users that edit Arab-Israeli content must have 500 edits, this user does not, in the following diffs he is editing A-I content:
Was told at his talkpage by two separate users that he is not allowed to edit A-I content:[17] yet he has now continued to do so after previously violating the 500/30 rule and also violated the 1rr and 3rr in July.
Discussion concerning Kendall ClarksStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kendall ClarksStatement by GoldenRingUser clearly not 500/30 qualified. Appears to be attempting to argue that Druze is not under ARBPIA sanctions eg this edit but the talk page has the ARBPIA template there, right at the top. @Kendall Clarks: I'd suggest apologising and abandoning editing in this area or a block to enforce the sanction seems the only option. This is now for the second time of asking. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Kendall Clarks
|
Ghazaalch
Ghazaalch is warned against personalizing discussions. Further such behavior will likely lead to more severe sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 12 August 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 Ghazaalch
Ghazaalch makes up WP:ASPERSIONS in RFCs against other editors: "... What Ghazaalch is saying about me here is false (despite Ghazaalch's baseless character attack, I made edits to the PMOI article in February [19][20], and in its talk page on May [21] and June [22][23], and have also edited other articles in this area although most of my edits are in the FaWiki). This is poisoning the well and can wrongly influence consensus of RFCs.
I know there were other AE cases, but don't know if there are sanctions.
Like others are discerning, the problem is not only referencing other editors as "
Discussion concerning GhazaalchStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GhazaalchThis tool shows that NMasiha's first appearance in 2022 in this page was to vote in an RFC and has continued this job till now. I am not talking about other pages. So there are different accounts here with different jobs. NMasiha's job was to vote, Iraniangal777's job was to revert, TheDreamBoat's job was to edit on behalf of the blocked users and so on. (see Stefka Bulgaria, BarcrMac and Idealigic for the pro-MeK users who were topic-banned before the new ones Fad Ariff, TheDreamBoat, Hogo-2020 and Iraniangal777 emerged). Concerning RFCs being an ideal place for pro-MeK users, see El C's comment here where they talk about a Here I am quoting Vice regent's objection to another RFC attempt that aimed at removing cult description([30]):
Here is another objection by another user([31]):
Statement by MarioGom
This part is a well established pattern by now [33]. Although, to the best of my knowledge, there's been not enough presented evidence about the participation of currently active and non-(p)blocked users in the off-wiki coordination that has been going on for years in the page. MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Iraniangal777Disagreeing with Ghazaalch in those RfCs is enough to qualify anyone as a " Muddling RfCs with Ad hominems like this (or disrupting the natural development of RfCs [34][35][36][37][38][39], or edit-warring while using trumped-up edit summaries [40][41] - all of which were noted in my last report about Ghazaalch) nullifies any meaningful attempt to solve a content dispute in that talk page. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Iskandar323Ghazaalch is not wrong that the bent of the many recent and often bad RFCs on the page has been tendentious in the extreme. Without exception they have been geared towards drastically cutting out material that portrays the PMOI/MEK in a negative light. Now why anybody would be that fixated on this is beyond my ken (even if one is doggedly anti-Islamic regime for instance, that hardly requires one to embrace this particularly dubious opposition group), but fixated some editors do indeed seem to be - and this is of course why an arbitration intervention imposing discretionary sanctions became necessary in the first place (the material on cult-like attributions was equally one of the prime movers of the original arbitration). And when there are individual editors being so transparently tendentious in favour of the MEK, the term "pro-MEK" is not much of a stretch or an aspersion, at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Hogo-2020@Ghazaalch, stop pinging my name with baseless accusations. I have nothing to do with other editors. Hogo-2020 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ghazaalch
|
Zekelayla
Very obvious situation, previously blocked under ARBPIA, blocked 48 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 13 August 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 Zekelayla
N/A
The last time this user was actively editing they were also trying to remove a widely acknowledged description of a pro-Israel thinktank, [42], [43]. That resumed yesterday. The user was asked to self-revert twice, they have so far declined to do so. I think an article ban would be sufficient, the disruption has been focused on this one article since December. Note the user is continuing to revert. nableezy - 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC) 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Notified Discussion concerning ZekelaylaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ZekelaylaI engaged in a single revert (what nableezy calls "revert 3") to remove from the lede material which another user had already pointed out came from a notoriously controversial book. Zekelayla (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Zekelayla
|
Zenzyyx
Zenzyyx is indefinitely topic banned from the subjects of Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:19, 14 August 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 Zenzyyx
Discussion concerning ZenzyyxStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ZenzyyxFirstly, I had already addressed the concerns of an admin[52] that the ANI report was TLDR.[53] I had also explained kindly to the admin who was concerned that the report had little foundational basis why I disagreed with them.[54]
It is obvious which user has been wrongfully edit warring and disruptively editing (kindly see the ANI report for more information). Thanks. zenzyyx (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC) References
@Seraphimblade: Hi Seraphim, I appreciate your viewpoint on this. I have explained why I reverted four times in the Ashure article; by virtue of being a recent changes patroller, I have dealt with a lot of vandalism like this before. I had suspected (and still do) that there was a case of IP sockpuppetry possibly involving a tag team in that article, with three different IP users suddenly appearing and removing content, pushing their POV (which I have proved in my statement). I am definitely not of the view that "warring is okay as long as you're really sure you're right". Thanks again. zenzyyx (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Hi Dennis, thanks for the message. I can see where I may have acted in haste when the short description was changed from "Anatolian dessert" to "sweet pudding", but that seemed like the most accurate definition when you take the article into account. The short information I added in the infobox was stated/confirmed in the first paragraph of "history and traditions". Removing it made no sense and was POV pushing, as evidenced by three separate IP users suddenly disruptively editing the article to get their POV across (possibly anti-Turkish sentiment, not very sure. Also claiming that Mount Ararat is not in Anatolia[67] [68] [69] when it clearly states in the mountain's article that it is, and then asking me to provide sources that Mount Ararat is in Anatolia, in an article that is about a dessert...[70] Honestly laughable). A topic ban for this, in my opinion, is overkill. Thanks again. zenzyyx (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Zenzyyx
|
Mark612
Mark612 has been indefinitely blocked by Doug Weller as a normal admin action, so nothing is left to do here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:30, 14 August 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 Mark612
And continuing now.
N/A
Possibly just needs a block to be made aware if they are not seeing the talk page notices, but even if he had 500 edits these edits are all WP:TE. Regardless, sustained violations of the EC required provision
Notified Discussion concerning Mark612Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mark612Comment by GoodDay@Mark612: has gone way over the 3RR rule, on a few pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by PraxidicaeThey've now attempted to remove this report as well. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mark612
|
Mili977
Indefinitely blocked, with the first month of the block being an arbitration enforcement action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:24, 14 August 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 Mili977
Discussion concerning Mili977Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mili977Because I give due references to the edits I make. I request you to reconsider this matter Statement by (username)Result concerning Mili977
|
SCNBAH
SCNBAH has been blocked as an Icewhiz sock by Tamzin, so nothing is left to do here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:01, 16 August 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 SCNBAH
N/A
Note that there isnt a single source for the idea this was a Hezbollah attack, but regardless Hezbollah is a primary article in the ARBPIA topic and all edits related to it are covered by 500/30. The article has the edit notice and talk page notice for related content, and the user was warned about this material specifically. Also note that a number of users with a handful of edits have returned after year+ long absences to become active in this dispute, eg SCNBAH and Smoking Ethel
Dennis, it was in there before, removed several times in fact. The first reinsertion was just a revert of my removal here. Which was followed by another revert of an edit by me. nableezy - 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Notified Discussion concerning SCNBAHStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SCNBAHStatement by ResearcherI will not defend SCNBAH's edits as I have not checked the sources they used or their edits. However, User:Dennis Brown, this is very large expansion of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Stabbing of Salman Rushdie has nothing to do with Israel, it is not part of the conflict. The claim that any edit mentioning Hezbollah in a context other than the conflict is a large overreach. Are 2022 Lebanese general election or 17 October Revolution, internal Lebanese affairs which involve Hezbollah, now conflict protected everywhere they mention Hezbollah? Hezbollah is a large player with 19.89% of the vote. Is every article on and in Israel now covered by the conflict? There are tens of thousands of Israeli biographies, institutions, organizations, sports, and so on that have nothing to with the conflict but they do mention Israel throughout. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning SCNBAH
|