Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OrcaLord
| The matter is a content dispute, which AE does not decide. If the discussion has reached an impasse or become circular/repetitive, those involved should consider dispute resolution such as a request for comments. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:57, 31 March 2024 (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 OrcaLord
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
Editor was previously blocked from editing this page for disruptive editing and edit warring as linked above. In their first return to the article, the editor has argued strenuously for inclusion of original research that violates biography of living persons policy refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK in conjunction with suspected meatpuppetry organized on Twitter by repeated sockpuppet Thespeedoflightneverchanges. Has also discussed how to wikilawyering regarding this page on Twitter: "Sometimes there are small things in it that you can use to make your point/negate their point" which is more combative/warfare than collaboration to improve encyclopedia. Editor's contributions outside of this article are positive from what I can tell, however, they've previously been noted to be part of a group of "anti-Slotkin Twitter editors" who admin Muboshgu has noted are looking to influence the article with POV-pushing. Red-tailed hawk: I do think repeatedly making the same point to myself, Drmies, and XeCyranium rises to the level of bludgeoning. I'll try to put together difs tomorrow before work on Monday -- been super busy off-Wiki -- but I think that reading through the convo will lead you to the same conclusion… Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning OrcaLordStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OrcaLordWP:DROPTHESTICK is obviously not applicable here. This is an active discussion with no achieved consensus yet. Dcpoliticaljunkie has been a consistent aggressor on both the Elissa Slotkin talk page and in many other areas, often making destructive edits to the Elissa Slotkin page without consensus, as well as accusing anyone who disagrees with him of meatpuppetry. The fact that Dcpoliticaljunkie is bringing up my previous ban on the page for edit warring is just further evidence that this request is an attempt to silence my position on the talk page, as I have already committed to no longer editing the Elissa Slotkin article after the ban, instead solely focusing on the talk page. Regarding the mention of my tweet, Dcpoliticaljunkie is clearly misinterpreting what I meant. What I meant is that it is important to take all parts of a rule into account when determining how to deal with a situation. My goal in talking on the Elissa Slotkin talk page has always been to ensure what is best for the quality of the article, and I have never acted in bad faith on the talk page. If you look at my account history, I have consistently made positive edits to Wikipedia, including the addition of thousands of detailed maps to Wikipedia. Considering my history, it should be very clear that I have always intended to make a positive difference throughout Wikipedia, including on the Elissa Slotkin talk page. Statement by andrew.robbinsIf anyone needs to drop the stick here, its you, DCPJ. The suspected meatpuppetry you linked was archived without a ruling. Using it as evidence of violations is, ironically, bludgeoning. Mapping out viewpoints to sources is not OR. Arguing for the inclusion of a quote in the absence of consensus isn't POV pushing. DCPJ has been reporting any user that disagrees with their positions on that talk page. This has been going for over a week now and needs to stop. Statement by XeCyraniumI'm just commenting here because I was pinged. I can't say whether or not Orcalord has broken rules on the talk page, only that they certainly haven't been arguing in good faith from a desire to improve the article. Their statements on the talk page are so obviously slanted towards trying to tarnish, however slightly, the reputation of the article subject regardless of what sources say that it's become a waste of time to keep engaging with them. Luckily nobody who wasn't an obvious meatpuppet with 13 total edits agreed with their POV-pushing, so I'm not sure how much damage they're doing. XeCyranium (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by JayBeeEllHow many times can one person say the same thing? About once every day for two weeks, it seems: 3/16 3/18 3/19 3/19 3/20 3/20 3/21 3/21 3/22 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/27 3/27 3/27. OrcaLord has made six other posts in the same discussion since 3/16; they are all related to the same argument, but differ slightly in their emphasis from these. During that time period, all other editors combined have made fewer than 40 comments total. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning OrcaLord
|
A Wider Lens
| A Wider Lens blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin action) for WP:NOTHERE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:48, 4 April 2024 (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 A Wider Lens
On the talk page me and Sirfurboy have attempted to explain to A Wider Lens that what they are doing is WP:OR. They have not sought consensus, but have ignored us. They state repeatedly that they are adding the DSM IV quote due to Graham Linehan making the connection between it and Skoptic syndrome on the talk page and have ignored us noting that's not a reliable source. The text they add to the article has so far only been 1) uncited, 2) cited to an unreliable source, or 3) cited to a source that doesn't support it. Upon reviewing their contributions, I realized that they had been given the Netherlands equivalent of a GENSEX ban for exactly the same behavior. Having checked out their articles on the Netherlands Wikipedia (as they frequently link to them on English Wikipedia as things to consider when updating ours), I cannot understate how terrifying it is how many of them rely on Genspect and other FRINGE advocacy groups as a source and editors are still working to undo the damage they've done. I believe this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and should be banned from GENSEX. They have continued the same POV-pushing, WP:OR, and WP:RGW that they were recently banned for, and I concur with those who weighed in at the Netherlands wiki that it is a waste of editor time to review all their edits due to their consistent misuse of sources and blatant desire to promote WP:FRINGE viewpoints in trans and/or trans healthcare related articles. On an additional note, their username may be a violation of our username policy, as it is the name of a Genspect podcast and on their talk page A Wider Lens stated this was because they were a fan. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Notified 13:04, 31 March 2024
Discussion concerning A Wider LensStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by A Wider Lens(request for more than 500 words)
(Redacted)
(Redacted)
Statement by SirfurboyAWS' responses here will speak for themselves. My only comment is to say that, based on talk page discussion at the article to date, I do not believe they have the competence required to edit an article such as this. They don't seem to understand sourcing requirements, nor even how to cite a source. I am not convinced they understand why secondary sources are required, and I don't think they are reading the sources. I note below that they may have talked themself into an indefinite block. However, if they can avert that, I would suggest that they may want to seek mentoring and a much less controversial topic to cut their teeth on, and where they can learn to edit. A TBAN would make sense until they are able to demonstrate editing competence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning A Wider Lens
Clerking noteI've moved Special:Diff/1216559418 and Special:Diff/1216560043 to the section corresponding to respondent. I've added links to the original diffs, so that context for what comments they were responding to can be viewed with a click. For those of us who are newer here, we don't do threaded discussion at AE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
Burrobert
| Archived automatically without action on 15 April 2024 after a week of no new comments. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 03:52, 3 May 2025 (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 Burrobert
There are two specific changes here that are disputed and per the "consensus required" restriction applied to this article, require consensus:
There is a discussion on the talk page about this, and Burrobert says that this establishes consensus for his changes, but I disagree:
For both, I am the only editor opposing in the current discussion. I have requested they self-revert and they have refused.
Discussion concerning BurrobertStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BurrobertHere is my interpretation of the sequence of events:
Statement by NadVolumIt's strange this was brought againt Burrobert since I made the more recent changes. I only found this because I was mentioned above. As far as I can see the changes I made all follow the RfC. Exactly how long are editors on Wikipedia supposed to hang around waiting for BilledMammal to show up again in a discussion or to complain about their edits being changed
Statement by TarnishedPathI was involved in that RfC and I can't for the life of me see any wrongdoing by Burrobert. BM has not presented any diffs that show any editing that is not in line with the RfC close. Unless there's additional diffs to be presented which show anything else I don't see that there's anything to be answered here. TarnishedPathtalk 09:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by FortunateSonsI was uninvolved in the original dispute, but got added here because I (in my opinion, appropriately) requested the assistance of a more experienced user in addition to an admin when encountering a conduct-dispute. As I did not edit the disputed articles here and chose not to file the request, I see no relationship between me and the action at hand and would kindly request clarification from NadVolum what exactly my request regarding him has to do with this, as well as to strike any aspersions against me. In particular, now as I gained more experience, I still believe that the comments made by BilledMammal are both appropriate and deescalatory. FortunateSons (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Burrobert
|
Jaymailsays
| There is consensus for an indefinite block of Jaymailsays. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2024 (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 Jaymailsays
Notified at 18:19, March 10, 2024
Largely based on this BBC article (and earlier articles in the Belfast Telegraph and Newsletter), the editor is attempting to relitigate the lengthy Bloody Sunday Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (1972). None of the sources in any way suggest this verdict should be in any way looked at again, so additions such as "the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled" and "based on the evidence available at the time" are totally unacceptable, since it should be blatantly obvious that a video of someome in March 1972 isn't evidence of what they were doing on a particular date in January 1972.
Discussion concerning JaymailsaysStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jaymailsays
Statement by MandrussAt the risk of hijacking an AE complaint—this comment is not about The Troubles, but Seraphimblade has already opened this door below—their brief participation at Talk:Donald Trump has been... unimpressive, disappointing. They were asked to strike the PA in that last one, but have so far ignored that (in my view, that constitutes doubling down on the PA, which is even more serious). If they were to suddenly disappear, I wouldn't miss them. But at least they didn't edit war, credit where credit's due. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by IgnatiusofLondonEchoing Seraphimblade and Mandruss, I believe there is a WP:CIR issue that extends beyond the scope of AE. I interacted with the editor at Where is Kate?, a BLP article, where the editor continually added WP:UNDUE content (1, 2), extensive citations of routine statements/comments (3, 4, 5), which sometimes broke the prose's grammar (6, 7), and generally unreliable sources (per WP:RSP) or sources of unknown reliability that likely violate WP:BLPGOSSIP (8, 9, 10, 11). A minority of their contributions to the article were uncontested. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Jaymailsays
|
Zilch-nada
| Zilch-nada is warned to assume good faith and maintain civility in discussions, and to better listen to other editors during discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2024 (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 Zilch-nada
Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Clarifying about diff 9: after a third party politely requested they retract the personal attack, they declined to do so. (They have, eventually, struck the attack, but only after this discussion was opened.) --JBL (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zilch-nadaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zilch-nada(I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.) As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations. I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors. Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick". Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SangdeboeufI also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BeccaynrOn 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk , , about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism. Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk . From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered , and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction. I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants . Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC) I think the discussions linked above at Talk:Isla Bryson case and WT:MOS are likely better appreciated if read in full, but some diffs from Zilch-nada at Talk:Isla Bryson case include 00:41, 15 December 2023 Zilch-nada has indicated an interest in the gender article lead, and the second diff in my statement here has three diffs of some of my experience discussing the lead with Zilch-nada. I previously participated in discussions about the lead, and from my view, collaboration and consensus were possible because ultimately, the discussions were not a battleground. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by AquillionSome relevant bits from an exchange I had with Zilch-nada from the MOS discussion mentioned above, regarding the Isla Bryson case: When I objected to their use of scare-quotes around "she" for a trans woman, they said these things:
When I explained to them that BLPTALK applies even to people who have done terrible things:
I think these speak for themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Zilch-nada
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bakbik1234
| Appeal declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Bakbik1234I'm ethnically Jewish but it doesn't mean that my coverage of the conflict can't be neutral. I write everything from a neutral point of view that would be described as "liberal" by both neo-Zionists and neo-antisemites. Statement by Doug WellerStatement by 331dotDoug Weller I thought you issued the ban. I think I just pointed it out later. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Bakbik1234Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jéské CourianoYour personal POV is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not a topic-ban is justified; what matters is your behaviour in the topic area. It isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. This appeal completely misses the forest for the trees. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Bakbik1234
|
Kashmiri
| Kashmiri topic banned for one week by Callanecc. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2024 (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 Kashmiri
Violated WP:1RR at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza:
Discussion concerning KashmiriStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KashmiriStatement by (username)Result concerning Kashmiri
|
Rp2006
| As ArbCom has stated they have private evidence relevant to this request, it will be moved to WP:ARCA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:44, 16 April 2024 (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 Rp2006
After at least 5 warnings, both on their talk page and at AE, topic ban violations continue. I've been wearing kid's gloves with my handling of this, but after years of violations and warnings I think we've reached the point where something more concrete should be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Rp2006Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rp2006My understanding was - due the perceived violation of rules on two BLPs of two people of interest to the skeptic community - one a self-professed medium, and another a science communicator who renounced the title skeptic) that the ban's intention was to prevent two things. One being me putting negative material (although true) on BLPs of those investigated or debunked by skeptics (such as the aforementioned "medium"), and the other to avoid promoting skeptics on their own BLPs. I have avoided doing either in the years since the ban was initiated. It was my impression from the start that the ban was over-reaching, and even worse, vague -- and so I was likely to unintentionally violate it if I kept editing Wikipedia at all. And as my goal is still to improve the encyclopedia, that is just what happened as I keep editing. In some cases I just wasn't thinking - as in the Paulides case where I added some citations I think. After being warned I gladly reverted saying: "Oops. Ya got me. I (erroneously) think of Paulides page as a topic page and not a BLP because the important content is all about the 411 conspiracy theory he invented and perpetuates -- and not Paulides himself. And 411 were what my edits were addressing... new info about that. This topic really should be a separate page BTW! But yes, it's my error... So, I will revert!" Most of the other violations were also things I had not considered relevant... discussion on talk pages and the like, and mentioning a person on a topic page. Most recently this adding relevant information on Havana Syndrome's Talk (an article I have edited almost since its creation) regarding discussing an actual scientist's perspective (he does not call himself a skeptic) on his area of expertise. IMHO, the ban wording "edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed" is confusingly broad. This could - I suppose - depending on POV, include everyone from Trump, to RFK Jr., to Taylor Swift (there are conspiracies about her), and also include every living scientist, politician, medical professions, outspoken celebrity, etc... Who in this day and age is NOT of interest to scientific skepticism? What topic? It’s virtually impossible to write on any topic I am interested in (science) and not have someone claim I violated my ban. I was frankly surprised that I’ve written or greatly expanded many new articles (no BLPs, but all mention people “of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed”) since the ban and no one -- not even SFR -- claimed these were a violation. These include (King of Clones, Virulent: The Vaccine War, How to Become a Cult Leader, MH370: The Plane That Disappeared, Waco: American Apocalypse, The Phenomenon, Satan Wants You. This vague ban gives me (or someone similarly affected) no clear way to know where the lines are, and the likelihood of crossing lines unintentionally is high. That this ban even included, according to SFR, updating an existing and outdated BLP article (someone has since published one) in my own sandbox (with a minor note), and adding a WikiProject banner on a BLP Talk page, is beyond insane. That anyone should assume such edits are included in such a ban is unreasonable, and that he even thought to list these here shows his state of mind. This ban's vagueness gives wide ranging power to anyone wanting to slap me down. I believe this applies to SFR who was one of the two editors who essentially prosecuted the case against me, and since becoming an admin, has pursued his animosity towards me with at every turn, despite the "kid's gloves" claim just made here. Let me close by stating that I believe I have not made any edits anywhere near close to the few edits that caused my ban in the first place in all the time that has passed since, and THAT should be what is considered now. My goal is and always has been to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a list of "gotchas" from SFR as a reason to extend or deepen the ban seems unfair. In fact, if it is agreed that I am correct in that assessment, the ban should be lifted at this point. Rp2006 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by tgeorgescuIf they want to be judged by ARBCOM, admins should oblige. Note that I don't think that it is wise to want be judged by ARBCOM, just that it is a choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Rp2006
|
Abhishek0831996
| Consensus is that this is essentially a content dispute with some conduct issues which do not rise to the level of requiring administrative action. All parties are reminded to follow editorial and behavioral best practice if they wish to avoid sanctions in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (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 Abhishek0831996
I have seen Abhishek0831996 occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an {{unreliable source?}} tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, Haani40. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless. Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent. Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)
Abhishek0831996's responses to the issues raised here continue to make red herring arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible. For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in The Hindu and a news article in the The Guardian. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of justifying the improper deletion of an {{unreliable source?}} tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. Neither of these has been done. As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves. On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Abhishek0831996
It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (Haani40)I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 who Kautilya3 is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that Kautilya3 has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of User_talk:Capitals00
Statement by Capitals00Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE, and even WP:CIR. While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own original thoughts by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes. This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the worst meaning of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts against their will on the cited pages. I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed. Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (Bookku)I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest.
I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all. Statement by (User name)Result concerning Abhishek0831996
|
Havana syndrome
| Eyes requested. This is not the venue for discussion. I've fully protected the article for a month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am hoping that some uninvolved administrators can review Havana syndrome and determine if:
The article was fully protected for two weeks, by EdJohnston, from 5 April to 19 April. Within a day of the protection's expiration, edit warring had resumed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Haani40
| Haani40 blocked as a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (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 Haani40
What is more surprising, that the last diff came after this clear-cut topic ban warning by Bishonen on his talk page. This user has actually misrepresented the sources with this edit as correctly observed by another admin (Cordless Larry). Even after this all, he is still arguing on the article's talk page that how his edits are not WP:BLP violation. While this user is overly enthusiastic about these controversial topics, I believe the inputs and warnings on his talk page have so far ended up getting ignored by him. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Haani40Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Haani40At WP:DR, it says, " However, there was no edit war nor any discussion on any article's talk page or my talk page about these edits by the filer. Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the first diff: That was copied from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article (which someone else had added in that article). Srijanx22 then reverted it. In the mean time, an admin (Vanamonde93) removed it from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article for some reason and so, I did not edit war over it in either the Anti-Hindu sentiment article, nor in the Indian reunification article (I did not add it back). Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the second diff:- That was reverted by an admin (RegentsPark) and I did not add it back Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the third diff:- That was reverted by a Rollbacker, TheWikiholic and I did not add it back Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the fourth diff:- I asked at the WP:Teahouse and added that with reliable sources but since it was reverted, I didn't add it back and started a discussion on the Talk page of the article (see this) where the consensus was against adding it (however, only one experienced editor who had reverted it responded to the question if it was acceptable and the filer of this AE was not a part of that discussion at all). I have abided by that consensus. I have been extra careful about my edits after the warning by an admin (Bishonen) on my Talk page and have asked for clarification at the Teahouse before my next edit. After that was reverted and discussed on the Talk page of the article and the consensus was to avoid adding it, I didn't add it back. I have understood why my edits were reverted and apologise for it. I shall learn, improve and avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, I will ask some experienced editor or maybe at the WP:Teahouse before making any edit I feel is going to cause a problem. I have not received any warning by the filer ever before. The filer may be sanctioned as per WP:BOOMERANG
Statement by (Bookku)I observed Haani40 as uninvolved editor form Abhishek0831996 case (still on this board while commenting here), there after I tried to give some mentorship like peer advice. I concur with OP that User:Haani40 seems overly enthusiastic about some controversial topics. They seem to pick some part of advice and overlook some. I doubt similar mistakes might be happening while interpreting the sources due to haste. Some of this mistakes may happen from any new user. Hence I had advised Haani40 to not edit in these topic areas at least for couple of months. I suppose after my advice User:Haani40 should have got opportunity un til they do not repeat the mistake. There is specific WP:DDE protocol for such cases that too has not been complied before coming to ARE. In any case the case is on board so I feel let us observe Haani40 for 8-10 days by keeping this open, then take the call whether to leave them with warning or Haani40 deserves Topic Ban for some months.
@@Haani40: Here in this edit of yours you attributed me but did not ping. In above guidance I suggested to use WP:DDE but did not ask to go after OP. You should have read my advice to Abhishek0831996 ".. at WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. ..". Read: time to stop digging and drop the stick. To regain the confidence of the community you need to promise and prove yourself by working in non-contentious areas without any controversy. Last but not least, going after OP or biting good faith advisors itself is last thing to help you. Bookku (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Haani40
|
Grandmaster
| No action necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (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 Grandmaster
In both discussions, Grandmaster did not even contest the final point of the last user and just abandoned the discussions. Yet months later, after the activity quieted down, Grandmaster changed the established wordings again as if they hadn't been explicitly by a consensus which Grandmaster is aware of and took part in. Vanezi (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GrandmasterStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GrandmasterRegarding removal of Ocampo from the lead, I just followed the standard WP:BRD, and started a discussion at talk. I was advised to not rv more than once, and this is a single revert that I made. Vanezi reverted me with no edit summary other than "rv", and did not join the discussion that I started. Regarding the change of the word "disputed" to "denied", I indeed forgot about the previous discussions from the last year. We had many discussions with multiple archives on 3 related articles, so it is hard to keep track of what exactly was discussed a few months ago. I was going to rv myself when I saw the report here, but Vanezi already did. Previously the admins advised us to ask the other party to rv themselves if their edits are disputed, and only escalate if the other party refuses to cooperate. This is what I did when Vanezi themselves made an edit against the consensus. The closing admin confirmed that there was a violation of the consensus, and Vanezi self-reverted. If Vanezi had notified me of my mistake, I would have reverted myself, but Vanezi never contacted me at my or the article talk. I always try to resolve any dispute by following the dispute resolution process, as one can see from all the WP:DR processes that I started, and I would certainly do so again if I was alerted about present or past disagreements with my edits. Grandmaster 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC) It should also be noted that there is an SPI case on the filer open over a month ago, and until that is formally closed, it is unclear if they are allowed to post here. Grandmaster 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Grandmaster
|
Nicoljaus
| Blocked indefinitely, first year covered under AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2024 (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 Nicoljaus
When requested to self revert, commented "Oh, I'm so sorry. I need to bring in this area a couple of friends to make reverts instead ne.".
Discussion concerning NicoljausStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NicoljausStatement by BilledMammalThere’s a 1RR violation here that needs to be reverted, but there also appears to be a lot of recent edit warring by all parties in the article. I’m also concerned by the removal of sources that were used as evidence of WP:SIGCOV in the recent AFD on the grounds of unreliability - either they are usable or they are not, you can’t have it both ways. BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Nicoljaus
|
Crampcomes
| Crampcomes blocked for one week for edit warring/1RR violations, and topic banned for six months for misrepresenting sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2024 (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 Crampcomes
(none)
Talk page discussion has been attempted by the other involved editor (User:Mistamystery) here, but it has not been responded to.
Discussion concerning CrampcomesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CrampcomesBringing this case here is totally against Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. I already explained myself here. It's been two days and I haven't edited the article in question since then. BTW, I was the one who created that article in the firstplace. Nonetheless, I will repeat: The article, which I created recently, has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms , then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both IP and account and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected (it was extended confirmed protected very recently). Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question. (another very experienced editor first reverted him) I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals, but he refused. He at some later time put a vague note on the talkpage without pinging or notifying me about it anywhere not even in edit summaries.Crampcomes (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier@Crampcomes: Something confusing me a bit, are u saying that the IP in this diff is the (original) complainant (ie Mistamystery)? Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by BilledMammalThere was also an edit warring/1RR issue at 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel:
They sought to include the claim that Iranian missiles went past "all the air defences" of Israel's allies - a claim that doesn't appear aligned with the source, which says "Israel’s allies helped shoot down the bulk of these weapons". They also at one pointed added the claim that "According to CNN it was an Iranian operational success" (17:23); again, this doesn't appear aligned with the source. 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Crampcomes
References
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu
| Topic ban modified to post-2000 Russia/Ukraine relations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by AnonimuMore than 2 years have passed since the ban was enacted. I am fully aware that my behaviour then was far from encouraging civil and productive discussion of the content in a highly contentious topic (Russian-Ukrainian war), and I am sorry for that. My plan was to wait for the war to end before appealing the topic ban, unfortunately it is dragging on with seemingly no perspective of peace. Due to lack of sources/interest in other topic areas, as well as the broadness of the topic ban, in the past two years my editing was mostly restricted to fixing some issues and adding some content related to areas that could not possibly be considered as connected to Eastern Europe. I think that restricting the area of the topic ban would allow me to come back to more productive editing. Thus, if you consider that the topic ban cannot be completely overturned, restricting the topic ban to modern Russian-Ukrainian relations (say, after 2000) would still serve as a remedy to the original situation, while not preventing me from using the knowledge and sources I have in order to improve Wikipedia content related to other areas of Eastern Europe. Thank you. Anonimu (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
Statement by tgeorgescuAnonimu can be an useful editor. I don't say this because I like his POV, but because he can act as a counterweight to Romanian nationalist POV-pushers. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AnonimuStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Anonimu
|
Christsos
| Christsos is formally warned to adhere to the 30/500 restrictions in the ARBPIA area, and that further violations will result in sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:41, 8 May 2024 (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 Christsos
All of these are very obviously related to the conflict
User talk:Christsos#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Discussion concerning ChristsosStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ChristsosStatement by BilledMammalI see the editor has been inactive as of a few days prior to this report, so I wanted to ask - did anyone try to explain the ECR's to them beyond placing the ARBPIA notification on their talk page? 22:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Christsos
|