Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive342
IntrepidContributor
[edit]| WikiFouf warned for opening an RM soon after another was closed without any change to the status quo, IntrepidContributor warned for edit warring, Selfstudier warned for removing an RM when involved, Levivich warned for removing an RM when involved and inappropriate communication, Berchanhimez warned for battleground conduct, and Bluethricecreamman warned for battleground conduct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning IntrepidContributor[edit]
I think this account is almost certainly a sock. Compare their timecard/edit history with Wierzba (Wierzba xtools) and IsraPara2 (IsraPara2 xtools) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wierzba). IntrepidContributor, AFAICT, had never edited in ARBPIA in its first round of activity (7/22 - 2/23). The account was mostly inactive between 2/23 until August 17, 2024, when they started getting involved in ARBPIA for the first time. Aug 16, 2024, is when the AE against O.maximov closed with a warning (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive338#O.maximov). IntrepidContributor has only made 30 edits since Aug 17, almost all focused on fighting the "Gaza genocide" move. O.maximov was later blocked as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#27 August 2024. I could go file at SPI, and this account was on my list of SPIs-to-file, but it would save a bunch of paperwork if reviewing admin could just {{Checkuser needed}} here to see if these accounts are a technical match, which I expect they will be. If you want more behavioral evidence before requesting a CU, or if you want me to file a separate SPI, let me know. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning IntrepidContributor[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IntrepidContributor[edit]As I mentioned to Levivich on my talk page, 1RR does not apply to talk pages and fixing TPO violations. The diffs provided show me reverting the improper removal of an editor's post on a talk page. Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account. I mainly edit the Russian and Ukrianian wikis and I have never heard of those editors I am accused of being. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier[edit]Regardless of the 1R problem, this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior. There was a well attended recently concluded RM that in addition went through MR and nothing has changed since. Rather than specifying anything new, the presented nomination is chock full of personal opinions such as Ample opportunity to engage was given to reported editor here and here, instead they chose to edit war and only then the matter was raised here, all within a couple hours, no-one having responded to the RM in the interim. This seems to me, in all the circumstances, to be a proper approach, BM attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC) I have reverted the revert by a third editor and the RM is now running. Selfstudier (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Not that it has anything to do with this case but seconding what Levivich says and that's not the first time you have taken out of context "otherstuff" to bolster your argument together with naming me in the process. Quite wrongly in my view. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Statement by TarnishedPath[edit]Given that there was an RM which was closed on 3 July 2024, endorsed at a move review 22 August 2024 and that there have been three RMs on the article this year, the filling of another RM so soon after the last one had been endorsed by a move review by WikiFouf was disruptive. IntrepidContributor restoring it not just once, but twice, is even more disruptive regardless of whether 1RR applies to talk pages or not. TarnishedPathtalk 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC) @Berchanhimez per WP:TAGTEAM: I'd like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's comment at Special:Diff/1244972583, in which they engage in personal attacks and aspersion casting against every editor who has voted for a procedural close in the RM at Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024 by stating that they are all engaging in "POV pushing or stonewalling". TarnishedPathtalk 09:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC) I'd further like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's WP:CANVASSING of editors to Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024 at Special:Diff/1244837374. When I drew their attention to the fact that they'd engaged in canvassing at Special:Diff/1244979886 and that they should ping all involved editors to remedy their breach of behaviour guidelines they responded at Special:Diff/1244988992 by stating that I should remedy their breach for them. TarnishedPathtalk 12:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Editors constantly making personal attacks and accusations of bad behaviour without providing the slightest bit of evidence is getting rather tiring. It needs to stop. SFR floated the idea of giving short term topic bans to any editor who had done so and at this point I say go for it. Scorch the earth. TarnishedPathtalk 05:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal if you're going to imply hypocrisy in voting in support of a RM which was opened not long after another was closed and then voting procedural close in another RM in similar circumstances you need to demonstrate that editors were aware of that. I certainly wasn't aware of the prior RM for the Israel-Hamas war article and can't be expected to have known given that my contributions to the PIA area is sporadic. What you present shows nothing unless there is something more. TarnishedPathtalk 05:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammal[edit]First, there was a consensus against a moratorium on that page. Second, it was recently established that involved editors shouldn't be shutting down/closing formal discussions that they disagreed with, and should instead go to an admin when the discussion is problematic. I note that one of the parties that shut down this discussion, Selfstudier, participated in that discussion, and so should have been aware of that. Third, Selfstudier previously objected to involved closes in relation to RM's on that page. As part of that, they were warned against reverting closures, and told to go to an admin in the future. In general, I think the editors closing this discussion, but especially Selfstudier who has been involved in these issues before and appears to be espousing a double standard, have behaved far below what we expect of editors in a contentious topic. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by WikiFouf[edit]@Selfstudier That's really a bad-faith interpretation. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but don't pretend like I didn't detail why I think that A) the title is premature and, B) it can erode confidence in WP's neutrality. I don't cite new sources, yes, but that's the whole point : I reviewed all of the sources we do have right now and I disagree with the verdict that 'Gaza genocide' is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources. Hence why I launched the RM, and encouraged people go through the sources table. I'm not trying to be "disruptive". WikiFouf (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]It seems likely that ongoing efforts to change the title of the Gaza Genocide (which includes less polite efforts like this) are explained in part by the attention/canvassing occurring off-wiki on social media sites etc. I don't know (or care) whether the concerns are legitimate policy-based concerns, but what also seems likely is that this attention is not dependent on the number or details of the RMs, it is dependent on the result of the RM not being the current title. Unless an RM is guaranteed to result in a change to the title that supporters of Israel find satisfactory, I'm not sure there is any point in having it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Also, out in the real world, interest in this Gaza Genocide article formed about 1000th of a percent of what people looked at last month in English Wikipedia (amounting to over 10 billion views), so the article title issue does not appear to be an urgent or significant issue from a global statistical perspective. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Just like targeting the title of the Gaza Genocide article is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, the targeting of Selfstudier is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, in my view. I find this concerning, not because of anyone's opinions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but because by my estimation, since the start of 2022, around 1800 of Selfstudier's edits (and probably more) are directly related to implementing/enforcing ArbCom remedies including ARBECR, notifying new users, handling edit requests and creating edit notices. So, this particular user, the topic area's top (non-sock) contributor by edit count (normally a positive thing, but apparently a negative thing in PIA), spent over 12% of their revisions on essentially policing the largely unprotected topic area. For me, it's to be expected that editors will ignore this aspect of an editor they perceive as an obstacle or opponent of some kind, but if admins ignore it the AE process starts to resemble an autoimmune disorder. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Regarding "I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom."
If an editor sees what they regard as disruptive behavior or policy non-compliance in the topic area they should be able to report it here at AE. ArbCom is not going to be able to solve many of the systemic problems in the topic area because the on-site effects are produced by external factors, off-site things they have little to no control over, like whether a person decides to evade a ban, or engage in/respond to canvassing efforts, or allow their personal views to take priority over policy compliance etc. And there is no obvious misalignment between Levivich's stated objectives in their reports and the objectives described by policy and existing ArbCom remedies. They have a much higher resolution view of the state of the topic area than ArbCom is likely to ever have. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Statement by xDanielx[edit]A new RM might arguably be appropriate now that the closely related RM for the parent, Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocide, was unsuccessful. In any case, if editors feel it's too hasty, they should request a speedy closure by an uninvolved party, or possibly snowball close it if there's a clear consensus that it's too hasty (which seems unlikely given the consensus against a moratorium). It's really inappropriate for two highly involved editors to simply delete a good-faith RM they don't agree with. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Statement by David A[edit]I do not think that Levivich or Selfstudier should receive any punishment. People who disapprove of the current page title keep forcing us to vote over and over and over regarding the same topic, with very brief breaks in-between, until they get their desired result. It is to demand too much from Levivich and Selfstudier to expect them to know exactly where to draw the line regarding what is or is not allowed in every possible development in this regard. Also, they are knowledgeable, constructive, and well-behaved editors. Putting them on restraining order for such a limited reason would cause longterm damage to the overall wellbeing of the pages concerning this topic. David A (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC) In response to accusations by BilledMammal, there does not exist any coordination between myself and other Wikipedia members. We are merely people from different parts of this world who seem to share a humanitarian concern for the unnecessary loss of innocent lives, particularly children, and going by the United Nations recent voting records regarding the currently ongoing military actions by the government of Israel, the vast majority of the population of humanity strongly disapprove of them, so statistically speaking there should logically be a much greater shortage of people in Wikipedia who agree than those who disagree. Also, I was referring to that this was not the first time that there have been attempts to overturn the recent page title move within a brief timespan, although going by my, possibly flawed, memory, most of them were by new editors to Wikipedia who did not have extended edit-confirmed rights to respond to the Gaza genocide talk page. In addition, even from my, likely very limited, observations of BilledMammal's own activities here in Wikipedia, he has very actively participated in several attempts to remove all references by both Al Jazeera and +972 Magazine, which are the two main news organisations that report war crimes by the Israeli government. [3] [4] [5] [6] Also, for the record, I have been subjected to death threats and multiple serious personal attacks from people who support the current military actions of the Israeli government. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] David A (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: For the record, all that I recall of the renaming procedure is that the ongoing move discussion was extremely disorganised, lengthy, tiresome, and all over the place, so I assembled the three main titles suggested by other members that were not too long and awkward, and seemed to have good arguments and Wikipedia page title precedents backing them, and then put them to a vote by pinging all of the previous participants in the discussion, in order to help bring some order and structure to the chaos. There was no deliberation involved beyond that I thought that all of the three alternatives were shorter and less awkward that the then current title for the page, nor did I expect the current title to get the most votes at the time. I do not recall voting in a preceding survey before the very lengthy sprawling discussion that eventually resulted in the current title, but if I did, I probably just voted for what I thought was the least bad available option at the time. David A (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @Sean.hoyland: about that Levivich is a highly knowledgeable member who helps to bring order, structure, and fact-based resolutions to discussions, so getting rid of him would cause active harm to the parts of Wikipedia where he is active, and contrary to @Berchanhimez:'s claims, I think that the attempts to shut up editors who are highly concerned about human rights violations via this arbitration discussion seem considerably more prevalent and concerning. David A (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@Aquillion: That is correct, yes. There have apparently been recurring cases of public agitation against the work in this page, such as this Reddit thread and multiple negatively worded news articles that are listed at the top of the talk section of this page, with resulting cases of new and completely inexperienced editors causing considerable hostile disturbances. David A (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC) For what little it may be worth, just a note that I also do not think that Levivich did anything remotely deserving of a warning due to his comment. It seemed like an attempt for honest but polite communication, not actual hostility. David A (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC) A possibly stupid question if I may, and I apologise if I am disturbing: Will a few Wikipedia members receive warnings for simply removing posts from new editors who spammed page rename requests without being extended edit-confirmed, which I think is a requirement in order to be allowed to post messages in the talk page section of the Gaza genocide page? If so, it seems extremely impractical to be forced to constantly bother staff members to remove them instead, especially given the continuous outside news and social media agitation against this page that I gave examples for above. David A (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Bluethricecreamman[edit]Will point out the obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process. Won’t argue against the fact that violating WP:TPO by deleting a discussion isn’t POV-pushing itself by the pro-Pal folks either… I saw the admins saying that ARBPIA states all rules are more especially enforced in this area, but maybe the request for ARBPIA5 could resolve such matters by putting in place much more explicit rules within ARBPIA instead of relying on the entire corpus of wikipedia policy? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by berchanhimez[edit]I'd like to say I'm surprised to see this. But I'm not. Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV. While the last move review was closed as "endorse", the closer was quite clear that that was mostly a "no consensus to overturn (but not necessarily meaning there is a consensus that it was correct and proper)". The closure of the last RM "overturned" what was about a 3-to-2 majority (if not more) for a title other than the now-current one, but because of the actions of some editors (not necessarily here), the closer found a "majority" for the current title. Then editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed. And now they're mad that the community is being asked to opine again given the woefully improper close of the last move review that amounts to a supervote. That all said, since AE has already been unable to take action on a recent report in the area because of the number of users involved and the cross-user issues (tag-teaming, POV pushing, potential off wiki coordination, etc), this report should simply be punted to ARCA as evidence in the already ongoing request for a new arbitration case. Specifically, this case should be used as evidence that Levivich (and others) are attempting to weaponize AE to remove people they disagree with from the topic area so their POV pushing cannot be questioned. Beyond that, the only short term action that should be taken is a prohibition on the most flagrantly abusive users (Levivich coming to mind as making multiple threads here recently) from making AE reports until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. If a user is truly problematic, Levivich should be able to trust that someone else can make a report. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by starship.paint (2)[edit]berchanhimez has utterly misunderstood the situation in their claim that Levivich … is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by claiming that if they make a report on AE, their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at, because they made the report. Levivich’s position has been consistent. Less than a month ago, Levivich said: @Valereee: - the context was that the 12 January move, [13] [14] explicitly said:
Statement by PhotogenicScientist[edit]Apologies for the tangent, but I think this is worth clarifying while we're here: The applicability of 1RR to talk pages is not clear from current policy/Arbcom pages.
So, 2 questions:
Thanks. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion[edit]Regarding the suggestions for mass topic bans - I do want to point out that the disruption in this topic area is ultimately coming from external sources and is the result of a broader conflicts outside of Wikipedia. While many editors are behaving in a subpar manner, that's not the root issue here; and despite their sniping, most of these editors are experienced enough to know and follow at least the basic outline of how we do things. I'm concerned that broad topic-bans could remove those experienced editors while leaving a bunch of new / inexperienced ones who would continue the same conflicts without the same knowledge of our policies and procedures. Obviously warnings and such are needed and people who don't improve or who are obviously part of the problem need to be removed, but topic-banning basically all the highly-active experienced users in a topic area that is seeing substantial external disruption is probably something to be avoided if possible. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning IntrepidContributor[edit]
|
Genabab
[edit]| Genabab is warned to avoid edit warring, that 1RR and 3RR are not allowances, to verify the quality and reliability of sources they are using in contentious articles, and that information simply being verifiable does not mean that it is due. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 10 October 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 Genabab[edit]
User is aware of sanctions on this topic User talk:Genabab#Introduction to contentious topics
User Genabab is constantly adding unsubstantiated Iranian, Hezbollah and Hamas propaganda to articles involving Arab-Israeli conflict. Often citing deprecated sources[17] and edit warring once they are reverted. The material they are adding is completely fabricated claims, for example, Hezbollah having claimed killing 2,000 Israeli soldiers[18] while the real tally is 25, as well as adding claims such as Iran's missile attack on Israel destroying 20 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II aircraft.[19] Other edits include changing results of battles in infoboxes from Israeli victory to Hezbollah victories,[20] as well as removing Hezbollah from the list of atrocities committed by the group.[21] Viewsridge (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Genabab[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Genabab[edit]
Statement by ManyAreasExpert[edit]
Statement by The Kip[edit]Not an admin, but feel like I can shine some light here, going point-by-point:
Regarding some of the other things brought up:
In total, some of this case is a bit overstated/overdramatized, but there's also genuine concerns with Genabab's editing tendencies. The Kip (contribs) 19:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Swatjester[edit]I have no opinion on most of this dispute but want to comment as to @The Kip:'s suggestion about attribution on the Hezbollah claim. Statement by TylerBurden[edit]I think this editor has shown some signs of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing within WP:RUSUKR, as ManyAreasExpert indicated. Seeing them insisting on adding what can only be described as obvious propaganda in another CT is therefore not all that surprising. Genabab seems to think it is more important to present ″both sides″ than to follow WP:DUE, and I don't think attribution excuses that, because it still adds bogus to articles with our without it. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Genabab[edit]
|
Kalanishashika
[edit]| Kalanishashika is indefinitely topic banned from ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 11 October 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 Kalanishashika[edit]
Although the diffs provided above only deal with its latest incarnation, the issue has been long-standing. Since the previous cases of edit warring by this user on the same article were dealt with elsewhere I didn't include them above but I will expand on them here for context. This user who appeared shortly after Tamil genocide article was created seems to be a SPA whose primary engagement has been with that article where their behavior has been disruptive. On 12 June 2024 I reported them to AN3 for 3RR violation but no action was taken although they implied they gamed the system by reverting for the 4th time outside the 24-hour limit and an admin told them as much. Later, after an admin at ANI notified this user that 1RR now applied, this user continued to game the system and reverted for the 5th time outside the designated limit. I highlighted this on 21 June 2024 in an admin's talk page discussion but no action was taken. After being inactive for 2 months, they went back to gaming the system by reverting 1RR protected article outside the 24-hours limit; I notified an admin of this on 27 August 2024 but no action was taken. I did however warn the user that I will file an ARE report if their disruptive behavior persisted. Even after that they have now gone back to flouting guidelines by reverting for the second time without even continuing to engage the active talk discussion that they stopped engaging on 2 September 2024. Since I've exhausted all options, I request this committee to solve this issue once and for all.---Petextrodon (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
[*] Internet Archive has the book for anyone to check though the site seems down at the moment: https://archive.org/details/cagefightforsril0000weis ---Petextrodon (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kalanishashika[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kalanishashika[edit]
I would say that I am surprised by this enforcement request, however then again, I am not, as Petextrodon mentioned this enforcement request is not the first time Petextrodon has attempted to get admins to sanction me. First of all, the content addition in question was done by me after Petextrodon a similar addition two weeks back on 17 September 2024 (content he had introduced on August 2024). This content was discussed in the talk page, however this discussion was going in nowhere so, I took a step back to allow for the things to cool off. However, Petextrodon after two weeks added the disputed content, two weeks later I expanded his edit with additional content in question. I am happy to revert my edit and apologize, however could I ask if Petextrodon's edit on the 17 September 2024 is correct, since I feel that it's the same as mine on 5 October 2024. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Since Petextrodon did mention this, for the record I would like to share the complete discussion User_talk:Aoidh/Archives/2024#Intractable_user and a similar issue was raised by Petextrodon Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive483, in which case both of us were warned not to engaged in edit warring. I feel that I try to abide by the warnings I have received, I am not sure if Petextrodon does. I might be wrong here; I will leave it to the admins to make a call on it and correct me if I have errored. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kalanishashika[edit]
|
ThatBritishAsianDude
[edit]| ThatBritishAsianDude is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Hinduism, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 11 October 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 ThatBritishAsianDude[edit]
The examples I have given are of the most recent issues; there is a lengthy history of warnings on ThatBritishAsianDude's talk page (please check history), including for mis-leading edit-summaries, poorly sourced content, and, in several instances, edit-warring. They appear to not be taking these seriously, and are being a net-negative in the topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ThatBritishAsianDude[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ThatBritishAsianDude[edit]Honestly kind off suprised although this isn't the first time someone comes here based of a disagreement. It seems Vanamonde went all out to include things, I don't see how I broke any rules based of the mentioned recent edits from #1 to 5 and I'd suggest the admin concerning this issue to read that discussion on the talkpage, I did a lot of effort in that particular discussion while getting a lot of pushback from Vanamonde in particular, showing no signs of coming to a consensus. During the discussion I made no edits having learned from past disputes, I only made the edit after the discussion seemed dead and another editor seemed to agree with me. As for #6 and 7, that discussion is still ongoing with there being many editors disagreeing with the tags added by that particular editor, saying these tags where added in good faith seems to be a word choice to just make me seem worse in this situation. As for #8 to 11, that had again to do with that particular editor, after received warnings I refrained from editing those pages after not feeling like putting in any effort in it anymore. #12 just seems to be Vanamonde's viewpoint since in the discussion following that (I didn't revert it after that), I asked many times where the consensus and these supposed sources came from still not having received clear answers. #13 just isn't right, since I made attempts to discuss it with that particular Editor. Although this probably isn't the place, I think that Vanamonde has an Ideological bias on Wikipedia, mainly Anti-Hindu and Anti-Indian, I haven't been the only one to have noticed this through the years [33]. It is visible in the edit history and created articles alone. There also seems to be a small group of editors with a similar bias backing each other in related articles. To be clear I am not saying this with bad faith or Ill intent. As for the contentious topics restriction that was notified, I don't think that is the best example since I got that notification after having only made one edit one that artcicle and i'd like to think I have grown a lot as a editor since then taking breaks when disputes arise or become to much. (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC) @Barkeep49 I think you took that quote out of context, I don't actually think that now but was suggesting it since mainly Bangladeshi and Indian editors on that page where disagreeing with each other ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC) @Bishonen And adding mythical without sources that mention it isn't ? If you read the discussion you can see that I am not Pro- or Anti-Hindu, I just thought that in this specific instance neutrality should be kept ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Bluethricecreamman[edit]Was curious about this account and saw this enforcement thread. here is a diff of arbitrary blanking of criticism of an organization associated with hindu nationalism movement.[34] reason for blanking was suggestion that newspaper url was “not well sourced enough” in the edit summary Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ThatBritishAsianDude[edit]
|
Raskolnikov.Rev
[edit]| I withdraw this request. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:31, 15 October 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 Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]
Recent incivility:
As far as WP:AGF violations go, it doesn't get any clearer than calling multiple users "malicious" or a "bad faith actor", in forums that are not for dispute resolution. Other editors shouldn't have to tolerate such aggression.
N/A
Raskolnikov.Rev's response seems sincere; I'm optimistic that this might be resolved without necessarily needing formal action. I'm open to just withdrawing this if that's an accepted/encouraged practice? — xDanielx T/C\R 22:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC) If there's no objection (procedural or otherwise), I'm withdrawing this. Since Raskolnikov.Rev seems to sincerely intend to self-correct, it seems like no formal action is needed at this time. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]I believe this is a reasonable complaint to raise, and I will make sure to not use emotive and needlessly abrasive language like that going forward, and always assume good faith. And to the editors who were on the other side of my barbs, I apologize, and I hope going forward we can all collaborate together with mutual respect to improve Wiki. Here are some more detailed reflections on each cited case: 2024-10-11 "it is frankly absurd to pretend ..." 2024-10-12 "It seems like you're incapable of grasping ... I know it's embarrassing that you presented ..." Here I was letting my emotions get the better of me, which again I'll make sure to not let happen again. To add some context: in the first case I was not referring to any specific editor, and it was part of a general statement where I cited extensive RS. Still, it was entirely needless to do that, and won't happen again. Regarding the second one, @XDanielx initiated the language of being incapable of grasping something: "It seems like you haven't fully grasped...", but I shouldn't have mirrored it. That was a mistake that I will not make again. 2024-10-12 "If you continue with this behavior, I will bring it up in arbitration. And I will revert your latest malicious edit ... do you think people will not bother to click on the links you provide?" Here I am referring to an edit by @XDanielx making an addition to a long-standing consensus text that was contested in Talk and did not have consensus, which they were aware of as they were a participant in said discussion. Calling it a "malicious edit" however was entirely needless and unproductive. The second part of the quote is referring to a link provided that contains text which @XDanielx said was not contained in it, but again, it was needless and unproductive. I could and should have merely made the case without those remarks. 2024-10-09 "Since it's pro-Israel though I doubt you'll take that up ..." Here an editor came into my talk to tell me to self-revert after misunderstanding Wikipedia policy concerning 1RR, as they later admitted. Another editor had actually violated it, and I was referring to that, but there was no point in doing that, completely needlessly abrasive. That will not happen again. 5 to 11 are from a lengthy debate where aforementioned editor violated 1RR, and repeatedly violated established consensus. My warnings were an attempt to persuade them to stop doing so, and they were not merely hollow threats, I have been working on a report concerning this editor. But I realize that it is not constructive to say you are going to make a report about someone, and to refer to their edits as malicious. If that is indeed the case, then it has to be shown in a report brought to arbitration, without the emotive language, and just the facts of the case. I hope the admins can see that I invest time and thought into editing, and that my engagement with the various materials, though at times including needless emotionally charged language that I will immediately rectify and ensure will not happen again, is a good faith serious and constructive effort to help improve Wiki. And I know I have to not only assume, but accept that that is also the case for others. Thank you all for taking the time to read this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Andrevan[edit]As the respondent on diff 4, I agree that even though I was there making a mistake that I ended up striking and withdrawing, the response I received was hostile and bad faith, and accused me of disruption based on something that was grossly misinterpreted and flatly distorted from December 2023. I wasn't going to open an AE report on that alone but I was troubled by it and I'm glad that xDanielx opened a report so I can comment that yes, it was not an appropriate response to my polite, if completely wrong and mistaken message. Andre🚐 01:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Raskolnikov.Rev[edit]
|
Invaluable22
[edit]| Invaluable22 is warned against misgendering, and to provide sourcing for contentious material being added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 28 October 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 Invaluable22[edit]
I refer to the edits at KJKM's article as WP:TEND and in violation of GENSEX due to the 22 different topics where that specific edit of 'anti-trans advocate' has been discussed on the talk page [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] and the talk page's QnA [57] which they added to in diff #7 showing they were aware of this prior concensus. Right above the qna segment on the talk page is the arbitration remedies notice. This is my first time utilizing this process, so I apologize for any errors in my understanding or formatting. Relm (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Invaluable22[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Invaluable22[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Invaluable22[edit]
|
DangalOh
[edit]| DangalOh is blocked indefinitely, with the first year an AE block and the rest an individual admin block, as mandated by our great AE red tape. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 28 October 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 DangalOh[edit]
I believe this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DangalOh[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DangalOh[edit]It was as expected. I don’t even engage in edit wars, yet some people seem to have a problem whenever I speak up. They can’t handle other viewpoints and instead complain, saying things like, ‘Indian courts don’t like our defamatory free speech.’ This is what I meant by the systematic targeting and silencing of opposing voices. I didn’t even mention any specific names, but I did refer to how certain editors and administrators collaborate to discredit most Indian news channels, their anchors, etc., especially following recent rulings by Indian courts. No wonder people are rattled. I’ll give just a few examples, as you all seem either willfully ignorant or simply incapable of understanding. Let’s take a look (and many of these edits are recent) India today: [64] ABP news:[65] Cnn-news 18: [66] zee news: [67] aaj tak: [68] Firstpost:[71]( related editors pushing saimilar pov in relted pages) .see here for related complaint:[72] Republic Tv:[73] Hindu American Foundation:[74] (look at this sneaky action) G7 rapid response:[75] Wion:[76] On the other hand, look at this editor cleaning the lede of this [77]. lol; But I am not your local investigator, tasked with looking into matters for you while being repeatedly targeted by everyone. These examples are recent and represent just a few pages—and only a few news channels. There are countless other pages targeted by the same editors, too many to count. The same style of language in edits also traces back to previously blocked accounts. But as I said, this platform is helpless and thankless. If even one person takes note of my complaints, I’ll consider it a success. People were paying attention, which is why the individual who lodged the complaint became rattled—partly because of their issue with my opinions on Marathas, etc., and also because I wasn’t voting on issues in the way they preferred. I have no interest in your internal politics. Seriously, do whatever you must. I dont care anymore as i repeatedly said.
Statement by (Doug Weller)[edit]I'm involved but agree with the above. If I were not involved I would be voting for a sanction or block.Doug Weller talk 14:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]
Statement by Valereee[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning DangalOh[edit]
|
LivinAWestLife
[edit]| LivinAWestLife blocked for 24 hours for a straightforward violation of WP:1RR. The next block will be longer. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 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 LivinAWestLife[edit]
These are four of their five edits to that article [78]. They have made two edits to the talk page [79]: 1, 2. I don't think we should wait for them to make a fifth attempt; they should be formally warned not to do this again.
Discussion concerning LivinAWestLife[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LivinAWestLife[edit]Statement by Selfstudier[edit]Think we are beyond a warning now. Clearly no intent to comply with crp or 1R.Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC) Result concerning LivinAWestLife[edit]
|
Mhorg
[edit]| Mhorg is indefinitely topic banned from Eastern Europe, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 3 November 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 Mhorg[edit]
Tendentious editing, edit warring. Do we need more diffs? In discussion, appeals using their personal opinion Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mhorg-20240923111300-Genabab-20240919094400 , uses a strawman and makes assumption about opponents behaviors Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mhorg-20241028083600-Manyareasexpert-20241028071000 . Ignores previous arguments and demands an approach contrary to WP:CONS Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mhorg-20241028123700-Manyareasexpert-20241028104100 .
Special:PermanentLink/1253900233#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Discussion concerning Mhorg[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mhorg[edit]1&2 are are my attempt to recover content from other users, as the user wanted to remove any source stating that the Azov had not depoliticised. Here[80] they removed the statement of Efraim Zuroff (in april 2022) with the motivation: "Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement". Consider that there is a large section on Azov Brigade[81] itself where this debate is described, which is still open. The user decided, despite all sources to the contrary, that the debate is over. 3 is the statement of Merezhko, deputy for the Servant of the People and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Accusations made by members of the government against the Ukrainian extreme right. I think it is important enough to be mentioned in "Far-right politics in Ukraine". 4 The user first in June 2024 reversed the meaning of the stable article "Commemoration of Stepan Bandera" by inserting his text in the first line of the lede.[82] I added, months later,[83] some context: chronologically the condemnation of the Ukrainian Jewish groups against the rehabilitation of OUN and UPA and the scandal of Bandera's words quoted by the Ukrainian parliament (a scandal in Israel[84] and a diplomatic confrontation with the Polish leadership[85]). Both reported by Haaretz. 6, Bumaga is a well-known[86] Russian anti-government journal. The user has already had several problems with other users and also administrators. One of the most recent was when they removed Le Monde with the reason "No reliable source",[87] triggering Ymblanter's response:[88] "next time you call Le Monde an unreliable source I will open a topic ban request". The user opens a discussion where they justifies themselves.[89] Ymblanter rightly replies that they should have put that justification as edit summary and that "no reliable sources" was not acceptable, confirming the issue. Now the user is saying that I am falsely accusing them. Since a Topic Ban is being considered in the field that most interests me and where I have spent almost 10 years here, may I ask that my case not be assessed by just two administrators and that there be a broader discussion? Statement by TylerBurden[edit]I don't think there is a more clear example of a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor in this topic area than Mhorg, unfortunately despite numerous warnings and even official administrator action, parroting Russian propaganda and talking points is the most important thing to this editor, and they are more than willing to break policy to do so, mostly by misrepresenting sources and edit warring. This has been going on for years, so at this point an eastern Europe topic ban is the only sensible solution to prevent them from further damaging the project. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mhorg[edit]
|