Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive351
Super ninja2
[edit]| Technically not an AE matter, but I've indeffed for violating unblock terms, as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:30, 30 March 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 Super ninja2[edit]
As linked above, user was previously indeffed for disruptive conduct at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, and was later indefinitely TBANned from ARBPIA as a condition of the unblock from their indef. They appealed the TBAN in July 2024, but withdrew it after myself and bradv pointed out they'd recently violated their TBAN at that time, too.
Here. Additionally, as already stated, user has an existing TBAN from the ARBPIA area.
I will freely admit it was myself that filed the initial report that got them indeffed. Since then they've been branded in my mind as a problematic user of sorts; after stumbling across their recent RfC at Talk: The Holocaust (the premise of/motivation behind which itself unsettled me, given their prior contribs/issues), I decided to do a spot check as a result, which is how I noticed the recent and semi-recent TBAN violations. I know some of these were from a few weeks/months ago, but it’s been a while since I’ve come across their contribs, so I don’t feel that time should be a factor here. I’m not one to call for an indef lightly, but seeing as these instances aren’t remotely close to the first time they’ve violated their TBAN, and they’ve openly acknowledged that they’re doing so on multiple occasions dating back to last July, I tend to think the user simply doesn’t get it at this point. They were unblocked on the condition of a TBAN, and they’ve repeatedly and knowingly ignored that TBAN since. The Kip (contribs) 20:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Super ninja2[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 Super ninja2[edit]Result concerning Super ninja2[edit]
|
ImperialAficionado
[edit]| This thread was automatically archived on April 8 due to 2 weeks of inactivity. ImperialAficionado said on March 10 that they are permanently retiring. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 03:42, 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 ImperialAficionado[edit]
Passing this report (which was Initially made by HerakliosJulianus) from ANI [5] but for some reason it was closed by Liz suggesting to take it on AE. The user in question has been deliberately pushing a certain POV as evident from above diffs. Not only that, the page he's authored & heavily contributed to -- Execution of Sambhaji -- which recently sparked controversy along with the Sambhaji page, looks like it was almost entirely written by an AI [6] and gives only a probability of 25% human written (To be more specific this old revision contains probability of 14% human generated contents). To think that such a sensitive, highly contentious topic could be written by an LLM is egregious. What is even more worrying is their battleground mentality, which can be seen by falsely accusing [7] an editor of WP:HOUNDING just for taking their articles to AfD and then calling them a "troll" [8]. Given their blatant PoV pushing,WP:CIR and using LLM in hotly contentious TA, a Tban from IPA seems justifiable. Mr.Hanes
Discussion concerning ImperialAficionado[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 ImperialAficionado[edit]I am so sorry for not being here. I was unaware about this discussion. Anyways, I do have objections against the claims raised against me here. Unfortunately, not spending my time again here in this platform to prove it. I am really sorry, and as I've mentioned in a discussion on my talk page, I would accept any kind of block/ban against me, as I won't create "chaos" again. Retiring from Wikipedia due to personal reasons (actually, was thinking about it for a while). Please don't think any of us are the reason for this. Thank you.--Imperial[AFCND] 18:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by AlvaKedak[edit]@Rosguill @Valereee, I'm sorry but I'd like to add something here. The user in question has always been aggressive and waging edit wars in the entirety of the Indian topic area, so I don't understand why anyone should sympathize with them just because they maybe facing any legal troubles.
Given these editing behaviours I do not think they should be given an exemption for an IPA ban. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
@Extorc, I would like to ask as to how you actually ended up here in AE? From what I can see, the evidence was likely gathered from the EIU tool to create the SPI report, not from their edit history. While the OP is blocked, this hardly changes anything. I have presented more diffs and statements in the report, and the initial report was made by another user, HerakliosJulianus. Since many editors are already involved, it makes little sense to close this without action. AlvaKedak (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde[edit]Statement by Extorc[edit]@Rosguill, Valereee, and Seraphimblade: The OP is now blocked as a sock. While Girth Summit had started to undo the damage the sock did so far, he has yet to do a lot more right now. I would personally recommend closing this report without action. >>> Extorc.talk 06:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ImperialAficionado[edit]
Generally speaking, any administrative action, including an AE action, may be reversed or modified with the consent of the admin who took the action. So, if the admin imposing the sanction explicitly says "It's okay for any uninvolved admin to modify or reverse this sanction without consulting me", then that's allowed. We really don't need anything novel beyond that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
|
Closetside
[edit]| Closetside is informally warned for edit-warring and inappropriate undiscussed pagemoves. Their apology for this conduct is acknowledged. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:27, 2 April 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 Closetside[edit]
Closetside came back from a 9 month break and in the course of only a couple of days they amassed more than 200 edits, which is not against any policy, but disruptive or tendentious editing certainly is. One of their first actions was moving Nuseirat rescue and massacre to 12 February 2024 Rafah strikes Transformed the page into a redirect against consensus; there was a merge proposal less than a year ago which failed. When reverted by M.Bitton – explaining that this was against consensus – they reverted M.Bitton immediately, without providing a reason. They then proceeded to remove large sections from 2024 Rafah hostage raid, excising mentions of the undiscussed merged page and, when reverted, reverted back citing “DONTLIKEIT filibustering”. Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre Again, they moved the page (to Shadia Abu Ghazala School corpses) without any kind of discussion, and tweaked the content to reflect the new name. After the original version of the article was restored, they reverted those changes again (but self-reverted eventually). Another undiscussed move followed by large removals of content to accommodate to the new scope. When reverted, they moved the page again. When M.Bitton contacted them on their talk page they accused him of harassment, arguing that bold move edits against established consensus shouldn’t be reverted without an appropriate reason, as if the WP:ONUS isn’t on the person doing the bold change, something that was explained to them. They refused to self revert, and reverted back to their first version.
There may also be some relevant diffs in the American politics post-1992 CTOP; will need admin approval to go over the 20 diff limit, however - let me know if you'd like me to do that. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC) I would also like to note that Closetside tends to argue for less weight to be given to sources they consider to have a "pro-Palestinian bias", or for dismissing them altogether, cataloguing them as hyper-partisan and dubious. They have called the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor an "an anti-Israel NGO" and put their status as a human rights organisation into question because of that perceived bias, even alluding to them being a "Hamas front". For this editor sources seem to be either insanely pro-Palestinian or neutral. I don't think this black and white mindset is good for someone to have in this CTOP. I can provide relevant diffs but again would need admin approval to go over the 20 diff limit. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC) This has nothing to do with the substance or subject of the case and hopefully nothing will come of it but just in case we see extra attention on this case I should note that it was screenshot and shared on twitter link archive. Again, very much not saying that this has any connection with the editor in question, only adding this note in case we see an uptick in attention here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Closetside[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 Closetside[edit]Yeah; I messed up. I will revert those edits accordingly. Closetside (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Finally, this editor is repeatedly guilty of quote mining sources to support a proposition, when the source either doesn’t state that proposition or states the opposite proposition. When another editor pointed this out on the active RfC Talk:Gaza genocide, they falsely accused them of casting aspersions. Additional evidence is on the RM for Talk:Shadia Abu Ghazala school massacre. Raskolnikov.Rev is guilty of this offence as well per the above RM, although let’s limit this discussion to two parties.Closetside (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Closetside[edit]
|
AlvaKedak
[edit]| Closing without action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:19, 2 April 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 AlvaKedak[edit]
After getting pinged by this editor above,[23] I found this editor to have been engaging in battleground mentality throughout this noticeboard, and as such, I am filing this report.
One can see the high frequency of WP:NPA and WP: BATTLEGROUND mentality from this editor, and that too when he is reporting others. I find this editor to be unfit to edit in this area. >>> Extorc.talk 17:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AlvaKedak[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 AlvaKedak[edit]Uhhh... First an SPI and now this?
Complete misunderstanding. I have been involved in so far 3 AE reports out of which 1 was outrightly sanctioned [28] two above are unactionable due to legal issue and Sock OP (ImperialAficionado), and other because of the fauxopology and assurance to Velereee that they won't be doing any further damage [29] (Hu741f4). So I must ask which battleground mentality are you arguing about? For the interaction part with IA you must have missed the part where I was involved in their initial ANI report [30] (EIU may not be always helpful). For my question regarding your AE comment, I'd naturally assume that if you're using EIU to file SPI report on WhitereaperPM then it makes zero chances for you to end up here. Last time you were here was in 2022, so as long as the AE noticeboard was not on your watchlist, I still find it hard to believe that you brought yourself here through EIU tool, that's all I meant. This doesn't mention IA or any other editor, like some reports mentions Ratnahastin. I suppose I have explained the diffs accusations, if there is something I missed or if you need more explanation then please ask. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning AlvaKedak[edit]
|
Akshaypatill
[edit]| Closing with logged warnings per admin consensus: for Akshaypatill for edit warring; for Capitals00, Abhishek0831996 and Koshuri Sultan for failure to assume good faith; and further for Abhishek0831996 for insisting upon frivolous complaints (and exceeding the word limit to do so). signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 5 April 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 Akshaypatill[edit]
While there are a number of behavioral, and competence issues with Akshaypatill, what I find bothersome is, that Akshaypatill came back after not editing for 23 days to wage edit war on multiple articles.[33] He never edited the article on Sambhaji before.[34] The edits which he disputed here were added by several editors, but also by Ratnahastin.[35] On Shivaji, the lead was overhauled by Ratnahastin,[36] but Akshaypatill never made any objections to it when he was reverting there weeks ago.[37] Akshaypatill stopped editing after he responded to a report made by Ratnahastin at the beginning of this month.[38] It becomes clear that Akshaypatill is becoming active only after Ratnahastin has stopped editing. It does not look good because he is exactly disputing the edits of Ratnahastin, thinking he is not around, and as such it might be easier to revert his edits now. This appears to be a clear case of WP:TE and WP:GRAVEDANCING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Akshaypatill[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 Akshaypatill[edit]@Valereee You are right. I crossed the lines there. I should be more careful with the choice of words and I will. @Rosguill I always try to adhere to the policies. And I always start conversation on the talk page when there are some disputes. I agree, my edits on Shivaji, for especially the lead may look like edit warring, but it is not intentional. The lead is not according to the WP:LEAD at all. For example, there is a whole paragraph in the lead regarding the "Shivaji's service to the Mughal emperor". But it was actually a brief period between around 1667 and there is nothing notable happened in this period. A whole paragraph on it is WP:UNDUE. Almost 70% part of the whole body of the article is about Shivaji's struggle with the Mughal emperor and other powers, while the lead gives an impression that Shivaji was working for them. You also saw it with Phule part. It is also WP:UNDUE. This [[78]] is the version of lead I was talking about, which was written mostly by MatthewVanitas which aptly summarizes the body of the article. It was in place since 2016 till a few months ago when someone changed it. The article was also contested for Good Article review back then. Anyways, I promise I will be more mindful in my edits and my choice of words. Also, I apologize to the @GenuineArts for the 'blatant lie' comment. Thanks.
Statement by Capitals00[edit]This user was warned with a topic ban about 3 years ago for failing to abide by the consensus process.[91] In 2023, I had thought of reporting him over his edit warring to whitewash the page of fake news OpIndia.[92][93] Even after making reverts, he made no presence on talk page.[94] What is happening today is simply a continuation of the long-term Hindutva POV pushing from this user. Capitals00 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Rosguill and Valereee: Even after making apologetic statements following this report, Akshaypatill is now continuing the edit war by removing the same quote over which he had already made 2 reverts on 26 - 27 February.[99][100] His explanation that "as the admin clarifies here [[101]], We don't include lengthy quotes in Wikipedia articles."[102] is not making sense because the comment, he is citing as the basis, actually concerned a quote which is more than 210 words, while the one he is removing is just 74 words. On the talk page, he claims that the letter was also removed because it "was actually written by Udiraj Munshi".[103] First of all, Shivaji was illiterate, and that's why he couldn't write any letters. Secondly, if Akshaypatill wants to maintain the standard that "did not write = no responsibility," then I wonder why was he restoring this letter, by ignoring this discussion, when it was also not written by Shivaji himself. His another recent removal is reflecting his other 2 reverts. He removed a source by describing it as "unreliable", when it is not unreliable, and the publisher has no particular political motivation. It has been cited by dozens of scholarly sources,[104][105], and the information is not even controversial but is already backed with more reliable sources. His recent message above completely falsifies what I said. It confirms there are more WP:CIR issues. I was only saying there are cases where editors are targeting the edits of Ratnahastin after his apparent disappearance. I did not say they are all one person, contrary to what Akshaypatill is claiming. I also did not say Akshaypatil edited Talk:B. R. Ambedkar. I am sure this rampant falsification and edit warring from Akshaypatill leave no doubt regarding this AE report. Capitals00 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by Koshuri Sultan[edit]After having watched the talk page discussion for days, I would say AkshayPatill appears to be engaging in POV pushing to remove the letter that portrays Shivaji as subservient to the Mughals [106] This follows their earlier removal of content from the lead that showed Shivaji's service to the Mughals [107]. In both cases, they are either stonewalling or finding any reason to get that part removed by calling it not notable despite the letter being relevant to the preceding passage, and the fact that Shivaji was serving Mughals [108] even before the Battle of Purandar. Koshuri (グ) 06:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by LukeEmily[edit]Other than some inadvertent mistakes (example "lying", which may be unintentional miscommunication - they may have meant that source was incorrect), mostly looks like a content dispute. I think the editors should continue discussion of the content on the talk page. Don't understand why the content is being discussed here. Just my 2 cents.LukeEmily (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by Fowler&fowler[edit]I noticed my name mentioned here in some previous context involving Askhaypatill. I don't remember the context and only vaguely remember Akshaypatill causing heartache. I want to say, though, that WP:Civil POV pushing has become quite the norm in South Asia-related topics. Editors who engage in it are careful not to cross the lines themselves but keep tabs on other editors. When these others become impatient with what would have been called (Civil) meatpuppetry in the old days, they quickly report them to the powers-that-be. Unfortunately, I have found the reporting editor Abhishek0831996 very much in such a group. Their editing history at Indian National Army and Mahatma Gandhi gave me pause for thought, as did that of Capital00 on Gandhi and Azuredivay (who is not here) on the INA (where eventually I had to ask folks at RS/N to help out). I thought at first they were part of a cohort in high school or colleagues in an office doing this for hijinks, but I could not find a theme of dogma or bias. These editors report other editors for what are often superficial but easily punishable forms of offense, but they get away with bias or collusion that prove harder to identify and slippery for punishing. I'm not saying that Abhishek* or Capital00 are in the wrong, but admins should perhaps consider how often these editors report others at AE or ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by Ratnahastin[edit]After having been reported for 1RR violation earlier, and continued edit warring even during this report, Akshaypatill is still reverting to his preferred version of lead without gaining consensus. This time, he did not just reject the request to self-revert,[114] but restored a version so carelessly that he did not even check that it has close paraphrasing issues.[115] Ratnahastin (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Akshaypatill[edit]
|
Qhairun
[edit]| This may be the strangest AE close I've ever made. We're in a situation that ought to be impossible, because the only way to reach this point is for a filer to both file a completely deficient request and then, at every turn, fail to engage with admins' concerns. And I want to emphasize that, because I don't want would-be filers to worry that they're going to get in trouble for failing to dot an i or cross a tee.But here, after making three promises (most latterly here) to remedy a filing that was meritless in the most literal sense, and in response to a "last chance" to answer the question of "what exactly it is that made you think admin intervention is needed regarding this user's edits", all JayCubby has been able to provide are two diffs of subpar sourcing, and not a word of explanation of why this is actionable at an AE level, nor of what drove him to initially file this. As such, JayCubby is given a logged warning under ARBPIA for misuse of AE. Similar conduct in the future may result in a topic ban and/or a partial block from this noticeboard.The subject, Qhairun, has been informally warned to communicate better. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Qhairun[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qhairun&diff=prev&oldid=1283361989
Discussion concerning Qhairun[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 Qhairun[edit]
Statement by IAmAtHome[edit]I think any sanctions are not required because the filer did not provide enough evidences or explain how sanctions are necessary. 1. First provided diff is two years old. 2. Editing in A/I areas, or the rate of increasing edits, is not an issue or grant any sanctions. 3. 3rd diff is accurate, as the added source is unreliable, which was discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355. I think Qhairun might not be aware of this discussion or about the unreliability of the source. The only issues I can see with the contributions of Qhairun are that he doesn't use accurate edit summaries; he was twice warned for using misleading edit summaries. He violated WP:3RR at November 2024 Amsterdam riots. The Main problem I've found is that user don't like to answer any talk page discussions; he might not be interested in answering or has a language barrier. IAmAtHome (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Qhairun[edit]
|
Smallangryplanet
[edit]| I have informally warned SAP to be careful regarding primary, opinion-based, and recently-published sources. Most concerns, however, were without merit, and filer Johnadams11 was TBANned in a related thread, largely based on discussion below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:31, 8 April 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 Smallangryplanet[edit]
1. Edits the lead of the 10/7 Hamas Attack Article to delete language that had been in the Article for more than six months. His edit comment provides no justification for the removal and employs language that is highly suggestive of bias. 2. In an RfC concerned with how the Gaza bombing is compared to WWII bombings, he provides links to several sources and states 3. In a debate with another editor about “war crimes” being classified as an “attack type," he claims that articles on the My Lai Massacre, 2002 Mombasa Attacks, and Armenian Genocide, have 4. Updates the total Gaza casualty count to 70K, using a Lancet estimate that is seldom or never presented in the absence of the number published by Gaza Health Ministry. The Lancet number is therefore inconsistent with the primary numbers in the Gaza War Article, The Gaza Casualty article, and the Gaza Casualties Template. Later, while engaged in a conversation about the inconsistency of these very numbers, he again edits the first Article, and leaves his misleading data in place. 5. Updates the casualty count in the Gaza Casualties Template, saying he is doing this 6. Removes a statement regarding the spread of anti-semitism in China, commenting that 7. In an AE request, he alleges that another editor had sought to "redefine" children, when the clear basis of the referenced discussion was that the article contained NO definition. In that same AE request, he falsely represents that an Article which prior to 3/6 had not been edited in eleven days except for a single link addition, was 8. In an AE Request, he frames as an indictment the idea that another editor is 9. Manufactures a notion – “demand for condemnation” – which simply does not exist in his citation. The edit history shows he progressively iterated towards this version after rejecting more accurate edits.
He has also filed four AE requests this year.
@Tamzin I'd really like to engage with your read of my Request, but before I do, I'd like to know whether 1) You are interested in hearing what I've got to say, and 2) Whether we should wait until SAP responds. Thanks. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Smallangryplanet[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 Smallangryplanet[edit]Per Tamzin's request, I'll respond to points 4 and 9. 4: As Johnadams11 points out, I was discussing this issue in a conversation they (John) were involved in – on a different article – and consensus in that conversation was to use the 70,000 figure. My edit to the casualty count article remains in place. If Johnadams11 has an issue with using the Lancet study, why take it to AE and not the talk page for that article? Regarding disagreement between primary sources: there are none that contest the Lancet study's figures, which have been reported on in many RS (i.e. the BBC). There is no alternative figure except for the Gaza Health Ministry one, which is the one the Lancet study investigated and concluded was an underestimate. That's why there was consensus to use that figure. I will also point out that the second edit of mine he mentions is a JWB copyedit with no material change to the article's content, deliberately, as I often do 'wikignome' or recent changes patrol things during downtime at work. 9: This one is interesting because that diff shows me reverting my own potentially NPOV edit ( Please let me know if there are any additional questions, thank you for your time! Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC) @Valereee can you clarify what you mean by Hmm. @Valereee: thank you for clarifying! Two things I want to note in response. The Gaza MoH data is not disputed by any RS. There have been some WP:FRINGE claims that the data is inaccurate – see our page on this – exactly because experts and the consensus in RS is that these claims were false. Every RS cites this data. There was a dispute in June 2024 that we include on the MoH page (see here) regarding the percent of women/children casualties, but that was also addressed in RS and so resolved shortly thereafter as confirmed by RS. Secondly, and most importantly, the Lancet study does not rely solely on MoH data. That's why it was seen as authoritative by RS. They went beyond that data by utilising other data and methods, and in fact established that the MoH undercounts casualties. Without getting into the content disputes themselves, I think it's risky to create a precedent that the existence, anywhere, of contradictory opinions, throws a well regarded source into disrepute. It would be one thing if RS disputed the study's conclusions, but to my knowledge that's not the case here. So it's unclear to me how I am violating Wikipedia RS standards. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC) @Valereee: @Tamzin: Hi both, sorry for the ping, just wanted to ask if there was anything else I could clarify above. I think I've answered your questions w/r/t points 4 and 9, please let me know if there are any other issues etc I can expand on or explain. Thanks! Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra[edit]I just looked at a couple of the points Johnadams11 made:
Huldra (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by VR[edit]Regarding #4. The Lancet has published (at least) two groundbreaking studies on Gaza war casualties:
The Counting the dead in Gaza study was somewhat controversial, although there seems to be consensus (here) that it was reliable enough to use. But SAP cites the Traumatic injury mortality in the Gaza Strip study, and I haven't seen any significant criticism of that particular study. I would consider the Lancet study a secondary source, as it synthesizes data from several WP:PRIMARY sources: the Gaza Health Ministry, social media etc. The study has already been cited 14 times by academic sources, and also by Guardian, AFP, Reuters, NYT etc. Therefore I think it was, at the time, reasonable to use this instead of GHM casualties. VR (Please ping on reply) 07:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Closetside[edit]I would like to bring attention to SAP's second comment in their recently closed AE case against me and my response within that case. In summary, they falsely accused me of having a false dichotomy of pro-Palestine and neutral sources, when I acknowledged the existence pro-Israel sources in an RM before their report. Furthermore, they doubted Euro-Med's bias by labeling my assessment as "[Closetside]'s percieved bias" despite the HRM not reporting on Palestinian war crimes against Israelis, a clear bias for a self-styled human rights monitor. Lastly, they have cherry-picked sources through arguing that because a source describes a witness calling an event a massacre implies the source describes it as a massacre even though it doesn't do so explicitly. Closetside (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Statement by username[edit]Result concerning Smallangryplanet[edit]
|
FMSky
[edit]| FMSky is given an indefinite topic ban from GENSEX and a logged warning in Yasuke, both broadly construed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:50, 10 April 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 FMSky[edit]
[119][120][121][122][123][124]
Behavior since his edit warring block and two topic bans appears to have gotten worse over time.
Edit war warnings in the last year only: [140] [141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149]
Discussion concerning FMSky[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 FMSky[edit]What is this exactly? My topic ban in the past (that wasn't GENSEX like you claimed) expired in October 2024. And the diffs you posted are mostly years old. Completely ridiculous. The comments towards the user pages was meant to say that it's hard to have a neutral discussion when users have biases (though I have since retracted that statement and acknowledged that I should not have casted aspersions 1.) -- FMSky (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC) (link) I find it incredible that this report is coming from a user that has no other talk page entries other than edit-warring warnings and dispute resolution notices. This page isn't your personal battleground. Work on improving articles instead like I try with every edit I make.---FMSky (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Edit: why a topic ban for Yasuke, i have never edited that article once in my life and don't plan on either. Don't even know who this guy is, he was just part of the controversy section in the assassin's creed article I edited Edit2. Bro what is this I just want to improve articles 😭
Edit3: I acknowledge that I made a mistake and it was clearly wrong to comment on and assume the potential motives of others ( Last edit: I'm extremely overwhelmed rn and not feeling too well, I dont even know what to say. I never called anyone the "F" word, what the hell? I cant do anything right now other than see how this plays out. Note that Summerfell1978 is a user that has had 3 blocks since registering this January, including a month long one. Im just gonna say every edit I ever made on this website was meant to improve articles --FMSky (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Update on user BMWF (who has not once commented here since making this thread): They are now edit warring with admins (1, 2) on the page Assassin's Creed to try to get controversial content removed. I also want to add that this thread is the weirdest internet experience I've had in my entire life. --FMSky (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by 12.75.41.118[edit]I find it hard to maintain good faith in FMs answers when they say they doesn't know who Yasuke is [[151]], but recently made edits to mainspace about Yasuke [[152]] 12.75.41.118 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Daisy Blue[edit]I've had FMSky's talk page on my watchlist from having notified the user of my AN request regarding their edits (perhaps notably in relation to the opening statement here, on the AN page, one user described FMSky's comment aimed at me as casting aspersions). Though FMSky is usually very quick to remove things from their talk page, which makes it harder to locate the prior edit conflicts or warnings, there indeed seems to be a pattern of making contested edits to reduce or remove information related to sexual assault: 1, 2, 3. I think there is other activity on the part of FMSky that is not neutral in nature, but those topics related to politics and culture wars in the context of gaming are possibly broader than the scope of two contentions topics or the indefinite topic ban. Daisy Blue (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Elaborating on the diffs in response to Tamzin. The edit summary of 1 was WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, however, the removed content also included information supported by multiple Variety sources. For 2, which consists of multiple edits, FMSky provided misleading edit summaries like "ce" and "rm emotional note" that did more than what the summary states. The latter removed not only the hidden "emotional" comment but also information on a petition related to the rape conviction. 3 is arguably the least problematic of the diffs and was included here in the context of the others. The template added by FMSky asks for the section to be trimmed, but FMSky offers no reason for the template placement. In each case, FMSky's edits were reverted by opposing users, who then took to FMSky's page. Each affected article still contains information on the sexual abuse allegations and the rape conviction. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by Bon courage[edit]I have come across this user removing negative medical content from articles about (what might be called) "heterodox" right-wing figures on social media, in a way which might savour of whitewashing. Given the conjunctions of multiple WP:CTOPS it is especially concerning when this is done using less-than-accurate edit summaries like "ce" for substantive changes, e.g.[156] Bon courage (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by Springee[edit]I find this complaint hard to follow. I do see some issues where editors should be going to talk pages to discuss issues. I'm not sure I understand the editor bias comments. I generally think it's best to avoid making any comments about editor motives but I also don't think it's unreasonable for an editor to presume a bias based on things an editor posts on their user pages. I think we would all presume different biases when it comes to say firearms if someone has an NRA For Ever box vs a "This user feels guns are never the answer". I do find it concerning that two of the editors here haven't reached EC status. The editor filing the complaint has just over 200 edits, the IP editor shows 4. While an IP editors in article space might make good points but it also would allow an individual to evade scrutiny since it's harder to associate their other actions with their comments here. Perhaps it's due to the way I took a long time to learn the ropes, when an editor who has just over 200 edits files an ARE I have to wonder how did they learn this? Did they have a previous account? I will note I have no other evidence and I'm not going to dig for it but this is just a general concern I have. My suggestion to FMSky, a while back an admin suggested (while holding a stick) that I adopt the same self imposed 1RR that they used. They argued, and I found this to be true, that slowing down and going to the talk page often results in the same end point while avoiding giving anyone any evidence to suggest you are acting imprudently. I also suggest strictly avoiding suggesting motives for the edits of others. There are many editors whom I suspect are extremely biased and are here to RGW or POVPUSH. However, I also know what it's like to be accused of such things. It doesn't make reaching any consensus easier. It's easy to look at user pages and get an impression that may or may not be true to their editing. However, it's best to just avoid it. Note that commenting on how the edits might look to a third party reader is OK. Saying "You are whitewashing..." isn't OK but saying that edit will read like the article is whitewashing is OK. I don't understand how this is a GENSEX related issue as it has nothing to do with gender or sexuality. I believe GENSEX was born from gamergate but I don't see how all complaints about editors in game related areas would be GENSEX. For what it's worth I don't see anything bright line actionable but I would suggest FMSky slow down and start a RfC if you feel your version is correct. I have been involved in cases where I felt my edits were correct but a local consensus of perhaps 3 other editors disagreed. After the RfC the consensus for what I had suggested was clear. Other times the consensus was clearly against me... because everyone else was wrong :D Springee (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Summerfell1978[edit]Ever since I began to use Wikipedia (few months), I feel threatened by FMSky. He has followed me on various pages repeatedly, and reverted edits. A few days ago he lashed out and used the F word, which I found odd for someone who has 200,000 edits and experience with all Wiki laws. I find his editing to also be incredibly biased towards far-right ideologies. It makes me feel unwelcome to Wikipedia, and that I have no influence in making the encyclopedia a better read, which is why I try to stick to medical and scientific articles because those pages aren't the focus for politically biased editors or bullies who are trying to make all articles written in a way that they want, rather than what should be objectively. I apologize if this goes against Wiki rules but I am adding my input as the voice of a novice and brand new editor. -Summerfell1978, 20:08, March 23, 2025
Edit: FMSky's reply @FMSky you said you never used the F word but you did to me just a day or two ago. Second of all, being overwhelmed and not feeling well is a cop-out. Every criminal who faces a judge says this. It's not an excuse. Third, hard to agree that "every edit made on this website was meant to improve articles", even a new user like me who just hopped on Wikipedia to look at the past posts found that you tried to mock "anti-transgender" by making fun of transgender rights saying "anti-transglutaminase". --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1178387997#Proposal:_1-year_transgender_topic_ban Edit3: Responding to Tamzin because xe requested that I provide a diff to xem regarding the incident mentioned. I'm new to wikipedia, it took me some time to even find it. I apologize in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Curtis_Yarvin#c-FMSky-20250320233800-Summerfell1978-20250320205100 Edit4: FMSky is contacting Wikipedia editors to leave positive comments about him and to "put in a good word" because this is discussion is a plot to cancel him. The reason for me bringing this to the attention of the public is to act as a paper trail in case there is an uptick in odd or inauthentic responses in a short span of time. [[158]] Edit5: FMSky has began to accuse a user of being a an owner of another account because both those accounts have used the English word "retaliatory" before. He has also taken action against the user, which prompted said user to call his action's "retaliatory" for beginning an arbitration investigation. FMSky needs to promptly be dealt with, as it seems that he is taking this situation as some sort of joke. In evidence in diff listed above, he believes this is an attempt to cancel him, and mentioned that this arbitration is the weirdest experience in his entire life. [[159]] Edit6: FMSky has a clear anti-trans bias, and since he has been reprimanded before regarding gender, he should know better, especially considering his 250,000 edit experience. I found this exchange between FMSky and other users to be inexcusable. There is an odd obsession with not letting trans people identify as a specific gender, or targeting transgender pages to edit their page and decide how their description should be based on FMSky's interpretation of what is and what isn't allowed to be documented. [[160]] Statement by Horse Eye's Back[edit]I have come across similar issues with FMSky but did not realize that they were so widespread. See for example Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 11#This page has a bunch of lies and this edit[161] in that context. Another one disputing RS right/far right characterizations[162]. This edit is also in that same vein[163], just mean spirited and derogatory of the project overall. As for "Removal of negative information on various political figures" well yeah theres plenty of that [164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171]. Not in any way meant to be exhaustive, this is literally just off the top of my head. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by REAL_MOUSE_IRL[edit]This SPI case is plainly retaliatory. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Kowal2701[edit]We should be wary of the weaponisation of these avenues to get rid of opposing POVs. Their previous topic ban from GENSEX seems harsh (I despair a bit when topic bans are imposed by "community consensus" when it's often just a group of people with similar POVs, but not saying that's what happened there). I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs, while far from ideal behaviour, that shouldn't warrant a TBAN from an area unrelated to the articles this is about. Think we'd do better to have constructive dialogue with FMSky to address said issues Kowal2701 (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by RelmC[edit]I provided FMsky the substantive CTOP notice here: [172] Admin Valereee mentioned that FMsky had not been made aware until after the edit warring. Amongst the diffs not provided are many posts on the mainspace article after being notified on their talk page of the CTOP, continuing to edit war for many hours after: [173] [174][175][176]. I originally saw the notification of a new section and was curious if it was in relation to the RFC conducted on the page a few months ago. I saw some claims from FMsky which did not match my understanding, and I in good faith asked them if they could cite their source. They provided two sources which did not say their claim [177] (7 mins past midnight my time) and instead of responding to myself and masem pointing this out, they started casting aspersions [178] (17 mins past midnight) and then made the comment about our user pages [179] (29 mins past midnight). I asked them to clarify why they believed this since a quick look at the relevant user pages showed nothing of note at all - except mine which just says I'm queer - and they refused to answer the question repeatedly, just casting more aspersions of bad faith, and collapsed the reply chain rather than answer what about our user pages they were referring to [180][181] [182] [183]. Since this arbcom started the User has opened a retaliatory SPI against Nutmeg by using Springee's comment as evidence, and then another user accused me of being Nutmeg's sockmaster, which FMsky replied to by saying: "based on the whole coffee and assassin's creed thing (which is quite a weird coincidence) it looks likely indeed" [184] and "I'm also now quite sure that user REAL_MOUSE_IRL is another account of Relm." [185]. I was content to just let this case play out without saying anything but this is ridiculous levels of retaliation when I was not even involved in this aside from FMsky attacking me on the basis of my user page for a reason that have still yet to identify. --Relm (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by NutmegCoffeeTea[edit]Some observations:
Statement by Nfitz[edit]I feel the comment by User:12.75.41.118 about Yasuke may be overstated. I don't think moving a paragraph that contains a mention of Yasuke requires any knowledge of the subject. Given what else is documented, the whole Yasuke issue may be a diversion and a red herring. I'd suggest focussing on the rest of it. Nfitz (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion[edit]Although it's from a year back, this reminds me of issues I ran into with FMSky on Sweet Baby Inc. - an article that was in a very similar situation in terms of being the focus of a WP:GENSEX + videogame-related controversy from roughly the same corners of the internet. In that dispute, FMSky created a section on talk focused on accusing a specific employee of the organization of harassment (albeit not by name), kept trying to add it using sources that were obviously not usable for something so BLP-sensitive ([190] summarizes it) - they also tried to edit-war the relevant material into the article ([191][192], then [193]. During the dispute they also edit warred elsewhere in the article ([194][195][196]) including a 3RR breach which they denied was edit-warring when I pointed it out to them because they "suggested multiple different versions." And they've engaged in continuous WP:ASPERSIONS and hostile / battlefield conduct:
Their general attitude was exemplifed here or in the edit summary here or by the WP:BATTLEFIELD framing here. This accusation that people are trying to bury the truth (also covered in the main complaint above) is a recurring issue for them on political / culture-war articles; see eg. [203]. And note that this older dispute happened while they were already under a transgender-related topic-ban, when you'd expect them to be trying to be on their best behavior. All of this was, again, from a year ago, but it shows that they have a persistent problem with these specific GENSEX / Gamergate-adjacent videogame culture-war issues in general. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by SashiRolls[edit]It may be worth noting FMSky's history of edit-warring...
Eventually it was necessary to have a second RfC confirming the prior RfC that FMSky was violating with the additions listed above. To his credit, FMSky stopped editwarring after I added these diffs to his TP (despite deleting the list within two minutes). -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC) Result concerning FMSky[edit]
|