Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328
GalantFan
edit| GalantFan is topic banned indefinitely from gender-related disputes or controversies and people associated with them, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:41, 11 January 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 GalantFanedit
Contentious topics alert at 00:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
A pretty clear-cut case of battleground conduct. I didn't take a hard look into their previous edits beyond a glance at the ANI thread that resulted in their first block. It should be noted that the editor who started that thread was an abusive sockpuppeteer, which may be a mitigating factor. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 22:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GalantFaneditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GalantFanedit
Other editors tell me to discuss the article on the talk page and then REPEATEDLY delete my discussions of the article on the talk page. They tell me to explain why it needs to be changed and then delete my explanation of why. They explain that consensus needs to be reached and then tell me why they ignore everyone who disagrees with them. They alter the POV of the article and then complain when parts of the *original* POV are restored. GalantFan (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Callitropsis also deleted another editors comments about the article after Sangdeboeuf also deleted another editors comments about the article. DIFF Previously it was proven that editor GreenCows was using multiple sock puppets to create a false impression of consensus on hundreds of articles and to camouflage hundreds of instances of white washing and POV edits. GalantFan (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)editStatement by SangdeboeufeditIt's true that GalantFan's behavior has been obnoxious overall, displaying a repeated failure or refusal to listen to what others are saying. But I think the removal of Writ Keeper's comment (#6 above) was probably a simple edit conflict; as GF indicated on their user talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC) edited 06:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Result concerning GalantFanedit
|
CanterburyUK
edit| CanterburyUK has been indefinitely blocked by Tamzin, so nothing really left to do here. If CanterburyUK wishes to appeal, they may do so via the normal process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:50, 17 January 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 CanterburyUKedit
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media. The information they are including is excessively long, poorly sourced, heavily reliant on opinion pieces and direct quotations (many of which are not cited). There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV. Given the editor is blocked from Jordan Peterson, they appear to have prior issues editing BLP issues. They were also recently warned by an editor about edit warring at Konstantin Kisin. The editor appears to struggle with placing and using citations and identifying appropriate sources for BLP articles. I'm not advocating for any specific remedy, but I do not want to catch a block for reverting or similar in the A-I conflict area so I would appreciate an admin's eyes on it. For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CanterburyUKeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CanterburyUKeditApologies that I am late commenting here. Taking item (5) first: the Brendan_O'Neill_(columnist) pageeditUser:Vladimir.copic reverted without using the Talk page - his revert comment was: "I do not see a DUE case for this". This was not helpful - because a superficial read of the paragraph directly above the one reverted: is equally open to that criticism; yet was left intact by them. I have today now asked on the Talk page, for explanation. In the 4 days since they reverted, I have not reverted back. (Off topic: I would prefer it if User:Vladimir.copic would use the page Talk when he reverts me in several pages. It encourages dialogue rather than what is currently feeling combative.) (B) Items 1-4: the Owen Jones pageeditOff-Topic: Vladimir.copic' has not added any words to the page since at least 2018. Neither has Aquillion (unless my search was mistaken) In December in Talk I initiated a section about lack of new content. I notice on Jan 12th that another editor raised the same issue to my December one, they wrote: "the page lacks content. I notice when edits are made to add content they are reverted, the article has stagnated...Subjects he is active on.. added by various users, result in reverts here" I have replied there - at length and invite this Arbitration process to read that. Noteworthy is that 4 editors including me wanted to keep the Hamas section (they made small edits to it) versus only 2 against (Aquillion and @Vladimir.copic). I request the Arbitration process to notice that I have not pursued long edit wars: I have let those two users revert my content after an initial day or two push-and-shove. Re (1),2,3 User:Vladimir.copic writes: > This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media. Not just me - 3 other editors were happy for that content to be there - they all made small edits to that text. > .. many of which are not cited Not true - checking now, only 1 was not sourced. The Editor could have reverted just that one - instead of all. > There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV. I myself deleted that section within 24 hours of the editor flagging it up. Regards the WP:DAILYEXPRESS mention - the article I quoted was by a notable person Andrew Neill not an unknown or gossip or etc journalist. - so it seemed OK to over-ride the blanket ban on that newspaper. Re (4) This claim is misleading regards date - I posted on Talk BEFORE I posted any new content, back in December, not January: Has nothing of note happened to Jones the last few years? Yet User:Vladimir.copic did not enter the Talk page when he first reverted. It was me that took the initiative to encourage the dialogue. I ask the process to assume good faith. I leave pages better than they were before (eg
PS and off-topic:- 'Vladimir.copic' has said in this page 'For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account.' Which was correct re Etiqutte (Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.) Given that they follow Jones, yet they have not found anything in recent years of following Jones that is worth adding to the wiki page -given how sparse it's content is? I don't follow Jones, and yet I have done more to add helpful content to the page. PPS: and off-topic: Wikipedia:Etiquette - Un-expert editors like myself would find it more welcoming here if the 2 editors above applied this: simple things like : in the case when reverting a block of 5 or 6 sources that clearly took the editor time to source - maybe (a) to revert with positive words first 'thanks for taking the effort to find these sources..' and (b) immediately start a section on Talk about the subject. Quoting from the guidance: "Give praise when it's due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages". I have not had friendly notes from them. And: "Avoid reverts whenever possible" Yet reverts seems to be the main activity of the editors on this page: PPPS - Off-topic: other posts by Vladimir.copic, may fail the UNDUE test he applies to the Jones page more strictly: he created a whole heading here for just one issue: Moved from above section What date was his Tweet? what did he say? CanterburyUK (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning CanterburyUKedit
|
Eastern but not so Middle
edit| Indefinitely blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish. Galobtter (talk) 01:53, 20 January 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 Eastern but not so Middleedit
Notified by me of the sanctions in this topic area on at 07:53, 29 December 2023
This user has been attempting to game ECP by making hundreds of dummy edits (see their userpage history [3], where they have made over 100 trivial edits) in an attempt to inflate their edit count. Their edits regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict have been combative e.g. [4] (made before contentious topics notification) [5] (made after being notified of the contentious topics). I really think that they lack a suitable temprament for this topic area, and I would rather this problem be nipped in the bud before they make enough dummy edits to pass the ECP barrier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Eastern but not so MiddleeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Eastern but not so MiddleeditStatement by (username)editResult concerning Eastern but not so Middleedit
|
Mkstokes
edit| Mkstokes is indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff, broadly construed. TarnishedPath is warned to remain civil and to refrain from future edit warring. Both the topic ban and the warning will be logged as Arbitration Enforcement sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:51, 22 January 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 Mkstokesedit
Firstly, I need to apologise. I could have saved much disruption if I had warned this editor of CTOP earlier and also if I had brought their disruption here earlier when it became apparent that they had no intention of listening to any guidance when informed about WP:BLP/WP:BLPUNDEL. By not taking the correct action fast enough I have been part of the problem. A review of Mkstokes contribution history indicates that between 28 Dec 2006 and 27 Sep 2014 they only edited on 13 occasions. The overwhelming majority of their edits since 21 December 2023 (after a long break in editing) have involved either Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff and have been aimed at inserting Nick McKenzie's part into a lawsuit that Schiff ultimately won regardless of whether secondary sources mention McKenzie at all or just in passing. They have alternatively argued between attempting to use court transcripts and unreliable sources regardless of WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSP and using reliable secondary sources which only mention McKenzie in passing, and do not mention that he defamed Schiff regardless of WP:OR. When I've removed material per WP:BLP/WP:BLPUNDEL and advised Mkstokes of this they have sought to sidestep the onus on them to obtain consensus prior to re-inserting the material by assuming bad faith at my end. Mkstokes is clearly a WP:SPA, their behaviour highlights WP:TENDENTIOUS at best and a desire to WP:RGW. TarnishedPathtalk 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MkstokeseditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MkstokeseditA review of my contribution history is not dispositive and can easily be explained by the fact that not a single one of my previous edits was disputed. Thus this is my first experience in dealing with contentious topics. So I'm not even sure why this needs to be a case. As to my aim to insert data related to Nick McKenzie, deciding that a news source mentions the subject's name "in passing" is an editorial opinion, not a fact. The fact is that I've noted at least 2 secondary sources that mention his name while not determining whether if it's in passing or not because it is not my place to make that determination. One source says "...compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer..." and the other source says "Schiff's lawsuit, which was filed against Nine, The Age Company and McKenzie and other reporters including Charlotte Grieve, claimed the October 2020 broadcast, titled 'Operation Atlantis’ defamed him by implying that he "facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people” by assisting customers to commit offshore tax fraud." The RfC associated with the Nick McKenzie article poses the following question: "Should this material be removed such that the established consensus becomes that this subject matter is not covered in any way in this article moving forward until such time that alternative consensus is established?" Then, without obtaining consensus for this question, the person creating the RfC removed or updated the article. I've only just learned now that the user shouldn't have asked to obtain consensus for removal, but given the context of the RfC it is clear that I was trying to stop an editor from going forward with unsupported edit. The other editor has seemingly created their own restrictions on reliable secondary sources. These are as follows:
I was not notified that the video source was unreliable. Rather, the other editor said YouTube videos MUST come from "a verified account of an official news organization." The WP:RSPYT policy actually says "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization..." Such as means "for example," not what the other editor suggests. UPDATE: I will accept any ban that you decide to place upon my account. I honestly don't care anymore. Do as you wish. Mkstokes (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Mkstokesedit
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sakiv
edit| Appeal declined. Galobtter (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by SakiveditThere was a discussion about the Greater Palestine article that began on January 6, when I brought up the topic of moving the article that began in August. Onceinawhile promptly replied in a non-objective manner and began to personalize the discussion, always referring to me with the word “you.” The same editor had agreed to a rename to PLO and Jordan. Notice that in the history of the article, there is an IP address that suddenly entered the discussion and described me as not being there to build an encyclopedia unlike Onceinawhile. Days passed and the discussion died down for a week, specifically on January 12, when the aforementioned editor nominated the article for deletion. At the same time, as a right to save any article that one of the editors deems worthy of survival, I have attempted to develop it in good faith and constructively. After several hours, editor Zero000 comes and removes content that they find problematic without discussion. I admit that my role was not completely good, but what happened was an accumulation that the other party also contributed to. This reply was very unnecessary and is this a response that helps make the encyclopedia a place for cooperation?. On the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I acknowledge that I was supposed to notify the two editors involved, but there was a discussion that was ongoing and it was not clear what was the appropriate place - dispute resolution or a third opinion. My goal was an administrative measure not to delete texts from an article until the picture became clear. I didn't get any warnings about complaints due to my "battleground edditing". Most of my edits revolve around football and season statistics. My edits bear witness that I stay away from sharp and uncontrolled debate and adhere to neutrality.Sakiv (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadisheditStatement by Zero0000editStatement by Star Mississippiedit
Statement by (involved editor)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SakiveditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)editStatement by (uninvolved editor 2)editResult of the appeal by Sakivedit
|
Makeandtoss
edit| Makeandtoss is warned to avoid (slow-motion) edit warring in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The user is also warned to adhere to the area's topic-wide one revert restriction.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:35, 26 January 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 Makeandtossedit
WP:1RR violations: At Israel–Hamas war: At Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh: They have previously responded quickly to self-revert requests (October, November) but they were unwilling to do so here, arguing that these don't constitute reverts. There are additional unreverted 1RR violations, but I lack the diffs to present them and they were not raised with Makeandtoss at the time. Outside of WP:1RR they have engaged in extensive edit warring at Israel-Hamas war. They have edit warred over describing in Wikivoice Israel and the US being internationally isolated amid calls for a ceasefire:
They have also edit warred over whether Palestinian casualties should be led with "Since the start of the Israeli operation": This isn't the full extent of their recent edit warring on that article; the most significant violation that I have not detailed here is over the number of paragraphs in the lede, with them being very insistent that it must be four, but I am running out of diffs.
Discussion concerning MakeandtosseditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Makeandtossedit
There are no violations of 1 RR above, and the rest of the edits were restoring edits that were agreed upon in the talk page of a constantly changing article at the Israel-Hamas war. In my defense, I will admit that, although I believe the last article ban was excessive, I accepted it, learnt from it and kept it always in my mind to avoid violating 1RR again and engaging in the talk page more. This behavior is the opposite of edit warring. On the other hand, it is important to note that the filing editor has a documented history of making false accusations to get editors they disagree with in contentious topics banned:
It is crystal clear now that instead of engaging on the articles' talk pages to solve disagreement and reach consensus, they have chosen instead of spend countless hours trying to find fault in other editors to get them banned. This is not about making everyone conform with WP's guidelines, this is about them continuing to edit unopposed. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Response to additional commentsedit
Statement by MidnightblueowleditMakeandtoss has engaged in similar behaviour, namely WP:Edit Warring, at the FA-rated Nelson Mandela article, where they have sought to push additions about Israel/Palestine in recent days. After their initial alterations/additions were reverted, with a request that they abide by WP:BRD, they twice restored their edits: This appears to be a pattern of behaviour across multiple articles, one motivated particularly on issues regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000editMakeandtoss is an excellent and valuable editor, not least because he is one of the very few in ARBPIA who can read Arabic. Just before this case was filed, I spent some time explaining aspects of the 1RR rule that Makeandtoss did not understand. For example, he thought it was ok to do a second revert if the editor he was reverting had apparently agreed to it on the talk page. In terms of his combativeness level, among regulars in ARBPIA he is around the middle, well below many others who are more careful. Of course he has personal biases but so does everyone who edits in ARBPIA. In my opinion a stern warning is a sufficient outcome. Zerotalk 00:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Statement from Irtapiledit
@user:BilledMammal can you please more clearly identify the edits, that the accused is supposedly reverting, and the user who made them?
Irtapil (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Makeandtossedit
|
KhndzorUtogh
edit| Closed with no sanction. KhndzorUtogh and Parishan both given some advice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 29 January 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 KhndzorUtoghedit
KhndzorUtogh narrowly escaped an indefinite topic ban following the most recent AE request addressing their battleground behaviour, but unfortunately continues to display the same editing pattern that earned them the one-revert sanction they have just violated.
Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogheditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KhndzorUtoghedit3 January 2024 is not a revert, it is a general copyediting diff, all of the changes of which I explained on the talkpage for Ken Aeron, the user that edited 1 January 2024. Ken never replied, instead Parishan later did. The 5 January 2024 edit by Parishan (who is the un-named editor) was only a partial revert; I didn't receive a notification that I was reverted and hadn't realized that I had been. I also wasn't notified Parishan had replied to me four days later on 9 January because I didn't get an alert. By the time I noticed it on 18 January, I didn't remember a one-word change out of a much larger copyediting edit I made for a different user. Since I wasn't notified of Parishan's revert, it appeared that the word was never changed. The 18 January 2024 edit came after I posted several sources for it on the talk page, so it had seemed like a single bold edit I had made, in line with WP:BRD. And it seems like incredibly bad faith and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for Parishan to link a discussion I had with Callanec showing several examples of me being careful to adhere to the rules, and then somehow conclude "continues to display the same editing pattern". For example, I followed the advice given here to the letter on the Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh article. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning KhndzorUtoghedit
|
Napalm Guy
edit| Napalm Guy has been indefinitely blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish as a regular administrative action. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:30, 30 January 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 Napalm Guyedit
None
What can be seen here is a pattern of slow-motion edit-warring, a refusal to get it, as well as POV-pushing. Requesting a contentious topic restriction on the topic of Eastern Europe, or at least a page ban from Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
Discussion concerning Napalm GuyeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Napalm GuyeditStatement by (username)editResult concerning Napalm Guyedit
|
Irtapil
edit| Irtapil indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 30 January 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 Irtapiledit
WP:1RR violations:
Looking through a few of their edits, I see they have also violated 1Rr elsewhere, although no request to self-revert these were made, such as at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel: From the discussions that took place on their talk page, my belief is that they want to comply with the 1RR restrictions, but they are struggling to understand what they need to do. I've seen similar behavior elsewhere; where they appear to intend to comply with the relevant restrictions, but for various reasons fail to do so. For example, I previously raised this edit with them, in which they added the claim that the When I warned them about it on grounds of NPOV, their explanation convinced me that they added this figure in good faith; that they believed the number of affected individuals needed to go somewhere, and they believed the "captured" column was the best of the various options. However, they should have realized that leaving it out was a better choice than introducing a serious WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V issue. Similarly, other editors have warned them about adding content without citations alongside a "citation needed" tag. Again, their explanation convinces me that they are acting in good faith, with them intending to add sources later, but they should realize that they should add the sources and the content in the same edit - or at least at the same time. Elsewhere, I've seen them misunderstanding where and how it is appropriate to notify editors of discussions. To summarize; I believe they want to contribute positively and within the restrictions to the topic area, but I'm not convinced they have the ability - or at least, I don't have the ability to provide the guidance necessary for them to do so, although perhaps some here will be able to.
Discussion concerning IrtapileditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Statement by IrtapileditQuestions & Repliesedit @Ealdgyth i have shortened it e.g. here - It was stuck for a while because i honestly thought "20 edit limit" applied to statement revisions. Irtapil (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish @Ealdgyth @Galobtter It has only been about 24 hours since i asked @user:Seraphimblade about the word limit, and i was busy with off line responsibilities for most of that time. I really can't fairly respond to these two sets of unrelated issues in 500 words. If you want me to start with 500 can you suggest the top priorities to address first? I think the citation note thing is a new bad habit, i only recently noticed the "reason" flag and i suppose i over used it. I really do not feel i have been given a fair chance to self correct this issue. I want to to fix my recent edits and improve them? If i am topic banned i cannot do this. Irtapil (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Previous Requestedit@user:Seraphimblade I was hoping that I got up to 500 words to respond to each statement? But it seems I was over optimistic? Could I at least have 500 words to respond to each of the main issues, please? The statements below mostly don't relate to what BilledMammal originally raised.
I think I can trim this down to something readable within that limit. But it would also help if @SaintPaulOfTarsus or the arbitrators @user:Seraphimblade please removed the paragraph beginning " But I would like to discuss this with @SaintPaulOfTarsus on my talk page because it looks like I'm sometimes expressing myself in a way that's prone to misinterpretation and I want to prevent that happening in future. Irtapil (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
ATTEMPTED FIRST 500edit1RR
5 January
cite notesedit
BilledMammaleditI have been worried by Billed Mammal's editing for a couple of months
I believe a their motive was mostly retaliation for that complaint and for that one genuine revert on 19 January that they disagreed with. e.g. "
The only plausible reason to add that non-problem to the already long list of imaginatively defined "reverts" was to make me feel threatened, overwhelmed and intimidated? I have noticed BilledMammal threaten multiple people with disingenuous WP:1RR allegations. Often they don't male it to arbitration, but the person just decides editing is too stressful and gives up. We are losing a lot of potentially valuable editors in a "non random" pattern. This is likely to be severely biasing Wikipedia in a very damaging way at a very dangerous time to be doing that. Any attempt to deal with this damaging pattern of behaviour is deflected with WP:canvasing e.g.from "BilledMammal disruptive editing" and by @ScottishFinnishRadish below
Statement by SelfstudiereditThis recent ANI discussion seems relevant, in particular the interaction between filer and defendant.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsuseditI feel justified making a statement because a talkpage message I authored was linked above and discussed by admins. I have had frequent interactions with the user starting in early December, mostly in ARBPIA. I quickly started experiencing CIR concerns like those Galobtter expressed below, culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive.
In addition to what you previously read from me, the user deploys citation needed tags in other disruptive ways.
These examples indicate a tendency to dispute content without checking existing citations. The user wouldn't have had to scroll far to have these questions answered. The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate on whether Hamas likes Israeli Arabs less than other Israelis because they view them as "traitors", or on how often Muslims who want secular government quote the Quran, and includes commented-out speculation in articles on whether ISIS was involved on October 7, because "I've read half a dozen in depth articles on this, but i need to find them again." Reading WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, I felt I had observed nearly all the listed examples from this user. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Irtapiledit
|
Themodifie7
edit| Blocked indefinitely by Bishonen for disruptive editing; a regular admin action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:59, 31 January 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 Themodifie7edit
This user is simply a net negative within this topic, and arguably to Wikipedia as a whole. Their talk page is full of warnings for a wide range of disruptive behaviors, including copyright violation, edit-warring, promotional language, disruptive page moves, and a few others. The proximate trigger for this report are two edits (1 and 2) that added and then reverted in entirely unsupported content. Their edit-summaries are wholly inadequate. They are fully aware that contentious text requires sourcing, as they've previously removed content as unsourced, but don't seem to recognize that the principle applies to their own edits as well. Perusing their contributions while filing this led me to this removal (with another inadequate edit-summary) of a controversy section that, while it may have been badly written, was at least sourced. Other recent problematic behavior includes this deeply unhelpful edit to History of India; the article is very obviously about the region (including Pakistan and Bangladesh), and this addition to the lead with absolutely no explanation. This edit smacks of the same promotionalism they were previously sanctioned for, and is in very poor English to boot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Two previous blocks for edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Themodifie7editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Themodifie7editStatement by (username)editResult concerning Themodifie7edit
|
Sudhansu7
edit| Indeffed by Bishonen as a normal admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 1 February 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 Sudhansu7edit
I think it's clear from the above evidence that Sudhansu7 lacks the ability or willingness to adhere to best referencing practices in relation to caste topics, and may have broader CIR issues.
Discussion concerning Sudhansu7editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sudhansu7editStatement by (username)editResult concerning Sudhansu7edit
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cmsmith93
edit| Cmsmith93 has been indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action by Cullen328. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Cmsmith93editAppeal of Topic Ban I have a Topic Ban against me as can be seen on my Talk page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cmsmith93 "You are indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed" Admin who topic banned me: ScottishFinnishRadish Per ScottishFinnishRadish, I committed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_%22get_the_point%22
Since I've never received a warning or complaint from 2 admin and 1 bureaucrat who have seen most of my interactions on this site, and I have not received any particularly noteworthy complaints from any editors, and the one Admin who had problems with me cannot quote me, I ask that this ban be lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsmith93 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Statement by ScottishFinnishRadisheditStatement by (involved editor 1)editStatement by (involved editor 2)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cmsmith93editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)editStatement by (uninvolved editor 2)editResult of the appeal by Cmsmith93edit
|
Grandmaster
edit| Closed with advice to both parties. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 13 February 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 Grandmasteredit
On page 2 of the UNHCR Observations on the Human Rights Situation report (which Grandmaster keeps referring to as a "fact-finding mission" despite it never using that phrase), it is stated: "the security and stability in and around the Karabakh region, including the human rights situation of its population, were continuously undermined ... The recent tragic mass displacement of Karabakh Armenians following Azerbaijan’s military action of 19 and 20 September 2023 should be seen in this context." And page 17 states: "the number of wounded civilians exceeded 40 persons, including 13 children, while there were 10 confirmed civilian deaths, including 5 children as of September 20. However, the Ombuds noted that information about casualties was difficult to obtain because of the paralysis of the de facto authorities at that time. The Ombuds also referred to alleged violence and signs of torture/mutilation among the reported 14 dead bodies that were transferred to Armenia". But somehow Grandmaster is using this source to deny that the Armenian population were victims of violence and forcefully expelled. Since this is not the first time Grandmaster has quoted this source out of context to POV push false claims, as previously pointed out to them, this appears to be intentional, or at least Grandmaster does not read/understand the source states, which is also very disruptive. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers In earlier incidents of Grandmaster misusing sources to deny the Armenian population was victim of violence, I did not open a case, I just brought it to Grandmaster's attention.[12][13] This was the same with other users who also noticed Grandmaster citing UN sources out of context.[14] Even though it was brought to Grandmaster's attention several times that the sources weren't being accurately reflected, the POV pushing to deny the atrocities did not stop. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GrandmastereditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GrandmastereditThis was my first edit, which was partially reverted by KhndzorUtogh, who said that there was no explanation for it. I rolled it back with an explanation in the edit summary, and I also started a discussion at talk. [16] As one could see from that discussion, we agreed to leave it at "UN in Azerbaijan", and I made no further reverts. So I don't think this is something worth escalating to an AE report, it was just a content dispute that was resolved at talk. Point 4, I only quoted the UNHCR representative who literally said: "there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move". I don't see how accurately quoting a source could be a violation. Btw, this information was removed by KhndzorUtogh [17] without a consensus, despite an RFC on a related page resulting in an overwhelming support for inclusion of the information from the UN. I started another RFC on that page to resolve the dispute. [18] Point 5, about this comment, indeed, neither the UN, nor CoE Commissioner confirmed any violence against civilian population. KhndzorUtogh selectively quotes the CoE source, trying to present it as something written in the CoE voice, while in reality the CoE commissioner only conveys the information provided by the Ombuds of Armenia, but makes no assessment of the veracity of those claims. KhndzorUtogh omitted the beginning of the sentence, which starts with "She (Ombuds of Armenia) reported that the number of"... The CoE commissioner came to a conclusion that Karabakh Armenian population left because they "found themselves abandoned without any reliable security or protection guarantees by any party". One can see from the discussion on renaming the article that my opinion on the proposed title was shared by other editors as well, as the discussion ended with no consensus on changing the article title to "ethnic cleansing", as KhndzorUtogh proposed. In any case, this was also a content dispute that was resolved at talk. My understanding of the outcome of the recent AE case on KhndzorUtogh is that users are advised against taking every minor disagreement to the AE. Regarding this edit, KhndzorUtogh actually cites a wrong part of the text, and then accuses me of "deliberate manipulation". The part that I quoted is this: the Commissioner wishes to reiterate that all persons displaced by the long-lasting conflict have the right to return to their homes or places of habitual residence, regardless of whether they have been displaced internally or across borders. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have the obligation to ensure that any return is voluntary and that they are carried out under conditions of safety and dignity. See Clause 46 [19] Regarding this single revert, as was discussed here, there is no consensus among the reliable sources to call this event an ethnic cleansing. It should be demonstrated that "ethnic cleansing" is what the event is generally referred to by the majority of reliable sources to claim it as a fact in the infobox. Grandmaster 08:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC) KU cites as evidence of my misbehavior his and another user's objections to inclusion of a UN mission report. I started 2 RFCs, where the community disagreed with their arguments. [20] [21] Grandmaster 23:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC) This situation was actually discussed here: [22] I brought up the issue of stonewalling by KU (and some admins agreed that there was stonewalling), and when FFF asked about my revert, I provided my explanation. I will repeat it here. Some users objected to inclusion of UN mission reports on a related page Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. I started an RFC on whether the UN information should be included, and the overwhelming community consensus was it should be. Since Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh are pretty much the same article split in 2, I believe consensus applies to both articles. When I included the UN info in the second article, it was reverted by BM who stated in his edit summary that its place implies that it serves as a rebuttal to the claim by Manasyan, but its date is wrong for it to do so. As one can see my edit summary, I put all the sources in chronological order, added date to UNHCR report, thinking that it would address his concerns. But when the same user removed the content second time [23], I continued the discussion at talk. The discussion was stale when I restored the content on 21 December 2023, as no one responded for about a week. The last comment by BM before my revert was on 12 December 2023, and by KU on 15 December 2023. KU claimed that the info was "dated", and when asked which Wikipedia rule requires to use only "up to date" info, KU referred to MOS:DATED, which in fact is not a rule, but a guidance on how to format articles, and it says quite the opposite, that the information needs to be dated precisely. I will leave it to admins to decide whether it was a WP:CIR situation or something else. After he was explained that MOS does not apply here, KU disappears for 7 days. On 20 December 2023 I asked if there were any objections to inclusion of the content. [24] I waited another day, no one responded, and only then I restored the content. Then on 22 December 2023 KU reappears, reverts me and states that he was objecting. In order to resolve the dispute I started a second RFC on the same source that awaits closure. [25] I believe 1 week is a reasonable time to assume that the inclusion of the content gets no objections, and I asked on talk before restoring it. Moreover, I started 2 RFCs to resolve the disputes, despite obvious stonewalling by KU. If 1 week is not sufficient to assume that my edit is not disputed, then what is the advised wait time? Grandmaster 09:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)editClerk notesedit
Result concerning Grandmasteredit
|
JArthur1984 - civility restriction
edit| Not an AE matter, moved to ANI. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
After posting on the user's talk page to clarify the edit rationale and warn the user to assume good faith, the user continued assuming bad faith (all documented on their talk page) Superb Owl (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
|