Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive332
Entropyandvodka[edit]
| Entropyandvodka is given a logged warning to adhere to 1RR, as clarified here, and that further edit warring or 1RR violations will result in sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Entropyandvodka[edit]
WP:1RR violations and 1RR gaming at Israeli war crimes:
I don't know whether 06:18 is a second 1RR violation, but it is gaming of 1RR and seeing 1RR as an allowance, rather than a hard limit - reimplementing a reverted violation 23 hours after initially implementing it and seven hours after reverting it is not aligned with our expectations regarding self-reverting violations. I requested they re-self-revert; they have refused to do so, and are now arguing that 07:05, 21 April 2024 was not a revert.
There's a few other recent 1RR violations (for example, 02:21, 9 April 2024 and 16:46, 8 April 2024), but no recent gaming as far as I can tell. The issue with this one, though, is how blatant it is; they didn't wait 24 hours to revert back to their preferred version after self-reverting, they waited just seven - if we don't consider the time the between making the violating revert (07:05) and self-reverting the violation (22:58) it means they reverted back to their preferred version just twelve hours after initially reverting to their preferred version. If this is permissible, then that means editors who wait 24 hours from their first revert to self revert would be permitted to revert back immediately after self reverting, making the restriction considerably less effective at preventing edit warring and disruption. 22:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka[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 Entropyandvodka[edit]This is misleading. While edit 1 was a revert, edits 2 and 3 were not reverts, per the guidelines in WP:Reverting. The paragraph in all versions contains the proposition that Francesca Albanese said (or stated) that Israel had committed or was committing genocide, providing her exact quote. Edits 2 and 3 didn't change this. They added additional propositions (she submitted a report, the findings/conclusion of the report). The term 'found' here refers to the findings/conclusions contained in her submitted report, which was passingly referenced in the initial version before BilledMammal's later-reverted edit. BilledMammal's edit essentially just made the same explicit proposition twice in two consecutive sentences. Edits 2 and 3 fall into the classification of examples provided in WP:Reverting as 'A normal change, not a reversion' as they add additional propositions without removing any. Boiling down the propositions in the differences, we have: Edit before BilledMammal edit: She found X. She said X BilledMammal edit (before the reversion) She said X. She said X. Edits 2 and 3 (not reversions) She submitted report X, which found/concluded X. She said X. I'd point out briefly here that the initial version, before and after BilledMammal's reverted edit, did warrant revision, as it referred to the findings/conclusion of a report without explicitly mentioning the report. I now think BilledMammal was right to make that initial edit, and I was wrong to simply revert it, as that original form of the sentence with no additional information would go against MOS:SAID. Edit 1, the revert I did make of BilledMammal's edit, failed to address this issue, but the subsequent edits 2 and 3 addressed this, without information/proposition loss. Edit 3 was a slightly clearer version of edit 2. After edit 2, in which I first added the additional material, BilledMammal accused me of violating 1RR. I self-reverted when requested to, in the spirit of collaboration, though didn't agree that adding that material constituted a revert, and ultimately added it later in edit 3. All the material is RS-backed, and provides informative and relevant context. If I'm correct that edits 2 and 3 don't constitute reversions, then there's no 1RR violation. If I believed edit 2 or edit 3 constituted a revert, I wouldn't have made either edit. On my talk page, I attempted multiple times to engage with BilledMammal about the substance of the issue, sought feedback, asking how BilledMammal wanted to write it to add the additional material. BilledMammal repeatedly refused to engage much about the topic, showed no interest in seeking consensus, instead accusing me of a 1RR violation and demanding I self-revert to BilledMammal's version. BilledMammal then threatened arbitration if I didn't comply. I made a good faith attempt to show to BilledMammal why I believe edits 2 and 3 don't constitute reverts, and offered two more suggestions to reach an inclusive consensus. BilledMammal did not respond to these suggestions.
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Entropyandvodka[edit]
|
76.53.254.138[edit]
| 76.53.254.138 blocked 2 weeks by ScottishFinnishRadish. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 76.53.254.138[edit]
User initially began editing as an IP in the ARBPIA area some time ago, sometimes disruptively: After being issued the CTOP warning on May 1 (linked below), and despite being specifically warned of the ECR restriction, they've resumed editing within the ARBPIA topic area, primarily in the current events portal:
The IP in question has exhibited other generally disruptive behaviors over the past several months, both within and outside the ARBPIA area:
Many of their other edits exhibit a strong POV that they've attempted to push through via some of the aforementioned slow-motion edit wars. Overall, they've seemingly disregarded the CTOP warning issued to continue editing in an area they're not allowed to, and have a history of disruptive editing otherwise. They've avoided a block up to this point. I apologize if this should've gone to WP:ANI due to it being an IP, but I figured AE was the correct location given the bulk of the edits being in an arb-restricted area. The Kip 02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 76.53.254.138[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 76.53.254.138[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 76.53.254.138[edit]
|
Dylanvt[edit]
| Dylanvt warned to follow 1RR, and to remedy any infractions as soon as possible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dylanvt[edit]
WP:1RR and edit warring at Nasser Hospital mass graves:
They have not responded to my request to self-revert, but they have continued editing.
Discussion concerning Dylanvt[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 Dylanvt[edit]
Statement by TarnishedPath[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Dylanvt[edit]
|
Petextrodon[edit]
| There is consensus among uninvolved administrators to topic ban Cossde indefinitely from Sri Lanka, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Petextrodon[edit]
This page as seen weeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND and possible WP:NAT editing, with controversial content been added with single sources that are most cases primary sources that have clear conflict of intrests and even been labled "pro-rebal". Some other sources with WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, that makes the content appear WP:OR. Request for more citations per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:CHALLENGE have been refused. Hence I am requesting arbitration to settle this matter by establishing the quality, type and style of citations needed for this artcile. Following attempts for dispute resolution have been tried:
In response to the comments made here, my stand is that if the admins here feel that a topic band for 30 days or one year to myself or to Petextrodon or both, so be it. However, I request that my band would be limited to Sri Lankan Civil War related topics since my edits on broader Sri Lankan topics have not been hot topics and I have been contributing for over an decade. In the matter at hand I would request admin intervention to review the content dispute. I have raised this issue in RSN ([1]) and there has been no result. Clearly the article in question does not meet WP standards of WP:NPOV and I request an independent review, mainly regarding the poor sourcing and use of primary sources. In another RSN ([2]) it was mentioned that "As with other advocacy groups… caution is needed. Statements by advocacy groups are WP:PRIMARY sources… certainly reliable for verifying that they take a given stance on an issue, but not necessarily de-facto reliable for the accuracy of the background material used to take that stance." It is vital that this takes place now due to the WP:BATTLE ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) that’s is taking place regarding topics associated with the Sri Lankan Civil War, with a clear group of editors including Pharaoh of the Wizards editing on one side of this battle ([8], [9]). I am not surpised to see his support of Petextrodon, an editor who has no content contribution beyound Sri Lankan Civil War topics. Cossde (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petextrodon&diff=prev&oldid=1221697850 @ Bookku . WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:VOTESTACKING on SL Civil War topics were conducted by Petextrodon, Oz346 and Okiloma in general. These have been evendent in pages: List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka where request for use of secendary sources to meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL has been meat by WP:BATTLE. WP:VOTESTACKING has taken place in RFCs in Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces, Talk:Sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers#Merge_proposal:UN_child_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Haiti, Talk:1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom#RFC:_Report_on_1977_anti-Tamil_riots. Cossde (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Petextrodon[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 Petextrodon[edit]I don't think the issue is truly about the number of citations which is why user Cossde deleted even the content backed by two RS citations, Human Rights Watch and Routledge scholarly publication. More crucially, Cossde may be guilty of vandalism for repeatedly deleting sourced content [1][2], since no Wikipedia rule states that a content without more than one RS should be removed. Also, the user is well-aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources classified the UTHR as RS long ago and recently classified NESOHR as a "Qualified source" that can be cited with attribution. As for Frontline (magazine), that's a mainstream news magazine that any reasonable editor can see meets the criteria of RS. As for Uthayan newspaper, I had repeatedly explained to this user in the talk page that it was a registered and award-winning Sri Lankan newspaper yet they weren't satisfied by this explanation and refused to explain why they questioned its reliability. Cossde has a long history of deleting reliably sourced content [1][2][3] that are critical of the Sri Lankan government and its armed forces. To me this looks like WP:nationalist editing, especially given the blatant double standards this user has shown regarding the use of sources on multiple occasions:
They did not address their blatant double standards despite my repeated requests to do so in the talk page. It would appear from this to any reasonable observer that Cossde is more bothered by the nature of the content than the reliability of the sources. I hope the admins review the reporter's own behavior so the vandalism issue can be sorted and I wouldn't have to open a separate enforcement request against this user. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards[edit]See no violation this is at best a content dispute which needs to be resolved elsewhere.Further there no CT alerts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Petextrodon is dedicated contributor in the Sri Lanka area and see no reason for action.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Bookku (Uninvolved)[edit]
Statement by Robert McClenon (another Sri Lanka dispute, another forum)[edit]I am asking the administrators at this noticeboard to do something, because there are too many disputes between User:Cossde and User:Petextrodon. I am ready to provide a list of these disputes again, which I already provided to ArbCom in support of identifying Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, and especially the Sri Lankan Civil War, but I know that the administrators here know how to look up the record as well as I do. User:Petextrodon alleges that User:Cossde's removal of sourced content is vandalism. It is not vandalism, and an editor who has been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism should also know what is not vandalism, and POV pushing is not vandalism, although it is often reported as vandalism. However, Petextrodon's complaint should be treated as a counter-complaint of disruptive editing and POV pushing by User:Cossde. Something needs to be done to curb these disputes. The obvious, but probably wrong, answer is to impose an interaction ban, because these editors do not like each other. The problem is that that will provide a first-mover advantage, and so may actually encourage pre-emptive biased editing. So I recommend that the first step be to topic-ban both of these editors from Sri Lanka for thirty days to give one or another of the administrators time to review the record in detail and determine which editor is more at fault, and extend the topic-ban to one year, or determine that both editors are at fault, and topic-ban them both for one year. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Petextrodon[edit]
Clerk notes (Petextrodon)[edit]
|
Oz346[edit]
| There is consensus among uninvolved administrators to topic ban Cossde indefinitely from Sri Lanka, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Oz346[edit]
The use has began a enagenging in WP:Disruptive editing and WP:BATTLE in the article Tamil genocide. There is an active dissucssion going on in the talk page, however Oz346 has engaged in reverting edits made by myself and another in the lead over a period of hours today without engagaging in the talk page. However he has made no objection to the changes made by Petextrodon, who has completly changed the lead without disscusing in the talk page nore as Oz346 has personaly made changes without disscussing it in the talk page himself. Cossde (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish & @Seraphimblade, it was not my intention to weaponizing AE, however if you feel my actions are such, feel free to sanction me as you see fit, as I am ready to accept responsibility for my actions. My intentions were to bring to attention the WP:NAT based WP:POV Pushing and WP:Disruptive editing that has been conducted by these to editors on topics related to the Sri Lankan Civil War supported by a broader cohort of sympathetic supporters, who seem to come to their aid (even in this AE). It is my opinion that these two editors have been attempting to weaponizing WP as part of a broader campaign.
Discussion concerning Oz346[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 Oz346[edit]I made no objections to the changes made by Petextrodon, because they replaced non-peer reviewed sources with several reliable scholarly sources, which any neutral observer can see [26] Does user Cossde dispute this? Does he prefer the previous lede, which he himself has been questioning? [27] I have justified my reverts and have not broken any edit war rules, and do not intend to go anywhere near WP:3RR in respect of the contentious topics designation. Furthermore, it is evident that Cossde did not even bother to read the JDS article, in his edit which I reverted [28] , where he incorrectly claims that the author Ramanan Veerasingham made genocide accusations. Ramanan was merely reporting on the findings of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal: http://www.jdslanka.org/index.php/news-features/human-rights/426-sri-lanka-guilty-of-genocide-against-tamils-with-uk-us-complicity-ppt-rules Regarding point 3 and 4. I reverted to the status quo which had existed for months, and was the result of a long discussion a few years ago (which resulted in the various different death toll estimates being included). One of the sources that the user is questioning, ITJP was regarded as a reliable source on the RSN [29]. How can citing that with explicit attribution be regarded as POV pushing? In addition, Cossde's point 5, goes against the consensus established at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources, which explicitly states that these sources can be cited in Wikipedia. Yet he refuses to respect the admin led verdicts made there. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia consensus building policies. And now he accuses me of disruptive editing for following the projects' own guidance! In addition, I believe that user Cossde has thus far escaped sanctioning because every time he gets reported, he submerges the discussions with reams and reams of text not directly related to the issues at hand. This prevents admins from properly assessing the actual individual issues (Which is understandable, as it would require a large time effort to sift through all the accusations and counter accusations, many of which are baseless [30], and inappropriately cite wikipedia policies). My humble request is to focus on the issues at hand and not get sidetracked. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards[edit]See no violation this is at best a content dispute which needs to be resolved elsewhere.Oz346 is dedicated contributor in the Sri Lanka area and see no reason for action.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Obi2canibe[edit]I am glad the admins are seeing this enforcement request and the request against Petextrodon for what they are: an editor involved in a content dispute trying to remove from the picture editors with opposing views so that they can impose their own POV on the articles under dispute. Cossde has been at war with Oz346 for a year now. Their war has dragged in Petextrodon and number of other editors and impacted on numerous articles and noticeboards. The common denominator in all the disputes is Cossde. The alphabetti spaghetti of accusations that Cossde has made against Oz346 and Petextrodon can also be leveled against Cossde. If admins are minded to take any action in either of the requests, they need to go through Cossde's contributions over the last year. They also need to look at the enforcement taken against Cossde throughout their time on Wikipedia. Five blocks for edit warring and sock puppetry. There's a 12 year gap between the first and last blocks. This clearly shows that they are incapable of changing their behavior. As Robert McClenon stated in the first enforcement request, an interaction ban would provide a first-mover advantage, and so may actually encourage pre-emptive biased editing. Cossde has done exactly that with the enforcement requests: minutes before submitting the first request, Cossde removed 8MB on sourced content from an article under dispute where they was ongoing discussion on the talk page. I have no doubt that Cossde would abuse an interaction ban.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Oz346[edit]
|
Unnamed anon[edit]
| No action taken at this time as the matter is already being discussed at ANI. There is no prejudice to raising this issue here again if the ANI discussion ends without resolution of the matter, but we shouldn't have multiple threads open on the same issue at the same time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Unnamed anon[edit]
The user originally started by edit warring over My Hero Academia and was warned by multiple editors, which accounts for their first ~700 edits across multiple forums, noticeboards, and talk pages.[34] I believe their contribution record, comments from others at the thread at ANI they started to complain about my behavior where they freely admit to having a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and their talk page shows they have problems with edit warring and strong feelings in general. I believe the evidence above shows their disruption is particularly heightened in the GENSEX topic area, despite claiming to avoid it. This has been an issue for years. Their conduct at WP:No queerphobia and its associated MFD has been particularly disruptive. I made comments I regret and struck or clarified in response to their latest edits to the essay and for the record would like to apologize for my incivility towards him, but I believe he is still disruptive to the topic area (regardless of whether or not his views are queerphobic), he has a problematic tendency to group editors by LGBT status, and a TBAN may be necessary. At the minimum, a page block from WP:No queerphobes. The other edits to media articles and their edit-warring at Reverse racism and related pages and categories? I leave those to others to interpret. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Notified Unnamed anon 18 May 2024 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Discussion concerning Unnamed anon[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 Unnamed anon[edit]13-17 all relate to the same page. If you made this AE yesterday, I'd gladly be blocked from editing that specific essay if you reported me yesterday, but I had just come to an agreement with Licks-rocks, so it's up to others if they want me to no longer edit that page. I want to stress that I didn't actually agree with 16, but I was following advice from another Non-Endorser, Ficaia. 1-6 plus 8 all refer to the same page as well, and that was because Utada still used "she" pronouns in many then-current sources, before her social media outright listed she/they. I wasn't the only editor arguing this, nor was I the most prominent. That leaves five unique pages. The Simpsons AfD (12) was out of redundancy concerns, as all of the characters either had their own page already or were non-notable gag characters. The Family Guy edit (11) was because I was removing vandalism where the transphobia page was wrongly linked several times. The JK Rowling RfC (7) was because I felt that people put undue weight on recent news. For 9, at the time I didn't know people considered asexuals as LGBT (I still don't understand, but I'm no longer warring over it). I had no excuse for my phrases in 9, 3 and 4, but my views have changed in those three years. I don't group editors over their sexuality anymore unless there's a clear pattern where one side is mostly openly LGBT and the other side isn't. 10 was me seeing what I thought was original research, as I specifically remembered reading that Stranger Things interview. As for the edit war when I started my account, that was exasperation at constantly reverting to a preferred version, in spite of multiple users agreeing that a lot of the content was wrongly removed, being considered "not warring", as well as an name-calling from the other user in said edit war, who didn't contribute to the discussion after said incivility. Once Serial Number and I directly interacted for the first time in years when he complained about me at ANI, he submitted misrepresented evidence against me; in most of the diffs in his comment where I supposedly can't listen to other users, I had come to agreements with said users soon after(example), which he conveniently left out. As JXpG suggested, I'd like a two-way interaction ban between me and YFNS; SN54129 as well, because I can't trust that the latter will criticize me in good faith. In both of these cases, it's clear that I don't react well when somebody is being blatantly uncivil towards me, as both users have shown. My reactions are probably inappropriate, but they're not unwarranted since the other party is usually uncivil first, which is why I think my Ibans should be two-way.
@Seraphimblade: I think the discussion should be redirected here rather than ANI, as my grievances with one user I initially reported have seceded, while another user conduct dispute was reignited after years of inactivity because of the ANI discussion. I think the ANI discussion should close and discussion redirected here due to the user report switch. I'll also reiterate than I'm volunteering myself for two two-way interaction bans. If YFNS and SN54129 both agree with two-way interaction bans, then this case can be ended fairly easily. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by JPxG[edit]I suppose I am involved here because I commented at the AN/I thread about these same diffs running concurrently to this AE request (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist_and_User:Licks-rocks_civility_concerns). I also commented at the MfD for this essay, where I said it ought to be userfied (which it apparently now has been). This AE request feels like basically the same thing as the AN/I thread, which is "one of the participants in a vicious talk page argument wants the other person gone". The diffs in the post opening this thread go back three years, which, well -- if you have to go back three whole years to find stuff to make a case, I think the case might not be that strong. They are also presented in the worst context possible: e.g. the thing about recommending that YFNS remove "friendly" from her name was not some random remark, it was made in the context of a several-week-long discussion in which YFNS was saying stuff like " It may be warranted to note that YFNS (under a previous username) was at one point subject to a WP:GENSEX topic ban at AN (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121#Advocacy_editing_by_User:TheTranarchist), where CaptainEek's closing note was:
Of course, as with many things related to contentious political topics, this thread was opened by a now-blocked sock, but the consensus was nonetheless pretty consistent that there was a pattern of disruption. It should also be noted in the interest of fairness that this restriction was appealed (first at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive352#TheTranarchist_GENSEX_TBAN_Appeal and later, successfully, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive356#TheTranarchist_Appeal, with topic-based 1RR and 0RR restrictions). Now, while we're on the subject of "reports don't need to be made in good faith for the issues they mention to be serious and worth action" -- this may well be true here, and UA is acting pretty out-of-pocket. I think that something in the general shape of a two-way interaction ban may be appropriate here. I am not an "AE guy" so I cannot say for certain what's the most likely to actually have a meaningful positive impact.
Statement by Serial Number 54129[edit]Since I have been name checked, can I ask admins to request examples of the incivility I have used against User Anon. Without diffs... well, of course they're aspersions. ——Serial Number 54129 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) anon|talk]]) 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Unnamed anon[edit]
|
Melvintickle16[edit]
| Indeffed by Bbb23 as a normal admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Melvintickle16[edit]
None I'm aware of.
01:15, 29 May 2024 I posted a message to their talkpage. Air on White (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Discussion concerning Melvintickle16[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 Melvintickle16[edit]Statement by The Kip[edit]It appears Bbb23 has already indef'd the user in question for disruptive editing, so I think this case can be archived. The Kip (contribs) 02:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Melvintickle16[edit]
|
Afv12e[edit]
| Per a consensus of uninvolved administrators Afv12e, is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Afv12e[edit]
This user has, IMHO, had too much rope: despite numerous warnings, they seem unable or unwilling to learn our PAGs. I would suggest a TBAN, but a normal indefinite block would not go amiss. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Afv12e[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 Afv12e[edit]
I apologize for the oversight regarding the image source. The image was sourced , and the copyright status is provided. I will ensure that all future images have clear and verifiable sources. The caption content was intended to summarize the image and it was taken from here [35]; (the caption reference , added here as the editor pointed out that i took image but to specify that i took reference for captions) however, I recognize the need for proper sourcing and will add references to support the information provided.
I acknowledge that the sentence was unintentionally copied. I have rewritten the sentence to better paraphrase the source. The source used describes the broader Khilafat Movement, and I have now included additional sources that specifically discuss the Malabar rebellion to support the content.
The primary source was used to provide a firsthand account of the events. However, I understand that secondary sources are preferred. I will replace the primary source with Secondary Source to ensure better adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines.
I have actively participated in discussions, as seen in [36][37][38]. I admit that there were misunderstandings, but I have since reviewed Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. Moving forward, I will ensure all contributions are well-sourced and properly vetted.
I have taken past warnings seriously and have made significant efforts to improve my editing practices. Recent contributions such as [39] [40] demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia's guidelines and making valuable contributions.
I am a relatively new user on Wikipedia, with around 300 edits and 8 months of experience. I am still learning and navigating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I appreciate the feedback and am committed to improving my contributions to the community.
Sincerely, Afv12e
Statement by 86.23.109.101[edit]I agree with Vanamonde93 that a topic ban or block is required here. A couple more examples of disruption from the last few days:
This AN thread [48] from a few days ago may be relevant here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by BlackOrchidd[edit]
Statement by Abhishek0831996[edit]See Afv12e's edit warring on Malabar rebellion, especially this type of editing and edit summary. He is clearly not serious about what he is editing. This edit particularly confirms that he is editing to impose his agenda. His behavior on a recent WP:AN report was also very bad.[49] I agree Afv12e should be topic banned or blocked. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Grabup[edit]As far as I can see from his edits, I am convinced that he should get a topic ban. Surely, he is promoting an agenda. This Diff confirms he is pomoting an agenda. GrabUp - Talk 07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Afv12e[edit]
|
BlackOrchidd[edit]
| Per a consensus of uninvolved administrators BlackOrchidd, is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning BlackOrchidd[edit]
His talk page is full of recent warnings for his misconduct. Capitals00 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BlackOrchidd[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 BlackOrchidd[edit]Dear ArbComs
Context
Statement by Grabup[edit]I warned him not to add unreliable sources to a BLP, which appeared to be a blog site and not reliable. I also warned him not to add any type of analytics data or earnings from Socialblade. His response was not to acknowledge his mistake; instead, he said to discuss the reliability at RS. He has been warned many times for his edits. On one occasion, he was questioned by Admin BlackKite. In an edit summary, he said, “To maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV), we're adjusting this article.” Where he like of misbehaved with him. He removed well-sourced material because it told the truth about Modi, providing a poor edit summary that said Hindi sources should not be used if English sources are available. I reverted that edit and said that English sources should be cited if available, but Hindi sources can also be used. Later, he had to add that portion back. I think there is a full team behind this account or accounts. Their edits are not about improving Wikipedia at all; rather, they are promoting an agenda of PM Modi. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Black Kite[edit]I'll put myself in this section as I've had a lot of interactions with them. As you can see from the history of Talk:Narendra Modi, especially Archive 21, BlackOrchidd believes that Modi's article does not contain as much positive information about him as it should do, and has repeatedly attempted to insert material that is WP:SYNTH, WP:OR or based on unreliable sources. They do not appear to understand why they cannot insert this information even when it is explained to them in detail, which is an issue of WP:CIR. I am also suspicious (as was mentioned above by Grabup) that this is an account operated by a group to "improve" Modi's article during an election. It would certainly be logical to apply a topic ban here, even if it is a time-limited one until after election - though I suspect a that time they would no longer be interested in it. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde[edit]In addition to the above concerns, I would note the issues with NPOV here, where they user sources discussing what officials said and present those statements as fact in Wikipedia's voice with no attribution. This is an easy error for a new user to make, but the need for attribution has been explained to them multiple times at Talk:Narendra Modi. And speaking of frivolous warnings, there was this bizarre message to me a little while ago. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning BlackOrchidd[edit]
|
AtikaAtikawa[edit]
| Blocked one week for ECR violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 4 June 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 AtikaAtikawa[edit]
Background evidence: 18 May 2024 AtikaAtikawa knows how to post an edit request Various comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war (permalink)
Creation of Israel–Palestine conflict userboxes
Polemicizing in MfDs for the aforementioned userboxes:
The editor has eight mainspace edits. All of their mainspace edits have been made between January and September 2020. The editor has 177 total edits, of which 31.1% have been deleted. 69.7% of their live edits have been to userspace. The user is generally inactive as an editor of Wikipedia, but has increased activity probably due to interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict, but instead of resuming normal editorial activity, which would mean making edit requests for a while, the activity has been predominantly polemical. Therefore, seeing all of this user's edits in total, the user is WP:NOTHERE.
Discussion concerning AtikaAtikawa[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 AtikaAtikawa[edit]As for the comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. I acknowledge that I failed at understanding ECR limitations when I made them; A rookie mistake that stems from the fact that I just started having interest in editing Wikipedia, and I'm still familiarising myself with the rules. In fact I was warned and I did obey. Briefly, I acknowledge my mistake here. As for the userboxes. I hope that you take into consideration my arguments in their MfD entries. Basically, I think that Alalch E. is assuming bad faith since he is accusing me of endorsing violence and deeming atrocities as just with no basis, and I think that I actually clarified that through the documentation that the filer deemed as "apologia for violence including atrocities against civilians" when it is just a statement of a viewpoint, that is against violence from both sides. As for the polemical comments. They were basically just answers to comments that were polemical themselves rather than referring clearly to policies that I did break. I totally understands that two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm really open to advices that concern how could I have handled this better. As stated above, I'm well aware that I'm unexperienced, and I hope that my niche interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be somehow held against me, rather I hope for whatever answer I'll get to this to contain referrals to the rules I broke in order to be mindful to them from now on. I acknowledge that my behaviour was suboptimal, and I acknowledge that it did stem from a potential lack of understanding the rules from my part, and I welcome any decision that comes from your part with the hope that it will serve the noble goal of making me a better editor with a better service to the encyclopedia rather than punishment just for the sake of it.— Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Selfstudier[edit]Technical picky point, defendant is non EC and not permitted to make statements here (or anywhere, really). An admin could/should deal with this? Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The Kip[edit]Seconding Selfstudier here - the defendant is several hundred edits short of XC status anyways, so this should be a fairly textbook warning (or TBAN) for violating the ARBPIA XC restriction rather than a drawn-out AE case. The Kip (contribs) 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Vice regent[edit]@Alalch E.: can you remove this inflammatory comment? There are AGF interpretations of AtikaAtikawa's userbox, and these were given by Robert McClenon and Chaotic Enby. AtikaAtikawa themself wrote that the userbox doesn't support political violence, yet you still throw words like "pro-terrorism" around, and that raises the temperature.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning AtikaAtikawa[edit]
|
LokiTheLiar[edit]
| No issues with the notification to the LGBT Wikiproject. BilledMammal, when you're frequently the target of accusations that you're weaponizing AE maybe don't weaponize AE in this way. You're more than aware of the community consensus around these notifications, as you've been involved in some of the discussions where it has come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 4 June 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 LokiTheLiar[edit]
Notified a partisan forum, violating WP:CANVASS. They were aware of this issue, and the RfC that this is a repeat of raised the same issue, but they rejected it and decided to issue the notification anyway. That this is canvassing can be seen in the evidence below, which analyses three recent RfC's held at the Village Pump and proves that the WikiProject is non-representative on this topic, with a collective opinion that deviates by a significant margin from that of the broader community. These WP:ARBCOM principles are also relevant (emphasis mine):
Note that this only applies to transgender topics. As far as I know the Wikiproject is not partisan on other topics within its area of interest and thus there are no issues with notifying them on those topics.
Other issues related to this RfC including misrepresenting sources; they have claimed that the Telegraph
There was a consensus in that discussion that notifying Wikiprojects is almost never canvassing; given the number of editors who qualified their comments there wasn’t a consensus that it never is. Further, this is a contentious topic; editors should stay well clear of violating policy, and notifying a fora that is known to be partisan isn’t doing that, regardless of what you believe consensus at an informal and non-specific discussion says. 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LokiTheLiar[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 LokiTheLiar[edit]I anticipated that this user would make a tendentious report like this based on comments made on previous discussions, which is why I asked the village pump about this situation before I did it. In short, there is a strong and recent community consensus that notifying all relevant Wikiprojects is not WP:CANVASSING. And I would like to point out to any admins evaluating here that BilledMammal must know this because they participated in the thread. Loki (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
A statement by starship.paint[edit]I'm really not sure about this. Is it a surprise that WP:LGBT would be partisan on LGBT issues? No. But is the topic of the coverage of trans issues by the Telegraph related to WP:LGBT? Definitely yes? starship.paint (RUN) 09:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by Selfstudier[edit]Echoing starship.paint. In AI area, we routinely post to 3 projects, one each on either side and the other theoretically neutral. Here there is no other "side" so presumably editors with an interest in the subject matter camp out at the given project and then we are led to believe there is evidence that this forum is "partisan". Not convinced that this is a sufficient reason to invoke canvassing, though, it's not as if it isn't being done in plain sight and projects are seemingly a natural place to advertise a discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by TarnishedPath[edit]This is a particularly frivolous report that has been brought.
This should be closed with no action. TarnishedPathtalk 12:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Colin[edit]
Crap. I was referring to this RSN discussion where Loki wrote what I said he did and in which I participated. Seems there's now a second discussion on the very same page about the same thing. WTF Loki, what a mess. Didn't you RTM about not polling unless there was a clear consensus for your proposal? It was already an uphill battle to convince anyone to deprecate the Telegraph on this matter without you opening with careless comments about the cat litter story and then essentially saying that because they don't accept trans women are women, or have been interviewing The Wrong People, the are actually unreliable vs just believe different things to you. BilledMammal apologies about this. I think part of your latest post here is still wrong, but this isn't the forum to discuss that. Overall, though, I think BilledMammal should withdraw this. Being Wrong on the Internet isn't a crime and hasn't helped Loki's RFC. The notification thing clearly isn't something you've persuaded people here about, so likely is an area that needs some work elsewhere, where it isn't focussing on an individual. Since the RFC is a spectacular failure anyway, couldn't you just have got some popcorn? -- Colin°Talk 12:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by -sche[edit]Suggest trout for BilledMammal per Colin and TarnishedPath; notifying relevant wikiprojects (Loki notified the journalism, LGBT and UK projects and the NEWS page) is well- and long-established as fine, and (as pointed out above) was just recently affirmed. That BilledMammal presented his argument so recently in the VPP and consensus was clearly that notifying relevant projects is appropriate makes this filing look...tendentious; I don't know if it's forum-shopping per se, but it comes across as WP:IDHT-y. -sche (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist[edit]BM should recieve a warning, not just a trout, for wasting the community's time for a month over this issue and this ridiculous filing based on WP:IDHT. Some context:
BM is attempting to sanction an editor for upholding a consensus that BM is not only aware has existed for a decade, but has been re-affirmed 3 times in the last month. WP:TE and WP:IDHT are obvious. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning LokiTheLiar[edit]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dustfreeworld[edit]
| Dustfreeworld is indefinitely topic banned from medical topics, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 6 June 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 Dustfreeworld[edit]
Discussion concerning Dustfreeworld[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 Dustfreeworld[edit]For pt 1, the 1st diff, my paraphrased ES:
All contentious labels I removed were supported by non-MEDRS sources (>10 years or opinion pieces / blog posts of maybe COI authors (e.g., David of SBM). For pt 2, the 2nd diff, my ES (tag subpar sources per policies, consensus, & potential derogatory claims from maybe COI of SBM):
FYI, it’s made before the one above, i.e. I tagged before I removed (not needed per WP:PROVEIT, a section of WP:V; I tagged first just for transparency). For pt 3, all edits on 4/6 were reverted, & my response (another ES, prior to the above 2) to “overtag” (“overtag” because many dated sources, & switched to section tag from inline tag):
My edits’re *not* “pro fringe whitewash” as the OP claimed, (& I've never tried Reiki, not a proponent, & don’t have any RL association with it). Edits are based on consensus on NPOVN: And our WP:V policy (WP:PROVEIT), WP:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, WP:V#Best_sources & WP:BESTSOURCES (in WP:NPOV; as opposed to poor sources). (Article’s talk page: [61]. Further, this is the main reason for my edits. Reiki is a relatively safe practice of which the practitioners haven't claimed their practice as "scientific". We shouldn’t state potentially false claims from advocates, against them in Wikivoice). The OP's claim is untrue. Thx. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by MrOllie[edit]Dustfreeworld's own statements in response to this report are plenty to demonstrate the problem here. The ideas expressed above include: that Wikipedia cannot acknowledge that Reiki is pseudoscience and quackery for fear of damaging the reputation of Reiki practitioners, and that a surgical oncologist has a conflict of interest on the subject by virtue of their profession. This shows a lack of competence to edit in this topic area. I would suggest a topic ban from altmed, broadly construed. - MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by AndyTheGrump[edit]Given the attempt by Dustfreeworld at WP:NPOVN to argue in favour of parity between knowledge and ignorance on the basis that doing otherwise might upset someone's feelings, [63] I'd have to suggest that the scope of the obviously necessary topic ban needs to be broad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Dustfreeworld[edit]
|