Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive309
Golden
[edit]| Golden is warned that his actions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area have been disruptive as per this report, and that the next minor infraction will result in a topic ban, block or both. This warning is a type of sanction, and will be logged in the AE logs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:18, 1 August 2022 (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 Golden[edit]
Golden was blocked for sockpuppeting and, on a condition to remove the block, put under an AA topic ban. Although the topic ban was appealed a few months ago on April 23rd, Golden has continued to display the same tendentious pattern that resulted in their block and topic ban, as much of their sockpuppeting focused on name changes for settlements in Azerbaijan. I did a courtesy warning about one of Golden's edits to their mentor, see User_talk:MJL#Monitoring_/_mentoring. Golden agreed to self-revert the tendentious edit per their mentor's advice. However, the problematic behavior of Golden in the AA area didn’t improve even after this. They removed the Armenian name from the Zangilan lead with insufficient explanation, see the 1st diff. They were replied to with talk arguments that they didn’t address for 20 days. It gets very confusing and bad faith from here on; user Armatura who made the arguments was blocked on 8th of July (unrelated to Zangilan lead), only after which, hours later, Golden finally bothered to reply to a now blocked user. With what intentions when now Armatura can't reply back, I'm not sure. Golden’s reply itself was an irrelevant search result and didn't address the arguments of alternative name in the lead (wasn't a move discussion). But Golden didn't stop there; they restored their own edit less than 12 hours later after that 20 day delayed reply, with an edit summary "per talk". They reinstated their own edit based on that subpar talk comment when the opposing user has no means to reply. Even other opposing editors on talk (who formed consensus) didn’t have the chance to reply either (when I saw Golden’s reinstating edit, I reverted and commented myself). In good faith, I asked about this on Golden’s talk first, wanting to understand their rationale. There should’ve been one I thought given how serious this is, given their recent tban, and given that I just notified about their tendentious edit after the tban - all of these should’ve been enough reflection for Golden and I expected a well justified rationale for their behavior. Yet all I received were elusive justifications and reassurances that amount to nothing at this point, User_talk:Golden#I_want_to_understand_your_rationale_first. Other examples include Golden adding unsourced content in articles without addressing the arguments, see the diffs in 4th point. I think this user didn't learn anything and their tban should be reinstated, the length of their original probation wasn't enough to make them edit without tendentious pattern/behavior. Perhaps, an indef would be more suiting.
Discussion concerning Golden[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 Golden[edit]I explained my reasoning for the first three diffs (which are all part of the same dispute) here, and I don't have anything else to add at the moment. Regarding the last diff, I provided ZaniGiovanni with a reliable source for the change, which he did not find satisfactory and requested further detail from sources. I believe the source I've provided is sufficient enough and the level of detail he is expecting is unrealistic, which is why I haven't responded further. — Golden call me maybe? 19:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by MJL[edit]This edit had sufficient explanation. These were not Golden consistently expresses a willingness to listen to others and self-correct. ([5]) They have written content like Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan to GA status since the topic ban has been lifted. Golden has been almost entirely absent from the drama boards which I personally find incredibly commendable. Does Golden still get into disputes? Of course, but they have kept their cool even during stressful situations. If most editors in AA2 were like Golden, then the project would be better off in my opinion. That said, I am biased here. Golden is a wiki-friend of mine. The "mentor-mentee" aspect of our relationship is a bit overblown (it's mostly just me being supportive and pointing out any potential missteps as I see them). I was personally incredibly upset about these two edits since I was involved with Armatura's block and don't want anyone to think I did that to proxy for Golden or anything. Armatura's behavior had been bothering me for a while, but if I weighed in on the content dispute itself I would probably have taken his side. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Golden[edit]
|
| Mili977 and Keshavv1234 are topic banned from the areas of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:50, 2 August 2022 (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.
There's been a large-scale edit war going on between Mili977 and Keshavv1234 on Durga recently. It's clearest from the page history, but a good sample is the same edit being reverted back and forth beyond WP:3RR by both editors in question:
This is by far not the only edit being warred over – there are a number of other edit wars by the same two editors on the same page – but one example seems enough to show what has been going on on the page. The edit war as a whole is well over 20RR each by now.
I notified Mili977 and Keshavv1234. --ais523 01:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC) 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 Mili977[edit]User:Keshavv1234 has added many biased details on the Durga page. He has unnecessarily exalted the form of Durga and used common names addressing Mahadevi to other names of Goddess Durga. Some of them are common names used only by North Indians. For example, the word Devi Maa is a common North Indian name for the Goddess. Then it will not be wrong to apply the South Indian name as Amman. In many other pages belonging to Mahadevi, he mentions that the main form of Mahadevi is only as Durga.And some of the references he gives to his descriptions do not support his facts. Thank you. Statement by Keshavv1234[edit]Respected, User Mili977 has continuously done such poor, disruptive and misleading edits resulting in total vandalism at the articles related to deities in Hinduism. Especially, he keeps adding and removing content with his personal believes, without any reason and sources. He was disturbing the article Durga currently. Few days back, he was trying to add/remove all general information from the Durga article and adding his own perceptions. Then, I quickly reverted all those edits. Then again he reverted/undo my edits and this kept going on and on. When at last the page was fully protected (administrative protection and access required) by Favonian. And just a day prior the administrative protection was automatically expired and the page was accessible again for all. Then, I restored the page to the original version and removed the misleading edits by Mili977. And again, he started his disruptive editing. I've seen many users warning him earlier also about his misleading edits related to goddesses especially. He's also seen disturbing articles like Mahadevi, Navadurgas, Tripura Sundari, Bhuvaneshwari and many others related to hindu goddesses regularly. Also I request that Durga article be permanent or for some long time semi protected (extended confirmed access required) as some other new editors also try to disturb the page. I'm not devoted to any deity to be honest. I was just improving the page by keeping it's originality. But he keeps adding his personal stuff and removing all properly sourced as well as general information which is on the article from so long. Also Navaratri and Navadurgas pages are totally associated with Durga. And he tries to add Mahadevi only everywhere, by which he tries to prove that there's no need of independent pages of Durga and other goddesses. He replace Mahadevi or Adi Shakti with every goddesses. Adi Shakti is the energy lying among them but they are in separate aspects. As, Durga article is possibly viewed by a lot of people so I also continuously reverted his misleading edits. Also I've noticed that he continuously tries to promote Tripura Sundari and Bhuvaneshwari only as supreme goddesses and taking all other goddesses under them which is totally irrelevant. I've asked him many times that his misleading edits at Durga needs to be stopped otherwise the page will be disrupted or broken due to tons of edits. The current version of Durga page is the only best revision which all is fully sourced. The user mili977 also removed many information deliberately which spoiled even the grammatical structure of the article. I myself didn't added any information as per my believes till now. The information there without sourcing is already removed by me and the current is the best revision on the page. Check more details on this matter at Durga's talk page/consensus. Statement by (username)[edit]
|
My very best wishes
[edit]| Not necessarily the best behavior, but not really a WP:AE issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 5 August 2022 (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 My very best wishes[edit]
Lyudmyla Denisova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) On 24 June My very best wishes (MVBW) made this bold edit [7], which he then strenuously defended against any attempt to modify and revert it. He particularly resisted my attempts to remove the (at first sight trivial) information that former Ukrainian ombudsperson Denisova had shared a database on war crimes with other government officials and prosecutors. That information had been published by New York Times on 2 May but had later been called into question and denied by Ukrainska Pravda, Meduza and by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova.
I
As these information had been added to the article/edited/restored by multiple editors, I
@GizzyCatBella: Admittedly I have much to learn about WP policies and I appreciate this discussion also as an opportunity to understand what's permissible and what's a no-no here around. Note, however, that this dispute is not at all about content disagreement. In fact, I never tried to publish the info that Denisova did not share her database with law enforcement agencies (as reported by Meduza, UP, etc.). My arguments about the database were entirely based on policies (WP:V, WP:ONUS and WP:NPOV) as you can see from my edit summaries (e.g. [27], [28]) and from my OP [29]. I'm sure that such an experienced editor as MVBW was aware that per WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:BLPREMOVE
Anyway, if this request is unfounded I apologize for that. It was made in good faith. In the future I will avoid advancing others without first having asked the advice of an admin, as GizzyCatBella suggests me to do. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning My very best wishes[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 My very best wishes[edit]Yes, we have content disagreements with Gitz6666 on page Denisova. We discussed them on article talk page, and all my edits have been fully explained there. There is also a related thread on RSNB started by Gitz6666, and I think the question he asked on RSNB boils down to this [37]. Speaking on the content I suggested to include, here is it: [38] and [39]. This is sourced to an article about Denisova published in New York Times [40]. Author is a regular and well established contributor to NYT [41], this is not an editorial. Note that the content I wanted to include is mostly a direct citation from the article. The article in NYT is not an advertisement. I did not use any potentially problematic sources, such as the article in Ukrainska Pravda or the posting in Meduza noted by Gitz666 (the latter does even have an author [42]). Please note that none of other RS contradicts information I tried to include from the article in NYT (two my diffs above), contrary to claims by Gitz6666. The only contributor who objected to including this material was Gitz6666. I do not think he provided any legitimate reasons for not including it; simply saying "WP:ONUS" is not a proper justification. No, I did not object to including info about "open letter by 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists", and this info is currently included to the page. All I did was moving this info to a more appropriate section [43], contrary to claim by Gitz666. As about "exaggerated", the exactly meaning of this word is not clear, and I tried to refine what she said using more direct citation: [44], although I think that such citation adds little to the page and ultimately better be removed to provide proper balance on the page [45]: the page includes a huge paragraph about her dismissal, but tells almost nothing about her actual work during the war (this is something I tried to include, but Gitz666 repeatedly removed "per WP:ONUS"). If it helps, I can voluntarily stop editing the page about Denisova for a couple of months. My very best wishes (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown:. Thank you, I got your point. No more reverts. A consensus is needed for including this or any other content. OK. But the consensus building may take a lot of effort, depending on the subject and participants. If I feel it takes too much effort, I will simply edit something else. There is nothing so exceptional about this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]This appears to be yet another content disagreement brought to AE. Sorry Gitz6666, you would like to know if MBVW violated this.. and that and that.. and something else? (!?) If you don’t know what has been violated, what are you doing here? Perhaps you should study our rules first or ask elsewhere? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion[edit]The "remove on sight" aspects of WP:BLP apply to negative material - stuff that is potentially defamatory or harmful. It's hard to see how this could harm the reputation of the subject or any other living person, so there's no good-faith BLP objection and WP:BLPDS doesn't apply. That doesn't mean it should necessarily stay, of course, or that it was a good idea to repeatedly restore a WP:BOLD addition, but it's not a matter for AE. --Aquillion (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning My very best wishes[edit]
|
SPECIFICO
[edit]| Simply put, there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO for 48 hours as a standard admin action. Blocks serve two purposes, to stop disruption now and/or to act as a deterrent to undesirable behavior in the future. This block is obviously for the latter rather than the former. To be clear, SPECIFICO's final revert was against policy as breaking the Consensus Required restriction on the page. There was no BLP or other exemption under 3RRNO that could have applied, it was simply editorial preference. I don't think he is lying, but I do think he understood there was risk to the path he chose, and risks often have consequences. In this case, a block. While I'm quite sure this sanction is sure to displease everyone, and perhaps in equal measure but for different reasons, it was done after careful and long consideration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:23, 10 August 2022 (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 SPECIFICO[edit]
remedy the post-1992 American politics DS regime
Sorry I'm having problems with this form. The remedy instructions and exemptions says to report immediately here. SPECIFICO quite often reverts other peoples edits and then stop anyone putting in the change unless there's been extensive discussions or an RfC establishing clear consensus against them.
Discussion concerning SPECIFICO[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 SPECIFICO[edit]Responding to request of Dennis Brown: In case anyone is not aware, this complaint is the fourth concurrent open thread in which NadVolum has filed complaints against me, for whatever reasons. The others are, 1 2 3. All of these relate to the BLP articles in the Julian Assange orbit, where there have been ongoing BLP problems that I would say may be underlain by a few editors' insistent and unduly credulous acceptance of various narratives of Assange and his supporters -- even when acceptance conflict with WP content and sourcing policies. The community's lack of endorsement of any of those complaints does raise the possiblity that the current complaint is part of a campaign of forum shopping by OP to vent their personal frustration with me over content issues. For those who are not familiar with OP, this is a Single Purpose Account that has made very few edits outside of pages on Assange or setting the table to support content on the Assange page. There have been discusions on the article talk page for some time about the importance of trimming Assange's personal biography page so as to include only the significant details of his life (including those at Wikileaks) but not the actions of Wikileaks for which there is no content linking Assange to those action. Similar issues arise in many bio pages of public figures in politics and related fields. @Softlemonades: removed some such content, for which as far as I can tell no prior discussion that would privilege it as established consensus, and as I stated in my edit summary undoing OP's rapid reinsertion, I think there should have been talk page discussion prior to reinstating that content. It's evident that I think that's consistent with "consensus required" -- I would hardly cite own edit as a violation of the page restriction, as OP seems to claim. It is also evident (though not discussed in the past 6 months) that non-Assange but Wikileaks content creates BLP problems for this article. We should not be including every adventure and every scandal of Wikileaks as if it is Assange's hand at work or Assange's personal responsibility. OP has participated in at least one such discussion and is aware of various editors' BLP concerns One such discussion is here. This issue has come up many times. Softlemonades raised the issue on the talk page after she removed the content, which is what prompted my revert of OP's reinsertion. We also have OP very carelessly posting clearcut BLP violations on several occasions, e.g. when he stated as fact that Hillary Clinton wanted to kill Assange with a drone, offering a sheepish retraction at the bottom of this thread, saying he really didn't check into it. This followed a long discussion of the issue at the David Leigh (journalist) page and OP's own posting of related thread at BLPN. Finally, OP went straight to this AE complaint without even coming to my user talk page to voice his concern or warn me that such a complaint was imminent. I can't recall the last time a complaint was made on any editor no attempt at prior engagement. It wastes lots of editor and Admin resources. @Dennis Brown: Could you explain "out of process by the number of reverts"? I am not understanding that. My reading of the sequence is that Softlemonades challenged the BLP/Wikilinks content and then NadVolum reinstated it instead of going to talk. Meanwhile, when Softlemonades opened the talk thread, I undid what I believe was the out of process reinstatement of challenged article content (with the associated BLP issues). As I said in my edit summary, I think the reinstatement of the challenged content violated the page restriction "consensus required". SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Thanks for the reply. I am aware of that essay. In fact I made several edits to it a couple of years ago. However, there have been many discussions among longtime editors and among Admins in which that simplified rubrik is disputed or rejected, just as we have ongoing disagreement among Admins as to the definition of "revert". As you may know, there's current ongoing discussion of WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON at WT:V concerning the status of "longstanding" content that has not been positively affirmed consensus even though it's been in the article for a while. There is also discussion at talk page of the Consensus required essay. I don't think it's correct to state in absolute terms that my removal of the disputed content pending talk page was violating a consensus. Obviously, per my edit summary, I didn't think so at the time of the edit, and I am fairly experienced editing pages that require differentiating established consensus -- documented by prior talk page discussion, editing activity, or agreement in principle -- vs. content that's stayed in the article a while without much notice and attention. The Assange page's ongoing BLP issue viz a viz Wikileaks had been identified and repeatedly discussed on the talk page in the presence of OP. Editors never agreed, in effect, to transclude all of Wikileaks' controversies and alleged misdeeds into Assange's personal bio. As you already know, I do not agree that this Wikileaks content was consensus and I have not seen that essay treated as an absolute bright line, regardless of the content or circumstances. Anyway, that's why I did not hesitate to undo OP's reinstatement of the challenged content. And as I said, if he had informed me of his concern, I see no reason to think we would have ended up here at AE. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Thanks again for your reply. To be sure we are not talking past one another: No, I am not claiming there was consensus for anything. I said and still say there was no consensus for this BLP content that transcluded Wikileaks deeds and controversies onto the biography of Assange the man. Accordingly, when this was pointed out by Softlemonades and a discussion started on talk that it should have remained out. It's an ongoing problem that about half our editors would cite WP:ONUS to keep the problem text in the article as "implicit consensus" while half our editors would say to keep it out per ONUS. In this case, where there had been no affirmation of the content and the BLP problem had repeatedly been discussed and acknowledged, I felt that the immediate reinsertion without consensus in the talk page thread went against consensus required. Further, to be frank, it appears to have been another case of OP's long-voiced frustration and impatience with discussion and consensus-seeking on this page. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC) {ping|Ealdgyth}} I think it's begging the question to refer to my edit as "this kind of edit warring". I'm careful not to edit war, and I and others have pointed out the issue relating to BLP material -- and prior and current talk page discussions of same. I've tried to present my view of the issues of implicit Consensus and ONUS and the ongoing discussions on WT pages about what constitutes implicit consensus for longstanding text, and other factors. I was the editor who requested DS page restrictions on this article due to repeated edit warring. As Dennis Brown points out, the CR page is an essay from one point of view, not a policy. I read the CR restricton in the context of the community's views on consensus, which do not provide a bright line rule such as 1RR. It's evident that my understanding is not something I cooked up to deflect responsibility for disruptive edit warring, because I cited CIR in my edit summary for the diff in question. I do not believe that any WP Consensus policy is intended to lock down content, recent or longstanding, that has been reasonably challenged. That having been said, any Admin who rejects my understanding and concludes that my handling of the content issue was disruptive is empowered by DS to sanction me on their own discretion, regardless of my intention or anything I say here. So I don't know that it's helpfiul for me to go on at length or repeat myself about the article, BLP, consensus, etc. and I'll stop. I'll only add that it's clear to me that this was a vexatious complaint by NadVolum after they failed to get me sanctioned or my BLP concern rejected in the 3 other threads they had open at ANI and BLPN at the same time they filed this complaint. Moreover NadVolum openly flouts BLP -- that was the subject of their trip to BLPN regarding David Leigh (jouirnalist) -- they recently posted another BLP violation, linked above, saying Hillary Clinton wanted to kill Assange. These overt and implied BLP violations have come up over and over on this page and a minority of editors there do greatly frustrate many others who do not share our concerns. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: With considerable respect for your efforts, I don't think it's fair to conclude that I am "doubling down" by stating my understanding and documentation of Consensus and BLP issues regarding this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Comment by GoodDay[edit]Which Arbcom case, is being requested to enforce? GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC) It's the red-link above, that's confusing me. Thus my question, which Arbcom case is being referred to? GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Ok, now I know which case. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Recommend the disputing editors open an RFC at the Julian Assange page, in order to clarify the consensus-in-question. If there's doubts about what that consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: If it hasn't already been restored. I recommend that you restore the content-in-question (i.e. undo your revert). Then seek a new consensus at the Assange talkpage, to have the content removed. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion[edit]Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation... per WP:BLPRESTORE, in situations where BLP does apply, the default when there is a conflict over BLP-sensitive material is to leave it out, not in. This is a specific exception to the usual WP:BRD procedure and the way we handle WP:NOCON situations. In order to restore the text in question you would have to argue that it is not BLP sensitive or that there is an existing consensus for it, and even then, one revert removing it wouldn't normally be WP:AE-worthy. The "teeth" of WP:BLPDS - the stuff that calls for an immediate AE action even from one or two bad edits - is intended for things that could potentially harm the reputation of article's subject. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]That isn't how it works and SPECIFICO knows it, as they were topic banned about two years ago for almost the exact same thing.. An editor removed long standing text (which implies it had consensus to be there), NadVolum reverts it back in, and SPECIFICO reverts it back out insisting on a new consensus. If SPECIFICO's edit summary was valid, it would give editors license to revert stuff they don't like out of controversial articles and require new, fresh discussions to find consensus for it to go back in, regardless of how longstanding it was. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by NadVolum[edit]In response to Aquillon, there is no BLP issue. Neither the person who originally removed the text nor SPECIFICO said there was a BLP issue and it has been around for a long time. In the discussion by the original person on the talk page Talk:Julian_Assange#Why_list_things_Assange_wasnt_actively_involved_in? you can see they talked about why if this was okay wasn't it okay to list all the major scandals and criticisms of Wikileaks too and I pointed to WP:BLPPUBLIC for that. They said at the end of the back and forth that their problem was bloat - which I can sympathize with to some extent but this is not the way to deal with that. NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC) In response to Gooday, I was following the instructions on the talk page under "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"
So that's what I did. It isn't as if SPECIFICO hasn't removed new text and warned people against adding it again and often an RfC is needed to establsh consensus before it can be put in. I think I'd prefer it left the way it was before and any discussion be about removing the long standing text instead. NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC) In reponse to Mr Ernie. It sounds a bit in what you say like I was involved in that previous discussion. I wasn't and didn't even know abot that. I looked up SPECIFICO's log when raising this and I didn't see anything about it. NadVolum (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC) In response to Guerillero, I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking for. Discretionary sanctions as talked about at the top of this page sounds fine to me or is there a list of possible sanctions I should try to choose from thanks? NadVolum (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Thank you very much Jéské Couriano. Yes that sounds right, I see that WP:ARBAPDS was linked to in that text on the article talk page. NadVolum (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC) In response to SPECIFICO I guess people can check most of it themselves but about the BLP violation I changed a sentence which had just been inserted saying "WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to share a claim by Assange that Hillary Clinton had wanted to attack him with drones." Assange did not claim that bit of conspiracy theory. The source cited this other conspiracy site that I did not recognize as such. This had nothing to do with anything else. And yes I did come here straight. SPECIFICO does not edit in a collegiate manner. they are very non-neutral on the topic [46], and slags off editors that don't agree and engages in canvassing [47]. Worse than that I think they are a clear case of following WP:DE like a rulebook. fFr instance one of those things they complained above about me going to ANI was them not bothering to give a decent reply about what BLP problem they were supposed to be fixing with their edits[48]. And they couldn't be bothered to find a source and said the actions of a grand jury are SKYBLUE in another.[49] NadVolum (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Here is a previous discussion in December 2021 in which SPECIFIO talked about removing non-biographic content Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_35#Trimming_and_relocation_of_non-biographic_content. They removed all mention of the US diplomatic cables incident after stopping inclusion about the unredacted files and password being released. The content has finally been included after an RfC, see Julian_Assange#Release_of_US_diplomatic_cables which covers that content complete with the unredacted cables. As to going to their talk page and asking for a revert - I haven't seen anything here about being sorry they made a mistake or would have reverted! NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC) I am not sure why admins are so unwilling to do anything about SPECIFICO. Maybe you think they are doing a good job stopping Julian Assange's followers turning his article into a hagiography and biasing any connected articles? If that was just what SPECIFICO was doing I certainly wouldn't object. But they seem to be acting out of hate for Assange and determined to do anything they can to remove anything that might be in his favor even when well documented and obviously relevant and due. And that includes disruptive editing techniques to try and get their way and remove editors they don't like. NadVolum (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Jéské Couriano[edit]Based on the linked DS alert and the talk page notice referred to, I have to assume this is being filed under AP2 as the case and the post-1992 American politics DS regime as the remedy. @NadVolum:, when you file a request here, you are obligated to link the case and specify the remedy you're filing under. (For bans under DS, link to the DS authorisation and the ban notice/thread.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]I encourage SPECIFICO to admit, as quickly as possible, that their understanding of the CR restriction was incorrect. I hope to see NadVolum commit to politely bringing up possible 1RR or CR violations at the offending user's talk page before bringing the issue to the next step of conduct dispute resolution. It would help if we discussed formalizing the CR restriction and including a link to the explanatory essay WP:Consensus required in any talk page banners or edit notices, as the text commonly used (and used at Talk:Julian Assange) is not explicit about how removal is handled. Assuming SPECIFICO and NadVolum can both own up to handling this imperfectly, I ask that admins refrain from sanctions in this matter and nudge us all to move on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by ActivelyDisinterested[edit]Eeurgh I came across this and was involved with the discussion on the talk page. I'm unsure if there was a BLP issue here, but the content was definitely highly skewed to paint as much blame on the articles subject as possible. I would still object to the content as is because of that (although that's not relevant here). It doesn't look like this is the only page with this issue. I dropped out once it became apparent that we were just going in circles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]The number of times I see a report and think you know if you just apologize and say my understanding was wrong and Ill be mindful to make sure I follow the rules as you have just patiently explained them to me this would be closed without even a logged warning, but if youre going to argue no Im right and this is why youre going to get sanctioned increases by one more. Oh, and you could still probably say that and this would still probably be closed with at most a logged warning to be mindful of the CR restriction. nableezy - 14:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning SPECIFICO[edit]
|
Kendall Clarks
[edit]| It would be better if more admin would participate and I were not closing so many of these, but this is pretty obvious and their insisting on continuing to edit after it was pointed out makes it a simple matter. They have used to talk page but have refused to discuss this issue at hand. It seems they were filed on at AE once, but someone withdrew it after they started using the talk page. (see editor's talk page.) Unquestionably, they know and understand the restriction but refuse to abide by it. Blocked one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:28, 11 August 2022 (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 Kendall Clarks[edit]
Users that edit Arab-Israeli content must have 500 edits, this user does not, in the following diffs he is editing A-I content:
Was told at his talkpage by two separate users that he is not allowed to edit A-I content:[62] yet he has now continued to do so after previously violating the 500/30 rule and also violated the 1rr and 3rr in July.
Discussion concerning Kendall Clarks[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 Kendall Clarks[edit]Statement by GoldenRing[edit]User clearly not 500/30 qualified. Appears to be attempting to argue that Druze is not under ARBPIA sanctions eg this edit but the talk page has the ARBPIA template there, right at the top. @Kendall Clarks: I'd suggest apologising and abandoning editing in this area or a block to enforce the sanction seems the only option. This is now for the second time of asking. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kendall Clarks[edit]
|
Ghazaalch
[edit]| Ghazaalch is warned against personalizing discussions. Further such behavior will likely lead to more severe sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 12 August 2022 (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 Ghazaalch[edit]
Ghazaalch makes up WP:ASPERSIONS in RFCs against other editors: "... What Ghazaalch is saying about me here is false (despite Ghazaalch's baseless character attack, I made edits to the PMOI article in February [64][65], and in its talk page on May [66] and June [67][68], and have also edited other articles in this area although most of my edits are in the FaWiki). This is poisoning the well and can wrongly influence consensus of RFCs.
I know there were other AE cases, but don't know if there are sanctions.
Like others are discerning, the problem is not only referencing other editors as "
Discussion concerning Ghazaalch[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 Ghazaalch[edit]This tool shows that NMasiha's first appearance in 2022 in this page was to vote in an RFC and has continued this job till now. I am not talking about other pages. So there are different accounts here with different jobs. NMasiha's job was to vote, Iraniangal777's job was to revert, TheDreamBoat's job was to edit on behalf of the blocked users and so on. (see Stefka Bulgaria, BarcrMac and Idealigic for the pro-MeK users who were topic-banned before the new ones Fad Ariff, TheDreamBoat, Hogo-2020 and Iraniangal777 emerged). Concerning RFCs being an ideal place for pro-MeK users, see El C's comment here where they talk about a Here I am quoting Vice regent's objection to another RFC attempt that aimed at removing cult description([75]):
Here is another objection by another user([76]):
Statement by MarioGom[edit]
This part is a well established pattern by now [78]. Although, to the best of my knowledge, there's been not enough presented evidence about the participation of currently active and non-(p)blocked users in the off-wiki coordination that has been going on for years in the page. MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Iraniangal777[edit]Disagreeing with Ghazaalch in those RfCs is enough to qualify anyone as a " Muddling RfCs with Ad hominems like this (or disrupting the natural development of RfCs [79][80][81][82][83][84], or edit-warring while using trumped-up edit summaries [85][86] - all of which were noted in my last report about Ghazaalch) nullifies any meaningful attempt to solve a content dispute in that talk page. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Iskandar323[edit]Ghazaalch is not wrong that the bent of the many recent and often bad RFCs on the page has been tendentious in the extreme. Without exception they have been geared towards drastically cutting out material that portrays the PMOI/MEK in a negative light. Now why anybody would be that fixated on this is beyond my ken (even if one is doggedly anti-Islamic regime for instance, that hardly requires one to embrace this particularly dubious opposition group), but fixated some editors do indeed seem to be - and this is of course why an arbitration intervention imposing discretionary sanctions became necessary in the first place (the material on cult-like attributions was equally one of the prime movers of the original arbitration). And when there are individual editors being so transparently tendentious in favour of the MEK, the term "pro-MEK" is not much of a stretch or an aspersion, at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Hogo-2020[edit]@Ghazaalch, stop pinging my name with baseless accusations. I have nothing to do with other editors. Hogo-2020 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ghazaalch[edit]
|
Zekelayla
[edit]| Very obvious situation, previously blocked under ARBPIA, blocked 48 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 13 August 2022 (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 Zekelayla[edit]
N/A
The last time this user was actively editing they were also trying to remove a widely acknowledged description of a pro-Israel thinktank, [87], [88]. That resumed yesterday. The user was asked to self-revert twice, they have so far declined to do so. I think an article ban would be sufficient, the disruption has been focused on this one article since December. Note the user is continuing to revert. nableezy - 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC) 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zekelayla[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 Zekelayla[edit]I engaged in a single revert (what nableezy calls "revert 3") to remove from the lede material which another user had already pointed out came from a notoriously controversial book. Zekelayla (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Zekelayla[edit]
|
Mark612
[edit]| Mark612 has been indefinitely blocked by Doug Weller as a normal admin action, so nothing is left to do here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:30, 14 August 2022 (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 Mark612[edit]
And continuing now.
N/A
Possibly just needs a block to be made aware if they are not seeing the talk page notices, but even if he had 500 edits these edits are all WP:TE. Regardless, sustained violations of the EC required provision
Discussion concerning Mark612[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 Mark612[edit]Comment by GoodDay[edit]@Mark612: has gone way over the 3RR rule, on a few pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Praxidicae[edit]They've now attempted to remove this report as well. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mark612[edit]
|
Zenzyyx
[edit]| Zenzyyx is indefinitely topic banned from the subjects of Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2022 (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 Zenzyyx[edit]
Discussion concerning Zenzyyx[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 Zenzyyx[edit]Firstly, I had already addressed the concerns of an admin[97] that the ANI report was TLDR.[98] I had also explained kindly to the admin who was concerned that the report had little foundational basis why I disagreed with them.[99]
It is obvious which user has been wrongfully edit warring and disruptively editing (kindly see the ANI report for more information). Thanks. zenzyyx (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC) References
@Seraphimblade: Hi Seraphim, I appreciate your viewpoint on this. I have explained why I reverted four times in the Ashure article; by virtue of being a recent changes patroller, I have dealt with a lot of vandalism like this before. I had suspected (and still do) that there was a case of IP sockpuppetry possibly involving a tag team in that article, with three different IP users suddenly appearing and removing content, pushing their POV (which I have proved in my statement). I am definitely not of the view that "warring is okay as long as you're really sure you're right". Thanks again. zenzyyx (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Hi Dennis, thanks for the message. I can see where I may have acted in haste when the short description was changed from "Anatolian dessert" to "sweet pudding", but that seemed like the most accurate definition when you take the article into account. The short information I added in the infobox was stated/confirmed in the first paragraph of "history and traditions". Removing it made no sense and was POV pushing, as evidenced by three separate IP users suddenly disruptively editing the article to get their POV across (possibly anti-Turkish sentiment, not very sure. Also claiming that Mount Ararat is not in Anatolia[112] [113] [114] when it clearly states in the mountain's article that it is, and then asking me to provide sources that Mount Ararat is in Anatolia, in an article that is about a dessert...[115] Honestly laughable). A topic ban for this, in my opinion, is overkill. Thanks again. zenzyyx (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Zenzyyx[edit]
|
Mili977
[edit]| Indefinitely blocked, with the first month of the block being an arbitration enforcement action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:24, 14 August 2022 (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 Mili977[edit]
Discussion concerning Mili977[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 Mili977[edit]Because I give due references to the edits I make. I request you to reconsider this matter Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mili977[edit]
|
SCNBAH
[edit]| SCNBAH has been blocked as an Icewhiz sock by Tamzin, so nothing is left to do here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:01, 16 August 2022 (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 SCNBAH[edit]
N/A
Note that there isnt a single source for the idea this was a Hezbollah attack, but regardless Hezbollah is a primary article in the ARBPIA topic and all edits related to it are covered by 500/30. The article has the edit notice and talk page notice for related content, and the user was warned about this material specifically. Also note that a number of users with a handful of edits have returned after year+ long absences to become active in this dispute, eg SCNBAH and Smoking Ethel
Dennis, it was in there before, removed several times in fact. The first reinsertion was just a revert of my removal here. Which was followed by another revert of an edit by me. nableezy - 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SCNBAH[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 SCNBAH[edit]Statement by Researcher[edit]I will not defend SCNBAH's edits as I have not checked the sources they used or their edits. However, User:Dennis Brown, this is very large expansion of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Stabbing of Salman Rushdie has nothing to do with Israel, it is not part of the conflict. The claim that any edit mentioning Hezbollah in a context other than the conflict is a large overreach. Are 2022 Lebanese general election or 17 October Revolution, internal Lebanese affairs which involve Hezbollah, now conflict protected everywhere they mention Hezbollah? Hezbollah is a large player with 19.89% of the vote. Is every article on and in Israel now covered by the conflict? There are tens of thousands of Israeli biographies, institutions, organizations, sports, and so on that have nothing to with the conflict but they do mention Israel throughout. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning SCNBAH[edit]
|
SaintAviator
[edit]| SaintAviator blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin sanction) for disruptive editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:01, 19 August 2022 (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 SaintAviator[edit]
WP:NOTFORUM rants about their belief that Ukraine/Zelenskyy are Nazis/Hitler etc.; purposefully spreading misinformation. No attempts at, or interest in, constructive collaboration. They were topic banned under ARBEE for exactly the same behaviour in 2017.
Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Has a history of disruptively using talk pages and has been warned adequately over multiple years. Deliberately uses a misleading signature in order to confuse editors.
Discussion concerning SaintAviator[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 SaintAviator[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning SaintAviator[edit]
|
Newimpartial
[edit]| No action taken. This appears to be outside of the AP2 discretionary sanctions authority, and there are no behavioral issues that require immediate use of standard admin actions either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 19 August 2022 (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 Newimpartial[edit]
Newimpartial did not violate 3RR, but 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Newimpartial has continually exhibited almost every bullet point of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing over an extended period of time. Especially disruptive is Newimpartial's tendency to remove cited claims with inadequate explanation, and try to boomerang requests for clarification by alleging "sealioning". It is a strategy designed to stonewall. This is not a feature of their interaction with me, but a feature of their approach to the topic of the Frankfurt School. If administrators are interested, I can point to further diffs in 2020. While collecting diffs, something I found no evidence for is Newimpartial building encyclopedic content about Marxism when there wasn't an obvious culture war angle.
Discussion concerning Newimpartial[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 Newimpartial[edit]This is very silly. WP:BOOMERANG, anyone?
Senallen is complaining about my partial reverts of their edits for which they have been unable to obtain consensus on the relevant Talk page.[123]
Their filing here seems either to misunderstand a large number of my edits. The issue in this minor removal, for example, is not whether
As far as the allegation that This filing appears to simply be Senallen's attempt to "punish" an opponent when they don't get their way on Talk; I do wonder about any WP:SPA on this topic area whether they have edited in it (or been banned from it) before, but my having wondered aloud about this last year is scarcely a ground for "punishment", then or now. As far as disrupting the topic area - Senallen's consistent POV pushing in article space, in spite of multiple editors' objections on Talk, is where disruption has been taking place; my refusal to WP:SATISFY them is not the real issue. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Sideswipe9th[edit]I may be mistaken, but are the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Marxist cultural analysis articles and their associated talk pages actually subject to the AP2 DS? I've had a quick skim of the diffs provided for the contributions from this month, and cannot see anything obvious that is covered under AP2. What am I missing here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]This filing is erroneous from the start. The first diff is presented with "Their edit summaries did not explain the reverts", which is incorrect. Newimpartial's edit summary, Statement by Aquillion[edit]Even if these were covered by WP:AP2, I fail to see how this is anything but a content dispute, or how Newimpartial's behavior could possibly be worse than Sennalen's own. Sennalen WP:BOLDly rewrote massive parts of the article over the course of several days; reverting a bold rewrite is entirely reasonable. Sennalen then revert-warred to retain their changes: [129][130][131] (note in the first revert, Sennalen implied that their proposed additions should remain in place during discussions.) The discussions on talk don't seem to be producing any clear consensus for Sennalen's changes, at a glance, which makes edit-warring them back in even worse. It seems like Sennalen believed that the fact that it was a few days before anyone raised objections means that their edits are now the WP:STATUSQUO, which is definitely not the case - there's some valid disagreement over when text has implicit consensus, but a few days is clearly insufficient. I don't think this has reached the point where it would be more than a content-dispute, but if there are conduct issues here then they concern Sennalen more than Newimpartial. Also, this is tangential, but glancing over the edits and talk-page discussions I'm extremely skeptical about Sennalen's assertion that their edits are focused on "explaining why the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is wrong." That is clearly not the locus of dispute, and the insistence that it is strains good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Tewdar[edit]Anybody new showing up to this article whose viewpoint diverges from the consensus (and by this, I do not mean making claims like "Marxists have taken over America by pushing drugs to students" or whatevs, but content based on academic sources, Sage Encyclopedia entries, OED definitions, that sort of thing, all of which have been either completely or partially excluded from the article at various stages because "WP:CONSENSUS") will be (explicitly or implicity, often explicitly) accused of being a believer in the conspiracy theory, a sockpuppet, a troll, or a racist, by a small group of editors who often seem to prefer to rely on their own unsourced original analysis of capitalization, or unorthodox quantification procedures, while the primary determinant of source inclusion seems to be whether it might be used by someone, somewhere, to somehow 'prove' that the conspiracy is 'true'. Blatantly obvious misrepresentation of sources, that any L1 English speaker can see are false, require a month-long RfC to remove. Getting rid of falsely attributed quotations takes serious effort and a lot of time, with resistance justified by statements that boil down to "I don't give a **** if we misrepresent a bunch of antisemites!" I appreciate the way the grizzled veterans are guarding the article against the edits of dodgy conspiracy theorists who show up quite regularly to moan on the talk page. But I think they're overdoing it a bit. Tewdar 08:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Newimpartial[edit]
|