Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive148
[Notice]: Conduct at AE
[edit]Watchers of this page may be interested in this discussion regarding conduct at AE. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ganesh J. Acharya
[edit]| Ganesh J. Acharya is blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. Sandstein 15:29, 12 March 2014 (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 Ganesh J. Acharya[edit]
Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) suggested that I raise this issue here. It's my first request here so please excuse any errors. I've only listed the post-warning incident above. The tendentious and near-enough WP:CIR-breaching behaviour has gone on for many months and involved many experienced contributors ... and it has achieved precisely nothing that Ganesh wishes. It can be seen, for example, in this September 2013 thread among the many that they have participated in at Talk:Vishwakarma (caste). (Another one is here in June 2013).
Discussion concerning Ganesh J. Acharya[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 Ganesh J. Acharya[edit]I sincerely feel this is of no use and I have reasons to believe this is a fake Arbitration, since I have already seen the arbitration standards during this complaint that I put User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight. Not interested in this harmful (as of now) project. Everyone will have an Arbitration at a real court in front of GOD. We will for certain meetup there, everyone is answerable at that point. This lobby around wiki is continuously posting unwanted/provocative using unregistered IP Addresses and community related fake IDs (which is very apparent from the style of writing) [1]. Also, after giving substantially evident arguments here [2] User:Sitush wants to keep dragging this argument unnecessarily for the reason I have already highlighted during my complaint. Readers are requested to expand the light green colored "Adi Shankara Caste" discussion which user Sitush has collapsed. If you all notice user Sitush has pinged everyone in the group during the complaint. How ethical was the same? (please refer Thanks_for_the_ping_alert over Sitush's page.) which is very indicative of the fact that there is a lobby present. Also if you notice User:Cyphoidbomb did quote "But man, I hope there is no conspiracy because if there is I'll feel like a fool!" [3] Why did Cyphoidbomb feel this and why did he not bring this up during the earlier complaint? Yet, may be if there is/are one/s sincere please look up at the entire matter carefully. Only for the respect of those sincere one around I am posting this here. Also, during older discussions I was told by Sitush I should not bring up older court rulings (wrote the following over my talk page. "You've already been told that we cannot use court rulings" [4]) as he keeps warning me of a ban on highlighting older cases. But on asking people at Wiki IRC I was told by a participant the same is permissible. So, why is this difference of opinion and which precise guideline over wiki says that references of court rulings are not to be used? So, is Sitush actually sincere in with his reasons he keeps highlighting? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by Psychonaut[edit]With one trivial exception, I have been completely uninvolved in editing these caste articles and discussion pages, though I have been monitoring the situation there for years. I fully endorse Sitush's assessment of Ganesh's behaviour and agree that standard sanctions are both appropriate and necessary to curb the disruption. In five years of editing here Ganesh has proven to be unwilling, or more likely unable, to form and apply a proper understanding of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and point of view. What is required at minimum is a ban on editing any material (including discussion pages) related to the history, religions, people, and castes of India, broadly construed. A block is probably not necessary as he has very occasionally made useful contributions to articles unrelated to India. I note that having seen this enforcement request, Ganesh claims to have left Wikipedia. However, the last time he did this he returned almost immediately, so his current absence shouldn't be taken as obviating the need for administrative remedy. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by Cyphoidbomb[edit]My experience with Ganesh J. Acharya is fairly limited, but memorable and unpleasant. I first encountered him at Talk:Vishwakarma (caste). Because the user brought me there. Acharya dropped a {{help me}} template on the page and I was patrolling CAT:HELP. My initial reply is here. User was attempting to get "moderators" to curtail the efforts of Sitush and other editors over some irrational concern that these users edits were designed to foment communal fighting in India. This ridiculous belief was never substantiated, and it was never explained how the English Wikipedia could have such a direct negative impact on Indian village life. But I digress. User continued to bait Sitush by musing aloud and asking cynical and passive-aggressive rhetorical questions toward the heavens. "I wonder why User:Sitush who generally removes forum based discussions has allowed this one here." It became disruptive. And he still does it here (see above where he mentions me), attempting to co-opt my joke into a smoking gun statement that bolsters his paranoia. I told him numerous times to take Sitush to ANI if he had a problem, but Ganesh J. Acharya didn't like that idea and poo-pooed it by swallowing it up in his conspiratorial mindset. "Let readers know what is going on in here. Why isolate this incident? Also how do I know how big is this lobby? Is the incident going to be treated in an unbiased manner? What if all the members of this lobby start posting at WP:ANI and create a fabricated opinion?" The user seems paranoid, inflexible, irrational, bent on passive-aggression, dogmatic about his POV, and insistent on conspiracy where there is no conspiracy. I question this user's competence and don't believe this user is capable of editing constructively in a community that doesn't necessarily share his worldview. I am in support of sanctions to prevent future disruptions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ganesh J. Acharya[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Brews ohare
[edit]| Not actionable. Sandstein 09:46, 15 March 2014 (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 Brews ohare[edit]
A clear repitition of the behaviour for which the previous one month block was imposed. Brews has been sailing close to the wind by using 'science' not 'physics on several articles, but this one is specific. We see this in an extended attempt to change the Free Will article which like nearly all his edits on philosophy articles has not gained support. The response to him (see final paragraph of the diff) from the ever patient Pfhorest illustrates a wider issue, similar to that which resulted in the original sanction. This time we have a single incident that he has not attempted to reinsert and I thought for a couple of days before making this request. However given the the prior history and general intransigence someone with experience needs to review this. ----Snowded TALK 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Brews ohare[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 Brews ohare[edit]Statement by 198.228.200.177[edit]The issue is not so much the content of Brews' edits, which arguably don't run afoul of this particular sanction. It's more that he is repeating the same pattern of tendentious editing and his strategy of wearing down any and all who disagree with his opinions (be they correct or not) by endless RFCs, walls of text, wikilawyering and generally making a nuisance of himself that (eventually) landed him at ArbCom in the first place. The proper venue for those concerns, though, is a user conduct RFC which, to date, no editor has been willing to undertake likely because of the sheer volume of diffs that would be required. 198.228.200.177 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Brews ohare[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I think that this is not actionable. The topic ban in the decision that is asked to be enforced applies to "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". The edit at issue is to the page Mind–body problem, which per its lead is about "the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain." That is not a topic related to physics, but to philosophy and neurobiology. Neither does the text added by Brews ohare refer to physics. The fact that it is a citation by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger and another physicist is by far not enough to make the whole article - as required by the wording of the topic ban - "about" physics. Sandstein 07:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
|
[notice] Discretionary sanctions review. Comments welcome on Draft v3
[edit]The Arbitration Committee has recently been conducting a review of the discretionary sanctions system. You may wish to comment on the newest (third) draft update to the system, which has just been posted to the review page. Comments are welcome on the review talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 00:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Maurice07
[edit]| Maurice07 topic banned from everything related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts and warned if the disruption does spread to another topic area they will be blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 16 March 2014 (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 Maurice07[edit]
28 February Voted Oppose to my FP nomination that was related to the Adana massacre by calling it "Irrational nationalism" and claims that the source is unreliable since it is "Armenian." Maurice07 came out of no where. He is not a regular at WP:FP (see here) and has never voted or participated before. It seems this was a WP:BATTLEGROUND-like move to strike at his supposed "opponents" where it hurts them the most.
Sabiha Gokcen's ethnicity is disputed among those who believe she is Turkish and those who believe she is Armenian. There has been a long consensus to include both claims in the Early Life section of her article. The user initially removes an entire sourced paragraph of her being Armenian under the edit-summary "Personal effort to impose and deception". I proposed a compromise at the TP of the article by giving more WP:WEIGHT to Maurice07's claim that she is Turkish by placing it as the first paragraph of the section. After I have warned him over this matter and repeatedly told him to go to the talk page ([13][14][15]), the user continues to edit-war by keeping any notion that she may be of Armenian origin out of the Early Life section ([16][17]). I opened a section at the talk page to reach a compromise. Maurice07 repeatedly says that "Allegations that are of Armenian descent, too add early life section just absürd and extreme nationalism" and says "All sources one-sided and unreliable" because one is an "Armenian newspaper" and the other is by an "Armenian historian" ([18]).
The user is indefinitely sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC is continuing to conduct a similar WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern in Armenian related articles. I find that every time he edits an Armenian article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the ARBMAC ban. The user has a pretty extensive block log which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. However, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user still displays a belligerent attitude to those he comes across and is willing to edit-war to get his way. This WP:BATTLEFIELD-like demeanor has been the story for the past several years now. In the past, he deleted an entire paragraph stating that Mount Ararat was a historical part of Armenia with an edit-summary saying, "Political opinion can not be included here." His deletion of Greek and Armenian native names of appears to be an obsession stretching back several years (examples include Greek names: [19][20]; Armenian names: [21]). He's almost impossible to work with since all of his "opponents" are either extreme nationalists or deceptive individuals. I have yet to have seen him refer to the talk page to gather a consensus before making such contentious edits or reverts. For the reasons I have aforementioned, I believe that the user should be banned from editing topics related to Armenia and Turkey. For past inquiries, please see Maurice07's ARBMAC report: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Maurice07
Discussion concerning Maurice07[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 Maurice07[edit]Totally unacceptable request by User:EtienneDolet. I did'nt remove Armenian names from the articles of Turkish cities. There are many examples in this regard. Trabzon, Bayburt, Gaziantep..etc. User accusing me, Armenian names impose to cities, just like example of Erzurum. In the section of Name and etymology there are many names of city (Kurdish, Ottoman Turkish, Greek, Latin) but was only interested in the Armenian name. [23]. Another disctrict in Divriği, Armenian name placed by a Armanian user [24] waithout citing any source. In city of Iğdır, a edit war still continues by another Armenian User:MarshallBagramyan. I've added an information sourced [25] but this title and Kurdish and Azerbaijani names removed by this WP:ARBAA2 [26] user [27] About the Sabiha Gökçen issue, another Armaniafication effort by Etienne, Bagramyan and Yerevantsi. I have moved the Armenian claims to related section "Controversies" [28]. Because, in this regard, not any certainty. I don't think that User:EtienneDolet per WP:NPOV. As part of this dispute, this user has carried out an intensive effort to intimidate.
In parallel, same terrorization effort applied by Proudbolsahye renamed (Etienne) in Wikipedia Commons Sabiha Gökçen's photos deleted and nominated for deletion See: I think EtienneDolet should be topic banned Turkey-Armenia related articles per, WP:ARBAA2. Maurice07 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Yerevantsi[edit]Maurice's comment speaks for itself. Using inappropriate language is, apparently, OK for him (e.g. "terrorization effort"). I'd like to point out a few more expressions of his attitude towards Armenians. As of January 2014, his userpage had a template saying "This user rejects the so-called Armenian Genocide"[34] The current version of his userpage declares "This user rejects the so-called Armenian claims and believes that it's a big lie concocted by Armenian diaspora!" --Երևանցի talk 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by Dr.K.[edit]For your information, I have informed Callanecc about a possible violation of Maurice07's ban from Greek-Turkish relations broadly construed. Maurice07 added a picture in the Eurozone crisis article showing Greece as the first domino of the crisis. I know this is unrelated to AA2 enforcement but it relates to your thoughts about Maurice07's behaviour spreading to other areas. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Maurice07[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This appears to me to have merit. The most actionable concerns here appear to be Maurice07's edit warring at Divriği and Erzurum, as well as his battleground behaviour, such as calling other users' edits vandalistic. As being topic banned under WP:ARBMAC doesn't seem to have gotten Maurice to edit appropriately, I would consider going straight to a lengthy topic ban. EtienneDolet has shown some signs of edit warringat Erzurum as well, so I'm not sure his/her hands are totally clean here, either. Nonethless, as the edit warring isn't as extensive and I'm not seeing the same battleground behaviour, I would tend not to sanction. Will wait to hear what other admins think. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Urartu TH
[edit]| Urartu TH (talk · contribs) blocked by Sandstein for WP:NPA/WP:AGF issues separate from original request which was not actionable. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 16:46, 16 March 2014 (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 Urartu TH[edit]
Urartu TH is editing controversial arbitration covered article Khojaly Massacre against consensus and in unnecessarily aggressive manner. I tried to resolve a dispute with this user at WP:DRN, and there was no consensus there for the removal of the death toll provided by the Azerbaijani government (613 dead). This was confirmed by the mediator in his closing summary [35], and in a discussion with Urartu TH at mediator's talk: [36]. While Urartu TH insisted on his unilateral removal of info, the mediator mentioned that "based on the discussions at DRN such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus". [37] Despite the outcome of the discussion at WP:DRN, and the warning of the mediator, Urartu TH removed the info from the article: [38] This is not the only example of aggressive and uncompromising editing by this user. He makes controversial edits and reverts to restore them, while there clearly is no consensus for inclusion, or deletion, for instance here: [39] he restores his edit, which was rolled back by another editor: [40], yet Urartu TH restored it without any attempt at discussion or DR. I believe due to unwillingness to work for the consensus Urartu TH should be restricted from editing AA topics, before the situation around the aforementioned article escalates further. Grandmaster 00:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC) I believe that if the result of the discussion at DRN was no consensus for removal of the information, then removing the information in defiance of the outcome of the discussion is disruptive. Even the mediator warned that "such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus", but this did not deter Urartu TH from making a defiant revert. In my opinion, such behavior should not be acceptable, as it leads to escalation of tensions in an arbitration covered area. At the very least, this deserves a warning. Grandmaster 09:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Urartu TH[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 Urartu TH[edit]I have been harassed by Grandmaster ever since I joined Wikipedia roughly 1 month ago and made some neutral edits that did not satisfy his anti-Armenian POV. I find this "enforcement request" to be a shameful attempt at censorship. One need only read the DRN or the Khojaly tragedy talk page for examples. To the edits in question: The first edit, March 14, 2014, was simply to give context to the citation listed. This is paramount because the article in question deals with a highly controversial and divisive topic. I only include a few words which can be found in the citation itself and provide crucial facts necessary in understanding where the information comes from. The second edit, March 15, 2014, was not even discussed in the DRN and I am truly perplexed as to how Grandmaster could attempt to "enforce" a DRN's conclusion on a topic that was not at all discussed. I merely added the words, "Battle of Khojaly" because that is the event during which the Khojaly tragedy is said to have taken place. This part of Grandmaster's complaint clearly exemplifies his animus towards me. Grandmaster needs to learn to tolerate differing and/or dissenting opinions instead of attempting to silence them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urartu TH (talk • contribs) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Urartu TH[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I'm not convinced this has got to the point it's worthy of sanctions. The main argument here seems to be that a user is editing against consensus, but the result at DRN was a lack of consensus. It's true that Urartu TH has been reverting, but there aren't that many reverts, and no more, as far as I can see, than his opponent in the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Hyperionsteel
[edit]| Hyperionsteel officially notified of discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (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 Hyperionsteel[edit]
In light of this poor editing on an IP article I ask that Hyperionsteel be officially made aware of ARBPIA so that he will edit more carefully in the future.
Discussion concerning Hyperionsteel[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 Hyperionsteel[edit]I'll respond to Sepsis II's baseless accusations one at a time: Regarding this edit - 17:48 March 16 I removed the mention of CUPE's boycott because there was no mention of it in the source cited [43]. Sepsis II did provide a link to this article (CUPE Ontario and disinvestment from Israel) but he should have also cited a secondary source to support its inclusion. What Sepsis II clearly didn't notice (or deliberately ignored) was that I subsequently replaced the information on CUPE with this edit [44] with more reliable sources (in my humble opinion). Rather then simply citing an extremely POV website (which is hardly a reliable source), I instead cited two mainstream sources [45] and [46]. I hardly feel this is an violation of Wikipedia rules (mainstream sources are preferred, rather than advocacy websites like the Electronic Intifada, which Sepsis II wants to cited almost everything from). With regards to this edit, [47], it is actually the same one I cited above - yes I removed the reference to the Electronic Intifada because I felt that mainstream sources (rather than an advocacy site) were more suitable for Wikipedia. Clearly, Sepsis II is obsessed with citing EI, and can't accept that others would rather cite mainstream sources instead. Regarding Sepsis II claim that I "purposeful misrepresentation and deletion of RS due to personal dislike of source," this is simply false. I used the quote "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination" because that was the exact wording of a quote attributed to CUPE used in this article [48] on Canada.com. For Sepsis II to claim I purposeful misrepresented this information is utter nonsense - What Sepsis II seems to be claiming is that Canada.com purposefully misrepresented CUPE (he has determined this through his original research). If Sepsis II wants to contact Canada.com and accuse them of misrepresenting CUPE, he is welcome too, but accusing me of "purposefully misrepresentation" by citing a mainstream source (as opposed to his advocacy site) is either incredibly disingenuous or the result of a lack serious lack of judgment. On the same note, I don't see how this can be a 1RR violation: I didn't remove any information twice - Sepsis II original edit [49] didn't even include the EI source (it included no sources, except for one which doesn't mention CUPE at all). In addition, this edit did not include Sepsis II's original quote from EI - he only added it later. In my second edit (as I already stated above) [50] I removed the EI source and substituted these [51] and [52], and cited a direct quote from CUPE that was included in the Canada.com article (admittedly I did reword Sepsis II's quote, but since this quote was not included in his first edit, it is not a 1RR violation). In other words, this is not a revert, but rather an edit made in good faith by citing two mainstream sources that I felt were more reliable than an advocacy site. I did not remove any information twice. Finally, I did do a mass removal of information hereFebruary 3 because I felt that the language used was not POV and because some of the sources cited were not RS. What Sepsis II continently forgot to mention is that during the next 36 hours, I subsequent reinserted most of this information using NPOV language (for example, see edits [53] and [54]. For Sepsis II to make this accusation without citing the fact that I almost immediately reinserted most of this information using NPOV language is once again, either very disingenuous or indicates a lack of judgment. Finally, I am aware of ARBPIA I make every effort to follow it (although I acknowledge that there are times that I need to be more careful). I'm not sure why Sepsis II is making this false accusations. Based on his edits in this and similar articles, he clearly likes to parrot the EI and cannot the handle the fact that others may try to suggest alternate sources that are not advocacy sites. However, I take issue with all of Sepsis II's accusations, and his own misrepresentation of my edits and my intentions - whether this is the result of bad faith, laziness or simple incompetence on his part, I can only speculate. In any event, if I have run afoul with Wikipedia's rules, please let me know - but for Sepsis II to selectively cite my edits to support his accusations, and to accuse me of "purposefully misrepresent[ing]" this material when I simply quoted a mainstream source (which in turn, quoted the subject) is both laughable and fallacious.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC))
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Hyperionsteel[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. |
PhiChiPsiOmega
[edit]| Closing with no action at this point, but with a suggestion to PhiChiPsiOmega to take on board what has been said by the admins reviewing this request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:10, 20 March 2014 (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 PhiChiPsiOmega[edit]
PhiChiPsiOmega has engaged in an extended, frivolous discussion in which he asserts that parapsychology is not a pseudoscience, with flimsy references in comparison to those which describe it as a pseudoscience, in violation of WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, and WP:RS:
Since being reverted, he has contented himself with interminable talk page posting. See also the AN/I report on this issue, which PhiChiPsiOmega has ironically managed to turn into a constant argument.
Discussion concerning PhiChiPsiOmega[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 PhiChiPsiOmega[edit]The references are hardly flimsy, but everyone is right -- I'm just pushing everyone's buttons. Let me present my case later when I don't have so much stuff on my plate, and when I've gotten the hang of Wikipedia. OK? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC) On my talk page, I have indicated that I will refrain from this behavior until I understand Wikipedia policies better. I'd rather look past this. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning PhiChiPsiOmega[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I would decline this enforcement request because it does not contain, as requested in the template and instructions, dated diffs of alleged misconduct with a clear explanation of which conduct policy or guideline they allegedly violate. The issue of whether something should be described or not as a pseudoscience in an article is a content issue which the arbitration process cannot address. Sandstein 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Khabboos
[edit]| Advice only; no enforcement action taken. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 20 March 2014 (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 Khabboos[edit]
@Sandstein I am adding the explanation for each diff below: For Diff # 1, the sources cited for "President of Pakistan claimed that he must have been sheltered by elements in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and that the Pakistani Government had no hand in it." nowhere says that. Besides this content was added without explaining how it is relevant to the subject of the article. The same is true for "The Pakistani Government eventually, has done a deal with the Taliban to enforce the Sharia in parts of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, because they could not fight the Taliban in that region." that was added in the same set of edits and it nowhere says that the deal was done because Pakistan couldn't fight the Taliban. This diff violates WP:V by source falsification by furthering a POV. For Diff # 2, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" was added to the article Persecution of Hindus, while through an RFC on the talk page of the same article it was very much clear that there is no consensus to add it and the source didn't described the event as persecution. In the same diff a narration of another incident (about yoga center) was also added, but the sources cited didn't call the burning of the yoga center as "Persecution of Hindus" but Khabboos tried to edit war it into the article. For Diff # 2a, Again the same article (Persecution of Hindus), where Khabboos added an incident about a Hindu man's killing, but the source no where said that the killing is related to the subject of the article. For Diff # 3, it is very much clear how Khabboos furthers his POV. And this was done after the discussion on the talk, where he made an appeal that "...include these in this article. Muslims do not live in fear in India and they are hardly persecuted - in fact, they are a pampered lot. Remember, this article could be used by Pakistan to brain-wash people to terrorize India...", besides making similar POV edits [62], [63]. For Diff # 4, Khaboos added "... Pakistan was the worlds 'most active' state sponsor of terrorism including aiding groups which were considered a direct threat to USA." to the article Terrorism in Pakistan, while the source cited said "Pakistan is perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups", completely ignoring that the subject of the article is not "Terrorism by Pakistan". He was reverted but he edit warred here too, reverting it into the article twice ([64], [65]). -- SMS Talk 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC) @Callanecc and @Georgewilliamherbert, I would request the two of you to please take some out after closing this request and review each edit by Khabboos regularly, because almost each of his edit is problematic in some way and while we are discussing this it still continues (source falsification). And the earlier discretionary sanctions warning to Khabboos was a result of an AE request about a month ago. -- SMS Talk 07:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Notified. -- SMS Talk 14:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning Khabboos[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 Khabboos[edit]With respect to this edit [66], I copied the matter from Osama bin Laden, along with the references.
Statement by Toddy1[edit]Khabboos had it explained to him/her in February that he/she could not just paste in fake or misrepresented citations - see Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan#Hinduism in Pakistan#Persecution. You will see that he/she was warned on 14 February 2014 about discretionary sanctions at User talk:Khabboos/Archive 1#Discretionary sanctions are applied to articles related to Pakistan.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by AcidSnow[edit]@Khabboos: This does is not seem to be true since you demanded that I go find citations for them since they are "true statements". Instead, I responded with reasons as to why there is no need for me to do it, but you never responded. AcidSnow (talk)
Khabboos has also engaged in forum shopping about the same issue (see here, this is my original ANI report about him were a list a few of them and other problems with this user though almost no admin responded to me). I would give you more diffs on this specific issue, but I don't have the time to do so (maybe later); though there are also other issues that are more problematic. Most of the users that did respond to his request stated that they "oppose" it. Yet, instead of respecting the outcome he went and used sock puppetry (see here for two more, I plan on making an investigation soon) so he can get past the vote. Even after being warned that he was severally risking being banned off Wikipedia he went, instead of responding to it, automatically archived it (he has responded to all other comments on his talk page, but not this?). He would later specifically remove it off his archive, but kept everything else intact. Why would he do that unless he was trying to hid it? I don't see why he is allowed to edit on Wikipedia, let alone these types of articles when he continuously doing the same thing even after being told to stop and being given numerous chances to reform himself. AcidSnow (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Result concerning Khabboos[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. In my view, diffs 1 and 2 are not actionable because the submitter does not explain, as they are required to, how specifically the edits misrepresent or falsify sources, or constitute edit-warring. Diff 3 is more problematic, especially the parts that read "Moreover, the muslims in India do not live in fear, the way minorities in Pakistan live" and "muslims are pampered as a part of vote Bank politics in India". In addition to the grammatical deficiencies, this is not only unsourced (WP:V) but also it appears intended to make a particular political argument rather than to neutrally inform readers about the variety of opinions that may exist (WP:NPOV). Such content should not be added to articles. If Khabboos does not demonstrate their understanding of this, we should consider a topic ban. Sandstein 16:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Gaijin42
[edit]| Not an arbitration enforcement request. Sandstein 17:04, 25 March 2014 (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 i/User:Gaijin42[edit]
To remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools
12:15, 25 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-192) . . m Super-team (Reverted 2 edits by Gaijin42 (talk) to last revision by Stmullin. (TW)) 12:00, 25 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+18) . . Super-team (→Stages of team development) 11:58, 25 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,615) . . Super-team (Undid revision 601206685 by Gaijin42 (talk))
I am being hounded by a cowboy and it needs to stop now. The article is correctly cited and his aggression is completly out of line
12:23, 25 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+87) . . User talk:Stmullin (→March 2014) (current) Discussion concerning Gaijin42[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 Gaijin42[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Gaijin42[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Speedily closed. This is not an arbitration enforcement request, as it cites no decision to be enforced, and I don't see any arbitration decision that could apply to Super-team. See generally WP:DR for further options. Sandstein 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC) |
Khabboos
[edit]| Khabboos is banned from the topic of Islam as related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sandstein 05:42, 26 March 2014 (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 Khabboos[edit]
Discussion concerning Khabboos[edit]Khabboos, can you please stop pinging me every time you post here, the page is on my watchlist. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Khabboos[edit]Answers to points 1 to 3: I copied the references cited at Forced conversion#Early and used them to show that Islam spread in present day Pakistan and the Punjab region by forced conversions. The references cited do show that conversions happened against the will of the people (in fact, the BBC article's title itself is, "Intolerant ruler: Aurangzeb" and it mentions the ways in which Aurangzeb was intolerant). Now wikipedia has a policy that we should paraphrase sentences and not use the original sentences, so the best way was to use the term, "forced conversions" to summarise the references. In fact you admins should ban Darkness Shines for reverting my edit [91] (I haven't reverted/edit warred with him on it)!
Note to admins: I'm logging out now, but please allow me to reply to any fresh allegation/s before acting on it. I have neither repeated any mistake after the last AE nor have I edit warred with anyone, so please think before you act! Thank you.—Khabboos (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by Smsarmad[edit]There is more to his source falsification that was ignored in the last AE request:
-- SMS Talk 17:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by Toddy1[edit]I think the problem is the Khabboos cannot be bothered to read the sources he/she cites. Let's take his/her last attempted addition to the article on Hinduism in Pakistan.[107] He/she is claiming that parts of Pakistan "became predominantly Muslim during the rule of Delhi Sultanate and later Mughal Empire due to forced conversions." He/she provided 4 citations.
Khabboos appears to obtain his/her citations by either copying them from other Wikipedia articles, or through search engines. But in general, it does not appear that he/she bothers to read them, which is why we have had so many problems over the past month with him/her posting citations that do not back the claims he makes for them. See Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan# Hinduism in Pakistan#Persecution, Talk:Persecution of Hindus#Request for comments and Talk:Persecution of Hindus#Revert, why for other similar problems. I am sure that Khabboos is 100% well-meaning and probably has no idea why people disagree with him/her. He/she probably cannot be bothered to read and understand our objections.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Result concerning Khabboos[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Based only on diff 1, the request has merit. The cited sources speak of intolerant Muslim rulers, but nothing about the area becoming majority Muslim, or forced conversions. This is clear source misrepresentation. I recommend a ban from the topic of Islam in India and Pakistan. Sandstein 17:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|
AcidSnow
[edit]| Not actionable, submitter Khabboos sanctioned per the section below. Sandstein 16:28, 29 March 2014 (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 AcidSnow[edit]
Some editors wrote that the Nowshera Mob attack and arson in Islamabad cannot be added to the Persecution of Hindus article because the word, "persecution" was not mentioned in the references cited at the Talk:Persecution of Hindus page[117] (when actually one editor, Kanga Roo in the Zoo writes that the word, "persecution" is mentioned in one of the citations), but for the Anti-Hinduism article, the term, "persecution" need not be mentioned - mob attacks and arson directed against Hindus are enough to include citations in the (Anti-Hinduism) article. AcidSnow has also been stalking and reverting my edits:[118]
Discussion concerning AcidSnow[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 AcidSnow[edit]Statement by Darkness Shines[edit]How is this not a violation of the TBAN just imposed on Khabboos? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC) And this edit also appears to be a TBAN violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning AcidSnow[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This enforcement request seems to violate the topic ban, that applies to Khabboos, because it concerns a complaint about the removal of content about violence between the Hindu and Muslim communities in Pakistan. On the merits, the evidence submitted here is not enough to establish actionable misconduct. I see one diff of what seems to be a content dispute, and vague allegations of stalking with no evidence. That's not enough to act on. Sandstein 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Darkness Shines
[edit]| Not actionable. Submitter Khabboos blocked for one month and banned from the topic of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sandstein 16:30, 29 March 2014 (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 Darkness Shines[edit]
Despite having unclean hands, he has complained for AE against newcomers like ZORDANLIGHTER and me (Khabboos) here.
Discussion concerning Darkness Shines[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 Darkness Shines[edit]Just pointing out, MarcusMaximus0 is not an admin, and is in fact a blocked sock of Nangparbat. Regarding the diffs given, 1- I restored academically cited content which had been removed, ans removed an edit by Khabboos which he had added to the lede in violation of UNDUE. Which I explained on the talk page. 2- is the same as the first? 3- I said I would revert as the sources are junk. A book from the 1800`s are not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by Smsarmad[edit]And yet again, another violation of TBAN by Khabboos (The article is about an Islamic spiritual song with Indian origin), despite the discussion in the result section moving closer to some kind of a sanction. I was tempted to open a new request but now that Khabboos's conduct is discussed here, so better avoid redundant case threads. -- SMS Talk 15:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Darkness Shines[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The complaint does not include actionable evidence of misconduct. We have one article diff, which seems to reflect a content dispute, and unclear references to some talk page discussions. The conduct of Khabboos in filing this request, and the one above, appears vexatious and disruptive, including by engaging in personal attacks ("What a crook!"). I recommend extending their topic ban to everything related to religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, because it is clear that they lack the clue needed to edit productively in this topic area. Sandstein 10:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
|
ZORDANLIGHTER
[edit]| ZORDANLIGHTER is indefinitely topic banned from topics relating to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan--Cailil talk 19:35, 1 April 2014 (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 ZORDANLIGHTER[edit]
The fact that these edits came just after having being notified of discretionary sanctions shows, to me at least, a battlefield approach to editing in what is a highly contentious topic, notably the events which occurred in Gujarat in 02. Most telling were the edits which gave me cause to issue the notification. Restoration, twice, of the main article on the incidents to a version from over a year ago, which also contained BLPPRIMARY violations, and in doing so removed up to a hundred (wild guess there, I am not about to count them) academic sources which discuss the issue. This removal was a terrible breach of NPOV.
Discussion concerning ZORDANLIGHTER[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 ZORDANLIGHTER[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Biased_article_2 The entire article is biased inspite of open truth.Some unknown journalists are given more importance than well established news agencies. Statement by Khabboos[edit]Zordanlighter has not been warned by an admin earlier and may not yet understand the rules here. I think he must first be warned not to indulge in Original Research and that he should cite references that contain the same words as the sentence he uses on wikipedia.—Khabboos (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by Smsarmad[edit]This SPI case results might be of interest to admins reviewing this request. -- SMS Talk 21:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Result concerning ZORDANLIGHTER[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| 76.107.171.90 warned and blocked as a normal admin action. Sandstein 11:52, 3 April 2014 (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 76.107.171.90[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions
There is a recurring WP:Battleground and WP:CIVIL issue with 76.107.171.90 (talk) using vulgarity, personal attacks and inappropriate behavior against the editors they disagree with. My first encounter with 76 was on my Talk Page, when they jumped in on a conversation I was having with another editor. 76 suddenly posted a long rant in which they warned me never to edit the Rupert Sheldrake page again unless I was "absolutely determined to martyr yourself" and then posted an insulting rhyme (apparently inspired by my interest in the Golden Age of Piracy) that starts with "Well tickle me dick-hole and shit on a stick! I know of a troll who’s one hell of a dick!" This exchange continued despite my attempts to reason with 76 until I finally gave up and decided to stop engaging. 76 continued to make abusive remarks and thinly veiled threats after that point. I had been willing to let the matter go, but the fact that 76 is still speaking to other editors about gathering "evidence" against me indicates that 76 has an axe to grind and won't stop their harassment until I'm blocked.
Highlights (excerpted from Incidents above):
To this day I don't know what "pro-fringe, disruptive" edits I made that so upset 76, but this conduct seems unreasonable and inappropriate in any case, and violates every concept of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. In addition to insulting me in a threatening and vulgar manner, I find 76's use of the word "retard" to be repugnant. That is one of the most offensive terms in the English language and is especially unacceptable when used as an ad-hominem attack. This kind of conduct is not appropriate on WP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.107.171.90&diff=602455670&oldid=597888651
Discussion concerning 76.107.171.90[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 76.107.171.90[edit]Askahrc is a known liar who was previously found guilty of engaging in a false flag technique to attempt to get Vzaak and Barney the barney barney banned from editing Rupert Sheldrake. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive. Given Askahrc’s history of lying, I am asking for special permission to edit within Askahrc’s statement so as that I will be better able to refute his allegations on a point by point basis. I will do so in a different color so as to prevent confusion. I would also like to point out that I think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order, and that the “warnings” that Askahrc has provided evidence of are not the typical template-style warnings that are normally used in these types of proceedings. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
As you can see Askahrc refers to his enemies as “bullies” multiple times. He also refers to them as “unethical”, “arrogant”, “antagonistic”, “scoundrels”, “knaves”, “pisspoor bastards”, and “scurvy dogs”. So, I think it is pretty clear that Askahrc started this altercation. Having read Askahrc’s ranting attack on the “skeptical” editors of Wikipedia I was not in the least bit hesitant to treat Askahrc as he had treated others when I first encountered him on his talk page. With that being said, what follows is Askahrc’s request with my comments interjected into it. My first encounter with 76 was on my Talk Page, when they jumped in on a conversation I was having with another editor. I came to Barney’s aid after Askahrc had attempted to get Barney banned from the Sheldrake page. 76 suddenly posted a long rant in which they warned me never to edit the Rupert Sheldrake page again unless I was "absolutely determined to martyr yourself" and then posted an insulting rhyme (apparently inspired by Askahrc’s off-wiki rant in which he talks like a pirate my interest in the Golden Age of Piracy) that starts with "Well tickle me dick-hole and shit on a stick! I know of a troll who’s one hell of a dick!" It should be noted that the “troll who’s one hell of a dick” is User:Tumbleman. Tumbleman is a notorious internet troll who Askahrc is madly in love with. Askahrc’s off-wiki relationship with Tumbleman was a central element of my discussion with Askahrc. I made mention of it several times. This exchange continued despite my attempts to reason at no point did Askahrc attempt to engage in any reasoned conversation whatsoever with 76 until I finally gave up and called me a troll decided to stop engaging. 76 continued to make abusive remarks and thinly veiled threats after that point. Actually, I made one additional brief remark which can be viewed [here]. I’m not sure what Askahrc considers to be “abusive” about it. I had been willing to let the matter go Actually, he could NOT let the matter go AT ALL. What he actually did was complain about me in his sock puppet investigation [[136]]. Then he followed me over to Barney’s talk page and made [this] comment. Then he consulted Callanecc about furthering his vendetta against me [[137]]. Then he tried to talk to me on Talk:Vlad the Impaler [[138]]. Then he drew up a rough draft of the request that we are involved in right now [[139]]. , but the fact that 76 is still speaking to other editors about defending myself gathering "evidence" against me indicates that 76 has an axe to grind it’s very much the other way around and won't stop their harassment What harassment? I haven’t interacted with Askahrc since our conversation on his talk page. I didn’t even reply to his post on Talk:Vlad the Impaler even though it was addressed to me until I'm blocked. If I was determined to get Askahrc blocked then why didn’t I comment in his sock puppet investigation or Vzaak’s request for enforcement?
Highlights (excerpted from Incidents above):
To this day I don't know what "pro-fringe, disruptive" edits In our conversation I actually provided a link to his off-wiki rant twice. I made it quite clear that I was referring to that rant as an example of his poor behavior. I was attempting to tell him that calling Barney a “bully” off-wiki was bound to have a negative impact on how Barney treated him on Wikipedia. I made that so upset 76, but this conduct seems unreasonable and inappropriate in any case, and violates every concept of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. In addition to insulting me in a threatening and vulgar manner, I find 76's use of the word "retard" to be repugnant I find Askahrc’s false flagging to be repugnant . That is one of the most offensive terms in the English language Actually, I’m pretty sure that attempting to get Barney topic banned by fabricating evidence through the use of a sock puppet is just about the most offensive thing one can do on Wikipedia that isn’t actually a crime in the state of Florida and is especially unacceptable when used as an ad-hominem attack. This kind of conduct is not appropriate on WP. As you can see, despite Asakahrc’s attempts to spin it otherwise, this is a very obvious case of a malicious editor making offensive comments off-wiki, and then getting cussed out on-wiki for having done so. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think editors should be allowed to edit another editor's comments, inserting statements that cast the remarks in a different light or reinterpret the comments and interrupt the argument the OP is making. Better to copy the relevant parts into a separate statement and make a response to them there. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Statement by Barney the barney barney[edit]
In conclusion, an interaction ban for both of them would be useful, as would a reminder to Askahrc (talk · contribs) of his own topic ban from Rupert Sheldrake. I would also like this topic ban to be extended to "fringe theories, broadly construed", but realise that he might not have done enough yet to warrant this in the eyes of the moderators. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]@Barney: What does "Wikipedia should seek to support WP:FRINGE editors." mean? If it means that Wikipedia ought to encourage editors to edit fringe topics using the best available mainstream scientific information and strictly following our policies about dealing with these difficult subjects, then I agree. If, however, it means that Wikipedia ought to give POV-pushing fringe adherents more leeway to warp our articles with original research, speculation, and not-widely-accepted theories, then of course not -- exactly the opposite, in fact. Fringe POV-pushers need to be as strictly monitored as ethnic POV-pushers, because their purpose is antithetical to our own. BMK (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 76.107.171.90[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|