Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270
Aman.kumar.goel
[edit]| Please use dispute resolution --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:32, 26 August 2020 (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 Aman.kumar.goel[edit]
There is no evidence of sock/block evasions in the edits. These diffs are just the most recent edit warring on Bangladesh liberation war, there are further cases of edit warring by Aman.kumar.goel in the earlier history of the article, all in content disputes. The edit wars in August have come even after a concern was raised at WP:ANI on Aman.kumar.goel's perpetual edit warring on this and other articles. Note that Bangladesh liberation war is only one example of the unabating edit warring tendency of the user. There are plenty of other articles in the IPA area where the user has engaged/been engaging in edit wars in content disputes, often tag teaming with others. A simple look on his contributions can prove it. If needed, I can provide more diffs if the limit allows.
These are just the incidents that came into my notice. Aman.kumar.goel has a perpetual tendency to violate WP:BATTLEGROUND mainly to intimidate his ideological opponents instead of seeking effective dispute resolutions, a fact that is also corroborated by an admin with this statement. As it seems in different discussions, the user even refuses to admit that he has been engaged in an edit war. This only means that there wouldn't be any change in his disruptive conduct unless a sanction is enforced. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC) In response to Aman.kumar.goel's statement: It is quite self-contradictory when Aman.kumar.goel himself says he made reverts in the ongoing disputed article and yet claims the allegation of disruption is false. Pedantic perusals like 2 or 3 reverts, partial or full revert don't matter when the gist of the report is the tendency to edit-war, not limits of reverts. Regarding WP:VERIFY, I already provided the source in an earlier edit and the discussion was mainly about the false claim of consensus by Aman.kumar.goel at the user talk page. WP:Gaming the system, WP:Wikilawyering by Aman.kumr.goel can be validated by the comments of different editors, this for example. It should be noted that before filing this report I tried discussing with Aman.kumar.goel here about his edit-wars and asked him to self-revert but the user refused to respond. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC) In response to RegentsPark's statement: Sources are already provided as none of the edits look unsourced, the dispute seems to be over the interpretation of sources. But the content dispute is not the point here, the report is about Aman.kumar.goel's incessant edit-warring tendency, there is no way that the reverts he made could be exempted per WP:EW. And BLW is not the only article, here are some of his recent edit-wars on Ayurveda (2 July 2020) (article is placed on 1RR where he tag-teamed with others), Nathu La and Cho La (5 July 2020) (again tag-teaming with others on the same infobox POV dispute), List of administrative units of Pakistan by Human Development Index (26 July 2020, 26 July 2020, 30 July 2020) and countless others. Also notice his WP:BULLY and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, since multiple editors (including an admin) has corroborated the concern, there is clearly a pattern here. I have enough reasons to believe that the moment this report is closed without action, Aman.kumar.goel will continue his edit-warring and bullying, disrupting several articles. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Aman.kumar.goel[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 Aman.kumar.goel[edit]It needs to be noted that OP filed this report after he failed to WP:VERIFY his sources,[1] and failed to implement his POV on the article per Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#To update a information even after his toxic attempt to poison the well by falsely alleging me of " Needless to say, such a misleading complaint which is nothing more than a clear attempt to weaponize a content dispute deserve WP:BOOMERANG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Kmzayeem[edit]I'm one of the participants in the current dispute at Bangladesh Liberation War. I have had my share of editing disputes and I know these South Asia-related topics always tend to be a heated area but earlier at least I had seen there was a desire to have a peaceful resolution from both sides. The one here at Bangladesh Liberation War is quite unprecedented in my eight years of editing experience. When my edit was reverted, I tried to follow WP:BRD and continued discussing at the article's talk page without making any further edit. Suddenly, I discover Aman.kumar.goel's misleading warnings at my talk page with allegations of "dubious edit summaries", "blatant source misrepresentation" and "Misrepresenting "consensus"". These issues were already being discussed at the article's talk page and instead of continuing the discussion there, he left this bad faith message at my talk page which I found disruptive, not to mention the inappropriate DS alert notice already stated by the OP. Today, I found another warning by Aman.kumar.goel at my talk page, this time accusing me of WP:CANVASSING, pointing towards this message. As it can be seen, my message was entirely neutral and the editor I invited to the discussion was Aditya Kabir who is one of the major content contributors to this article (perhaps the only one currently active among them). Aditya Kabir was also involved in the peer review process of the article. It does seem to me that Aman.kumar.goel is applying WP:POV railroad tactics with such antics, just to take control of the article. --Zayeem (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by RegentsPark[edit]I see this as more of a sourcing issue than a behavioral one and see no reason for action since OP hasn't really documented a pattern of behavior that is outside our norms. As a person with lay knowledge of the events in the article, I'm surprised that sources can't be found that support OPs position (I'm tangentially involved since I expressed that surprise on the talk page!), but Wikipedia is built on well sourced content and that's what counts. If there are sources, then I suggest WP:DR as a better venue. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Aditya Kabir[edit]@Guerillero: Sorry to drop in. But does this comment, made four days after this warning, count as "bludgeoning the conversation"? May be this counts as edit warring. Also, incivilities, threats, bullying and lawyering is being continued by what look like a WP:GANG now (I'll be happier if I'm wrong, of course).
Asking help from WP:MILHIST editors made the gang even more aggressive and combative. Not a desired outcome. May be the whole discussion needs some moderation. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Aman.kumar.goel[edit]
|
Kmzayeem
[edit]| Closed as stale. No Admins wished to comment --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:32, 26 August 2020 (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 Kmzayeem[edit]
Note: Kmzayeem understands that "mention about ... victory" in the parameter should be supported by the source or else it is removable,[3] but he himself continues to insert claims about "victory" of other side of the conflict without finding a supportive source and continues to WP:EDITWAR;
Other pages:
While talk page disruption on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War is seemingly endless from this user, the latest talk message that encouraged me to file this report is most egregious;
Some other sources are unavailable so I can't confirm them, but the deceptive misrepresentation of the above sources seems very deliberate. Most of these diffs come after he had been adequately warned on his talk page,[7] for edits that involved similar extent of disruption, but evidently, it is continuing in violation of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kmzayeem[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 Kmzayeem[edit]It's quite remarkable to see Srijanx22 decided to discuss the contents here with misleading allegations rather than responding at the talk page, despite being cautioned for not assuming good faith just yesterday. The so called misrepresentations at Maratha invasions of Bengal were already refuted at the talk page. The sources indeed indicate that Nawab of Bengal had military upper hand on all the battles over the Marathas which imply victory, two sources were added with relevant quotations. I didn't "accept" the misrepresentation rather changed "victory" to "Success of Nawab of Bengal in repelling the invasions" as a compromise which also matches the lead description of the version restored by Srijanx22, so I'm not sure what is being disputed here that he reverted my edit and along with it, removed about 1000 bytes of sourced contents outside the infobox, the removal of which hasn't been explained by the OP anyway despite being asked to. That seems like a needless revert on what purpose I'm not sure. In the 6th August edit at Bangladesh Liberation War, I added a "note" describing Pakistan's surrender to Bangladeshi-Indian joint forces to change the result in infobox to "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" and added some links containing the surrender document to cite the description within the note. So what misrepresentation the OP is talking about here? This also had already been explained at the talk page quite comprehensively. The book clearly shows "Bangladesh's victory" in page 58 in my search. The OP neither waited for my response at the talk page nor tried to check any technical error. The "novel" stated by the OP is actually a scholarly article titled "The Blame Game: War and Violence in Dilruba Z. Ara’s Blame" from Asiatic Journal, analyzing fictions on historic wars and conflicts, the quotation was the author's own words and not excerpt from the fiction. I already provided the volume and issue no. in the discussion, yet, I'm not sure why the OP is describing a journal article as a novel. One of the diffs shown by the OP is not even my edit. The amount of falsification of diffs here is quite hideous. The turn of events at the two articles also seem quite strange. Srijanx22 began reverting my edits at Maratha invasions of Bengal on 10 August, when the discussion at Bangladesh Liberation War was going pretty hot along with off-discussion "battles". The dispute at Bangladesh Liberation War was approaching a consensus on 16 August with mediation by uninvolved editors from WP:MILHIST and now the OP files this misleading case against me with pretty much identical false allegations that the opposing participants at Bangladesh Liberation War threw at me. Leaving everything on the arbitrators, please do what deem necessary, including any action required against me. Quite an eventful August for me, more to come I guess. --Zayeem (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kmzayeem[edit]
|
श्रीमान २००२
[edit]| रीमान २००२ topic banned from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan by Doug Weller --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:41, 17 August 2020 (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 श्रीमान २००२[edit]
User was warned about violating WP:BLP in June by Doug Weller and Tayi Arajakate over his edits (given above) regarding Harsh Mander. User was warned to not present statements made by the police as statements of fact. However, here we are again in August, with the user's new target being Tahir Hussain. Hussain's name has long been a point of WP:BLP violations in the article and the Talk page of 2020 Delhi riots (multiple admins have reverted multiple edits regarding Husain's involvement in the riots). He has repeated the same behaviour in this article, violating WP:BLP multiple times, showing no signs of stopping. I added a WP:PROD notice on Hussain's page today, which the user removed, without properly reading or addressing the relevant sections of WP:BLP and WP:NPOL that I had linked. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning श्रीमान २००२[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 श्रीमान २००२[edit]Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]I recommended this user be brought here after applying revdel to one of their edits (under IAR because I am tangentially involved). Jumping from "supporters of X threw stones at property" (which is what the source said) to "X threw stones" (which is what they wrote) is the sort of egregious OR that we do not need in an area under discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Tayi Arajakate[edit]I should clarify that the problems with their editing on the Shaheen Bagh page go much beyond that violation of WP:BLP regarding Harsh Mander. In general, there was quite a bit of NPOV violation which inadvertently gets noticed more through its consequent BLP violations. They didn't pursue it further but it seems they have moved on to other pages with the same pattern of editing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning श्रीमान २००२[edit]
|
Chartreuse&Puce
[edit]| User has been topic banned by Guerillero. Nothing more to see here. Salvio 18:53, 19 August 2020 (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 Chartreuse&Puce[edit]
This is the first time I recall encountering discretionary sanctions and I'm mostly just following the instructions on the article talk page which say, "Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard."
Discussion concerning Chartreuse&Puce[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 Chartreuse&Puce[edit]I am not really sure what I supposedly did wrong here. I wrote, correctly, that the Supreme Court had not ruled specifically on the issue of the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. Then, someone inserted dicta from the 1982 Plyler v. Doe case. The Supreme Court in that case specifically stated that its ruling was only applicable to K-12 education. Any dicta in the case, like that statement that was inserted in the edit by another editor, is not relevant to the issue of birthright citizenship. So, I reverted the language back to the correct language. Then, someone else stated, absurdly, that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling is "irrelevant" and reverted the language back so it now reads incorrectly. Further, this is not a matter for consensus. Wikipedia editors are in no position to determine that the limited applicability of a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is irrelevant. And they certainly should not be cherry-picking statements from dicta in a case which is not applicable to birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants in an effort to make a supposedly unbiased Wikipedia argument read the way they would like it to. The reference to Plyler v. Doe statement needs to be removed from this article, and the language reverted back to the correct language. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on the reasons cited, there were no legitimate grounds for a ban, let alone an indefinite ban. And yes, I have of course heard that a number of people support use of "them" to refer to an individual rather than a group. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
And - while I have no particular agenda, if you are really intent on banning every editor with an agenda, there are clearly numerous editors, including many long-term prolific editors, who should have been banned years ago. Indeed, there are a number of editors who revel in being contentious and editing with a clear agenda, as evidenced by their comments on Talk pages including their user talk pages. I am not seeking to have them banned - just pointing out that banning is not applied evenly. Also - someone editor had an issue with a "pointy" comment I made, and cited that as a reason for a ban. Seriously? I can't believe no one else has ever made a "pointy" comment, however that term is defined, without incurring a ban. Finally - As to use of "them" as a singular pronoun - that is simply not the way I was taught English grammar, but I am not here to fight about that. Please see the little smiley face at the end of my comment about use of singular "them". All in all, it seems like you are really grasping for legitimate reasons to ban me, and absent finding any, you still banned me, citing 1) issue with the Kamala Harris Talk page comments, which I was justly punished for and which will not be repeated; 2) issues with an edit (George Floyd protests) that was done correctly and in any event certainly did not rise to the level of a ban-worthy problem, 3) an issue with a non-serious comment I made regarding use of singular "them", and 4) a "pointy" comment - however that is defined. Just - wow. If these are the standards for a ban, and they are applied evenly to all editors, there wouldn't be too many editors without a ban. Is there any higher authority to which I can appeal this ridiculous ban? And - what is the duration of the ban? Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Struthious Bandersnatch[edit]@Chartreuse&Puce: I added the Plyler v. Doe quote from your source about birthright citizenship which you added to the article. If it was cherry-picked, your own verifiable and reliable source is the one that cherry-picked it. If you can't interpret and follow the rule "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" it doesn't say much about your ability to interpret SCOTUS decisions. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Chartreuse&Puce[edit]
|
Zarcademan123456
[edit]| Zarcademan123456 is indefinitely banned from articles related to Israel / Palestine broadly construed--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2020 (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 Zarcademan123456[edit]
Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456[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 Zarcademan123456[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Zarcademan123456[edit]
|
McNulTEA
[edit]| Blocked as an ordinary admin action. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:29, 29 August 2020 (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 McNulTEA[edit]
N/A
Discussion concerning McNulTEA[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 McNulTEA[edit]Statement by Schazjmd[edit]I have reverted some of McNulTEA's edits and attempted several times to explain to them about reliable sources for BLPs (1, 2, 3, 4). McNulTEA appears to have an agenda (see the totality of their contributions). I've had to warn McNulTEA twice (1, 2) about edit-warring on Steven Pinker. This editor is not making an effort to understand or comply with WP:BLP requirements. At a minimum, I think McNulTEA should be restricted to 1RR on BLPs (if not topic-banned from them completely). Schazjmd (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning McNulTEA[edit]
|
The C of E
[edit]| The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2020 (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 The C of E[edit]
endorses the racist secessionist/segregationistviewpoint; and then this gem which would have seen the English Wikipedia call Muhammed a thief on its main page. And in this hook he attempted to get the N-word on the front page three times in the same hook.The most egregious case above, I imagine, was probably that of the Derry City Judicial Review, which The C of E intended to hit our main page less than a month after journalist Lyra McKee had been shot dead in an IRA–police shoot out in Derr itself. But as BlueMoonset pointed out, This article could have been written at any time: the court case dates from 2007. The fact remains that The C of E wrote it on 23 April 2019, at a particularly sensitive time, and nominated it at DYK with a hook that was certain to be controversial ... The C of E has long pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable, and it's past time that the DYK community said enough is enough. ([23]) Demonstrating the persistence and consistency of The C of E's behavior wrt Irish hooks, quote Guerillero, commenting how—regardless of the substance of the hook— The first thing I noticed is that this was a hook about Northern Ireland by The C of E, which provides a flavor of the expectations of their hooks among the broader community. ([24]).@ Arbclerks and AE admins—permission to go over word- and/or diff-length, please? I am making serious allegations which as we know require serious evidence. ——Serial 17:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning The C of E[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 The C of E[edit]I was not expecting to end up in court here but I feel that there are a lot of things that have been misinterpreted here. First of all, whenever I word any controversial topics, I word them so they are factual based upon what the sources say in the article and the majority of objections I get seem to be based upon personal feelings rather than direct interpretation of the DYK rules. Yes I edit in controversial areas but I do so with the aim of promoting topics that likely can get overlooked and working to improve the project as a while. With regard to the allegation I am trying to push Londonderry on the main page, In 1946 Londonderry Borough Council election (which is not within The Troubles timeline as far as I am aware) the simple fact is that that was the name of the council at the time, before the 1984 renaming (something the final reviewer even stated was a historical snapshot of the world at the time). As for the Derry City Council Judicial Review one, the main arguments against it seemed to be based on the fact it was close to Lyra McKee's murder, which was a mistake on my part as I had not been thinking about that at all when I wrote it. Furthermore, I actually minimised the amount of times in that article where it said Londonderry/Derry and substituted it mostly with "the city" or "the council" as appropriate to try and keep neutrality. I really do think people were just jumping to conclusions here because I can assure you there was no malicious intent or sinister undertones. As for the current Fermanagh Council article, the reason why I included "unrecognised" was because the fact is that the Second Dail was not recognised as a legislative body by the UK government that ran Ireland at the time. The context of the hook was pre-partition in 1921 before the Irish Free State was established. And in response to the accusation I am editing in a biased fashion, I also expanded John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) and SDLP Gerry Mullan (politician), the latter of which ran without any comment so I do find it rather interesting that a hook on a nationalist politician runs without comment whilst unionist related hooks get constant pressures on them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Black Kite[edit]SN54129 actually leaves out (or perhaps hasn't brought up yet due to word count) what is by far the most disruptive part of the issue, and one which had serious possibilities that it could bring Wikipedia into disrepute. The C of E did not only put 1973 Londonderry City Council election forward for DYK, he specifically asked for it to be run on July 12 [26]. For those unclear about the problem here, The_Twelfth#Controversies_and_violence is probably your first port of call. I was scathing about this to begin with, however unbelievably I then found out that The C of E had done exactly the same with the really incendiary Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Orange Order requested for 12 July three years beforehand. Luckily, two reviewers picked it up again and suggested that the 12th was not the best time to run it. The C of E then suggested the 11th instead, which was the date it ran on. This, though to be fair to the reviewers they probably didn't know, was almost as bad. (FYI, Eleventh Night is the night on which Unionists and Orange Order members create bonfires and burn the Irish flag - from our article "The tricolours on such bonfires are often daubed with sectarian slogans such as ... "Kill All Irish" (KAI)"). I realise the level of this issue may be difficult to those outside the UK and/or unfamiliar with The Troubles to gauge, so to give you an idea, I'll suggest that both of these July 12 nominations (especially the 2017 one) were similar to, for example, someone requesting that Mohamed Atta run as a DYK on September 11. I actually posted at the time Given some of the other issues that SN54129 has raised, my suggestions would be that at the very least The C of E be barred from submitting articles about politics, religion or Northern Ireland/Ireland to DYK. There are many other topics to write about, and indeed the C of E has submitted many articles to DYK that are uncontentious and away from these two areas. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ritchie333[edit]Just a minor point, in one of the discussions above I confused the Royal Irish Constabulary with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, though my main point was The C of E gave the impression to multiple editors that he had pro-Loyalist POV and appeared to be on a mission to put "Londonderry" on the main page as many times as possible. However, I'm not sure exactly what action people want to take here - the only realistic thing I can think of is "don't file any more DYKs with Londonderry in the hook". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde[edit]Posting in this section because I'm narrowly involved with respect to The C of E and DYK. As I've said before, I think the issue is with the C of E misusing the structure of DYK to push a POV in a manner he'd never get away with in other places. However, the fact that he's been doing this so persistently with respect to Northern Ireland in particular means that I do not see how his other edits in that topic area can be trusted, and I would recommend a broader TBAN than just from "The Troubles at DYK". Furthermore, I think the issue is not limited to the Troubles, and as such a further discussion at AN is likely warranted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Narutolovehinata5[edit]I would also like to point out another recent nomination by The C of E not mentioned above, which managed to pass and be promoted: Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary Barton (politician), although to be fair the promoter indicated at WT:DYK that he was unaware of the concerns about The C of E's Ireland hooks and stated that he would have not done so had he been aware of them. Having had several experiences with The C of E throughout the years, one of the more egregious attitudes shown by him is the apparent insistence on certain hook wordings despite (and in some cases, apparently even because of) how controversial they are. The Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination mentioned earlier is a good example. Admittedly I have little knowledge about The Troubles and things related to it, but the apparent insistence on proposing certain kinds of hooks, which some editors including myself have interpreted as trying to push certain political or religious viewpoints, is at the very least worrying behavior. Perhaps the most glaring recent example was the aforementioned 1973 election nomination, where he stated at WT:DYK that the date request occurred so that it
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning The C of E[edit]
|
Alexiod Palaiologos
[edit]This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Alexiod Palaiologos
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Alexiod Palaiologos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 13:08, 27 August 2020 Adds text that attempts to downplay the deaths of black people, despite the reference making the opposite point. Detailed explanation below in comments
- 17:36, 27 August 2020 Adds text that has little resemblance to what the references are talking about. Detailed explanation below in comments
- 12:48, 28 August 2020 Adds original research to Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, claiming protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake are part of the George Floyd protests, when obviously they are protesting a different incident entirely
- 13:08, 28 August 2020 Edit warring to repeat diff#3 despite being reverted
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
None.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted here (they have since changed username, don't know if this will affect the automatic logging)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The first diff adds to Black Lives Matter the text Although records are incoherent, it is estimated that 13 unarmed black Americans were shot dead by the Police in 2019, compared with an estimated 25 white Americans shot to death.
The first half of the sentence is referenced by USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. I can't see the latter as I'm not a subscriber, and USA Today isn't particularly important since it's the second half of the sentence that's the problem. The News Northeastern article referencing the second half of the sentence is even titled The Research is Clear: White People Are Not More Likely Than Black People To Be Killed By Police
. And before anyone says I know headlines aren't that useful as references, but the article goes on to point out things like That’s only because there are so many more white people than there are Black people in our country
and Although Black people represented 12 percent of the population in the states we studied, they made up 25 percent of the deaths in police shootings
and perhaps more tellingly Many other studies have shown that Black people are more likely to be killed per capita by law enforcement than are white people in the United States
. In fact the thrust of the entire article is that black people are more likely to be killed by police than white people, so to use that reference to construct a sentence that attempts to portray white people as more likely to be killed by police is clearly not NPOV.
The second diff adds two sentences to Black Lives Matter. The first is At the same time, 89 Police Officers were killed while on duty (2019)
referenced by an FBI press release. Obviously what the relevance of that is to Black Lives Matter is anyone's guess. The second sentence, immediately following the first is This could indicate both a racial bias in Police shootings of unarmed people, or a simple tendency for certain American cities to be extremely violent.
The first reference is a USA Today article from 8 January 2019 that's titled The most dangerous jobs in the US include electricians, firefighters and police officers
. There is no mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related. The second reference is a Forbes Contributor article, which isn't reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes (I'll be reasonable and say that's an innocent mistake). However that article doesn't reference the sentence either, not containing any mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related other than Experts are unsure of what is driving the trend but some opinions cited by Vox have pointed towards the protests in the wake of George Floyd's death as one possible explanation where distrust led to police departments pulling back from communities, causing a spike in violence
, which obviously doesn't reference anything about a racial bias in police shootings of unarmed people. The third reference is the New York Times, which again doesn't contain any mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related other than But this year has been distinct in many ways, because of the pandemic and because of the protests and civil unrest after the death of George Floyd in police custody
. Thus the entire sentence This could indicate both a racial bias in Police shootings of unarmed people, or a simple tendency for certain American cities to be extremely violent
is unreferenced, as is the synthesis of adding it after the sentence about 89 police officers being killed while on duty.
The overall effect of the two diffs is to attempt to downplay the deaths of black people, making them out to be statistically lower than the deaths of white people despite the reference making the exact opposite point. FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Pudeo: You should check page histories before claiming anything is a content dispute. Since I've never edited Black Lives Matter or its talk page, how is it a content dispute? FDW777 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Alexiod Palaiologos
[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Alexiod Palaiologos
[edit]I used citations from a neutral fact checker, a conservative article (WSJ) and a liberal article. So I'm not sure what you're claiming to say, you're claiming my citations prove me wrong when clearly they do not. They all agree on one statistic, but disagree on the implications of it. Under no circumstance is mentioning the number of people shot dead by the Police (when it is literally mentioned in the same paragraph of the article) some kind of offense. The second part of my edit again, also repeats something from the next paragraph, that more black Americans being shot and killed by the Police does not necessarily indicate racial bias. My citations referred to crime rates, since the other part (not necessarily racial bias) was already addressed in the article in the very next paragraph. The number of Police Officers being killed is very relevant, it provides context as to how violent the job of Policing can be, and large numbers of Police Officers being killed generally reflects higher crime rates, again touched on throughout the section. So it seems you looked at my edit with a confirmation bias of me somehow supporting black people being killed by the Police, and then reached a conclusion out of thin air without any evidence.User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Pudeo
[edit]This is a content dispute. You can't really judge what's NPOV at AE. Not much else can be done except to ask everyone to stay calm in these contentious articles.
I also note that FDW777 has been a member only since September 2018 but has already filed seven AE threads[28]. I think that is close to overusing AE to weaponize it in content disputes.--Pudeo (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
[edit]Result concerning Alexiod Palaiologos
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The first diff cited in the request shows a clear misrepresentation of a source by Alexiod: he cites a source stating that Blacks are more likely than Whites to be victims of police shootings to imply that the opposite is true. He omits key content and context from the source to imply the opposite of what it actually states. The second diff demonstrates clear inappropriate synthesis; Alexiod cites sources because they list a statistic that he deems important, but no connection to the topic is alluded to anywhere in the actual sources cited. The third diff (and fourth) show him repeatedly including material that is dubious or incorrect (attributing the deaths of two people shot by a right-wing extremist during the Kenosha protests to the death of George Floyd).
I view the first diff as the most serious, since it involves clear misrepresentation of a source. The second diff shows original synthesis, which is against policy but not inherently grounds for sanction. I don't see evidence of previous blocks, warnings, or enforcement requests against Alexiod, so I would propose to close this request with a warning to Alexiod not to misrepresent sources and to avoid original synthesis, with the understanding that further such issues will lead to a block or topic ban.
Regarding Pudeo's concern about the filer, I reviewed FDW777's previous AE filings. In each case, it seems that his requests were felt to be sound and based on valid concerns. I see no evidence of vexatious complaints or misuse of the AE mechanism. We can hardly fault someone for using existing dispute-resolution mechanisms appropriately, and it seems unfair to cast aspersions on FDW777 based solely on the number of requests s/he has filed without regard to their underlying merit. MastCell Talk 22:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Have to agree with MastCell here, a strong warning is in order and any further violations should result in a topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I also checked through the AE requests submitted by FDW777. Of those, 3 resulted in a warning, 1 in an AE block, 1 in a topic ban, and 1 in the editor against whom the complaint was filed being determined to be a block-evading sock and blocked indefinitely. That clearly shows that there is merit in the requests filed by this editor, so simple frequency of them is not a particular cause for concern that FDW777 is filing groundless AE requests for harassment. I would agree with a logged warning that further behavior of this type will lead to sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I will give a warning, if nobody objects --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Guerillero, make it so - I am involved or I would do it. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thomas Meng
[edit]| Thomas Meng is warned that his edits are on the borderline of what would trigger a topic ban. He needs to take more note of others who view his additions as WP:UNDUE, and be more ready to accept contrary opinions. Failure to improve is likely to result in a more aggressive sanction, probably a topic ban. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Thomas Meng[edit]
Thomas Meng has not been discussed in previous arbitration requests. He registered his username in April 2020. He was blocked by Daniel Case on July 23 because of a discretionary sanctions violation, tendentious editing at Li Hongzhi, an article in the Falun Gong area. In all of his edits and arguments in the Falun Gong area, Thomas Meng has sought to promote a positive image of Falun Gong, arguing against a very well-researched NBC News report because they failed to describe enough of Falun Gong's positive attributes.[30] Thomas Meng has argued against the validity of scholars Heather Kavan and James R. Lewis who have published negative findings about the Falun Gong. Such arguments are further instances of tendentious editing, the part about disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. Thomas Meng has tried to retain or insert promotional material into the Persecution of Falun Gong, including an attractive photo of people meditating,[31] and the three moral principles which cast the group in a good light. These are completely inappropriate for an article about persecution. In this topic area, Thomas Meng is behaving exactly like an activist for Falun Gong, and as such he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Thomas Meng[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 Thomas Meng[edit]Below are some points in response to Binksternet's accusations:
Not promotional material It is unclear what exactly is the information I've included that you consider "promotional". Assuming that you are referring to my addition of the central tenets of Falun Gong, "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance", I would disagree.Reliable sources overwhemingly agree that "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance" are FLG's core principles. In my statement above,I have illustrated 7 of them, and there are more. Note that FLG's core tenets had been in the lead section since 2011 [46], and it was Binksternet who removed this RS material without consensus in July 2020 [47], and stopped me from adding it back.
It is not difficult to see that my edits consistently appeal to reason and RS content (e.g. [48][49]), while Binksternet's edits consistently appeal to his own opinion (e.g. [50][51]). My discussions are civil, while Binksternet's are dismissive. Below are a few typical comments made by Binksternet and me, and you can contrast them: My comments concerning thedispute, moral principles relevance dispute anddispute Binksrernet's comments concerning the image dispute,dispute (Binksternet did not comment on FLG's principles' relevance to the persecution) If you do not disagree with my reasons and my usage of the sources (you appear to at least concede that there are "merits" to the content), then there is no room for the assertion that my edits are tendentious. If you agree with the simple fact that civil and rational discussion is preferred over personal opinions and derision, then there is no reason why you should be ignoring Binksternet's behaviour in its entirety.
The type of image of FLG practitioeners that Binksternet considered "promotional" is in fact an accurate portrayal of FLG based on scholarly findings on demographics. Please see all the RS references I made in that talk page discussion. Please also note that this kind of image had been on the page since 2015 [52], and it was Binksternet who deleted it without consensus [53] in June 2020, and stopped me from adding it back. Ultimately, there are two questions to be asked. First, if an editor's edits are supported by reliable sources that are accurately portrayed, should the editor be sanctioned just because another editor disagrees with the content of those edits or the sources? Second, if an article has contained certain well-cited information for years, and editor B comes in to remove that information without notice or discussion. Editor A undid that removal and explained his actions, but editor B disagrees. There is certainly a lack of consensus. But is Editor A the one who edited without consensus, rather than Editor B?
This article is completely backed by reliable source coverage. In fact, those RS media focus primarily, if not entirely, in reporting Ni's arrests and imprisonment. Please see a more detailed explanation here. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Horse Eye Jack[edit]On the 30th I warned Thomas Meng for edit warring on Li Hongzhi. Their response was to immediately accuse me of talk page harassment (this was my first ever time posting on their talk page) and to claim they were only carrying over a settled consensus from another page. That consensus was apparently from the discussion in question here, I could not verify that a consensus had ever been reached and I believe their statement to be untruthful. The discussion can be found at User talk:Thomas Meng#Edit warring at Li Hongzhi and adds strong support to the case for WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Ian.thomson[edit]I've been dealing with Meng at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong over the moral principles bit. Other users and I have explained how it's simply undue for a tangent article to be going into their core teachings and how the sources don't really demonstrate that FLG is being specifically being targeted for claiming those principles (another pro-FLG editor could say they only "sort of" fit). He displays serious WP:IDHT issues whenever it comes to objections to his edits, reading any message to the contrary as affirmation of his desires (when he doesn't straight up ignore them). That doesn't work in a consensus based project. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by TheBlueCanoe[edit]I don't recall ever dealing directly with this editor, but Ian.thomson referenced a comment I made above, so I'll make a quick note. As a content question, there is actually good reason to cite Falun Gong's moral teachings in Persecution of Falun Gong, because several scholarly journal articles and chapters draw a direct connection between these things (e.g. some academic commentators believe that the persecution was precipitated, in part, by a clash of visions between the theistic Falun Gong and the materialist Communist Party. The Communist Party itself said that Falun Gong needed to be suppressed because its moral tenets of truth, compassion, and tolerant, were incompatible with Marxist ideas). I cited some examples on the relevant talk page,[54] and there are more than that. Inclusion of relevant content on the page is fully justified. I'm frankly more concerned by the OP's repeated removal of this content and his apparent misrepresentation of sources on the same topic.[55][56][57][58][59] Anyway, content disagreement shouldn't be solved at AE. There are behavioural issues on these pages, but they implicate editors on both sides of this dispute, and should probably be referred to ArbCom.TheBlueCanoe 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Daniel Case[edit]This is what I would have said if he had opened an appeal (which as he noted he couldn't have) when I told him I couldn't erase the block from his record: As I had explained to him, I did not intend to get involved, when Binksternet reported him to AIV. I really wish people would not make reports citing arbitration enforcement to AIV. It is not the place for it. But whatever one might wish, it was reported that night, and I decided I owed it a look. As I told Thomas, indeed there was something there. Two weeks after Thomas's removal of some content he considered dubiously sourced led to a contentious discussion where two other editors strongly opposed the edit (and one briefly popped in to support him), he had retutned and restored it. This to me was clearly editing against consensus. I would have let it pass because as Thomas does point out, the warning and report came after his last edit. And vandals get to walk in that situation. But there are discretionary sanctions on that article, and even though I looked at the sanctions log, where no new enforcement has been recorded for over a decade, it is still in force. So I decided to block him. It's not often that I have the kind of cordial discussion with someone I've blocked that I did with Thomas, and I was certainly open then to the possibility I might have overreacted. However, seeing what has happened since, I'm not surprised it has ended up here. Since only now have I been able to read his long explanation to me, I must say that he isn't doing himself any favors. In his position, I would have tried to explain that there was consensus for his edit, regardless of how it seems otherwise. But, instead, he basically says, well, he upset me so much that I had no choice:
Even in an area not under DS, that attitude is asking for a block. I agree Binksternet's tone could have been less confrontational, that he could have entertained the idea that Thomas had a legitimate criticism of the NBC article and worked from there rather than a blanket assertion that everything NBC reports is beyond question (Not necessarily). But ... that's not something you resolve by completely disregarding the other person and going and doing what you want, especially after leaving a templated warning on their talk page. You don't do that and then wonder why you've forfeited a lot of good faith all of a sudden. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]My recent involvement is noticing disruption on Falun Gong related articles and occasionally having a look. I confirm that I've seen at least one instance of editing against consensus with a moment of silence after an objection on the talk page taken to mean consensus existed. This is a running-in-circles situation as other editors would have to revert and repeat over and over the same policy and source based arguments. At a recent ANI report I expressed my intention to eventually file AE reports, but considering the limited time I can put in Wikipedia and that a 0R sanction was already applied to some editors, it didn't seem as urgent. While admins are to take the decision, I would propose trying 0R first before applying a complete topic ban in the area. I wasn't personally familiar with this type of sanction until recently (vs 1RR, topic, partial or full blocks). It might allow discussion while also hopefully preventing reinstating edits when repeated arguments are eventually ignored by other editors, possibly breaking the loop. For context: this is a difficult topic where good and bad exists on both sides of a complex debate that also involves human rights. China has a bad record of human rights violations; Falun Gong also accumulates a bad public record in relation to propaganda and exaggerated claims. A persecution complex exists and is used to promote and validate beliefs, while at the same time the group faces true challenges. An effort is done to select reliable independent sources that report about these. One of the comments suggests this is a content dispute that should be solved at ARBCOM, but that's not the proper venue for that, we'd still be on the talk page or at mediation if AE wasn't necessary (and ARBCOM is also to address behavioral and policy violation issues and apply technical solutions). It seems that socking of long-term-abuse editors historically occurred on both sides as demonstrated recently at ANI (SPI). Lastly, the argument was still presented here that the reason for persecution are tenets like truth, when it is clear that it is more perceived extremism allowing members to deny authority and feel above the law. It is of course debatable where the line can be drawn under a difficult regime and I think that most editors are sympathetic to this. In this case, the mention of those religious and philosophical tenets have their place at the main article rather than presented in the persecution article as being the cause of their ills, especially when scholars point out that they can be used as justifications. Unfortunately, the situation has also been exploited by other opportunistic groups with a political intent to foment public anti-Chinese sentiment and promote various conspiracy theories. My word count is already near 500... —PaleoNeonate – 11:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes[edit]Thomas Meng started editing in April 2020 and made less than 500 edits in the project [60], a lot of them about music and other noncontroversial topics. I do not see his case would be in any way ripe/appropriate for the Arbcom. Quickly looking at his edits in the article in question [61], one can say that his edits are sufficiently well sourced. Speaking about diffs brought to AE by Binksternet (Persecution of Falun Gong), I think the disagreements qualify simply as content disputes. In particular, one can reasonably argue that
Result concerning Thomas Meng[edit]
|