Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive302
ObtuseAngles
[edit]| Rendered moot when Ponyo used her Checkuser voodoo and blocked ObtuseAngles --> SlideAndSlip as a CU action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning ObtuseAngles[edit]
n/a
See also the repeated attampts to issue me with a DS warning, despite me clearly being aware already.
Discussion concerning ObtuseAngles[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 ObtuseAngles[edit]This editor is obviously much more experienced than I am and knows how to game the system (I see they have reported multiple editors to this page) and try and trick new editors into making procedural mistakes and get them into bother. This editor tried to get the article Dungiven landmine and gun attack deleted at AfD. But when that did not succeed they tried to Merge the article and has had an issue with me ever since I disagreed with their position on the talk page. Obviously they didn't like that and since then has started spamming my talk page with warning notices. I consider this unfriendly and aggressive but it looks like they were potentially goading me to try to set my up to bring me here. Then today they followed me to the Violet-Anne Wynne article. This lady is in the news today as they resigned from their party today. So it was my intention to expend the article today. I have started that by adding material to every section of the article until this editor stopped me in my tracks. This editor seems to have an issue with two particular parts of my editing. 1. The date of birth. 2. The rent arrears section. I'm not sure what is controversial about these edit? The date of birth is outlined here and the rent arrears issue was national news with multiple media outlets covering the story and this story is the reason most people in Ireland ever heard of Wynne. I don't think anyone is disputing anything I added. I tried to discuss the matter with this editor but they obviously didn't want to know. My guess is because discussing the matter would have stopped them walking me into this trap. So they just deleted my message. I am not saying I am a perfect editor. I am not saying I know all the rules and regulations here. I am learning. But this editor is acting in a very sneaky way and trying to trap and inexperienced editor that they disagree with in an attempt to shut them up. Again every edit I made was backed up by sources, no one is disagreeing with any of the content I added it just looks to me like this editor loves causing trouble and throwing their superior knowledge of the system around. Poor form.--ObtuseAngles (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Serial Number 54129[edit]ObtuseAngles suggests that FDW777 Statement by 86.4.163.59[edit]I agree with FDW as far as the content dispute is concerned, but do not see why they brought it here. It is not a BLP/AE issue. 86.4.163.59 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ObtuseAngles[edit]
|
Benyamin2006
[edit]| Rendered moot: blocked by User:Black Kite as WP:NOTHERE - a normal admin block - after yet more revert warring. |
|---|
| 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 Benyamin2006[edit]
Discussion concerning Benyamin2006[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 Benyamin2006[edit]Statement by Selfstudier[edit]Continuing to edit war and paying no attention here says it all, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Benyamin2006[edit]
|
Baxter329
[edit]| Baxter329 indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Baxter329[edit]
n/a
There's a general cluelessness and failure to listen at Talk:Black Lives Matter in general. FDW777 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
In the last 15 minutes, Baxter329 has restored disputed content relating to Black politician Winsome Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) accusing her of being a white supremacist, with one of the references being Fox News. This is despite their November attempt to add the same content being reverted. I remain speechless. FDW777 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Baxter329[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 Baxter329[edit]I stand by all of my additions to Black Lives Matter. My additions to Black Lives Matter are relevant and reliably sourced. At the same time, I also respect the consensus to not include the content. I will not add any of those things to Black Lives Matter again. I disagree with the consensus. But I will obey it. I also stand by my addition of the following to Patrisse Cullors, in the section titled "Ideology and policy positions." In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist" [3]. In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.Am I A Marxist? No one has given me any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" of Patrisse Cullors. I added that content to Patrisse Cullors exactly one time. After someone removed it, I never put it back. And again, no one has given any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. My only defense of any of my additions to either Black Lives Matter or Patrisse Cullors is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects." Given that Patrisse Cullors has a section called, "Ideology and policy positions," why should that content not be included in the article? Baxter329 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
On 23:08, 23 February 2022, at Talk:Black Lives Matter, I said: "while I still think both quotes should be included in this article, I will not bring up that subject in any new talk page discussions for this article. I acknowledge that the consensus is against including them in this article. I don't agree with that consensus, but I must respect it." But this arbitration section was created on 23:43, 23 February 2022. In other words, this arbitration section was created 35 minutes after I promised to respect the consensus regarding Black Lives Matter. So that issue had already been solved before this arbitration was created. Thus, the only remaining issue is my addition of the following to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors: In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist."[1] In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.[2] I added that content to Patrisse Cullors one time. Someone removed it. I never put it back in. No one has given a legitimate explanation for why the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors should not include that content. I still maintain the following as my only justification for adding that content to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects." Baxter329 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC) I wasn't trying to show that Winsome Sears was a white supremacist. Instead, I was trying to show that some of her opponents had accused her of being a white supremacist. I stand by my edit. My edit to food desert is relevant, notable, and reliably sourced. Numerous reliable sources have reported that shoplifting and rioting are major causes of food deserts. Before I added this content, the article made zero mention of shoplifting and rioting as causes of food deserts. I stand by my edit. The video that I cited gives an extensive explanation by Patrisse Cullors, in her own words, of what she meant when she called herself a "trained Marxist." I stand by my edit. And I stand by my comment that no one has given a legitimate reason why this content should not be included in the section of her article titled, "Ideology and policy positions." Baxter329 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC) I see that User:FDW777 just said, "Conveniently demonstrating the "general cluelessness and failure to listen" I mentioned, they twice say here that "no one has given any valid explanation" as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless." That's the problem - you're "speechless." I have repeatedly asked for a reason why Patrisse Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. It is precisely your being "speechless" that I am objecting to. I have repeatedly asked why this content should not be included in "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. And you have not given a legitimate reason. You are indeed being "speechless," and that is the problem. Please "speak." Please give a legitimate reason why Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. Baxter329 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
References
I apologize for posting in the wrong section before. I understand that YouTube videos aren't always a reliable source. But the video that I linked to was from Cullors's own channel. I thought that would make it a reliable source. I agree that the phrase "trained Marxist" is vague, but if you watch the video, she explains what she meant. My other edits all cited reliable sources. Someone cited this diff of mine, and said, "I'm particularly concerned by the repeated conflation of anti-semitism and pro-Palestinian sentiment." That is not an accurate description of my edit. In my edit, all I said was, "Here are some reliable sources that address this topic," and then I posted some links to reliable sources. I never took any side on the issue involved. I posted those links because I thought they would be useful. I was not taking sides. Baxter329 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
At that link, on 5 December 2021, I started a section on the talk page where I proposed changing the name of an article. I did that because I wanted to hear what other people thought of my proposal. I didn't want to change the name without seeing what other people thought of it. It's been more than two months since I proposed my idea, and so I far have not changed the name of the article. I was waiting (and hoping) for more people to respond. Given that I started that section on the talk page because I wanted to hear what other people thought of my idea, I find it very odd that User:Kire1975 uses this as an example of me "ignoring consensus." Baxter329 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's the content with the link: In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist."[1] In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.[2] I can understand why the video might not be a reliable source. I thought that since it was Cullors's own YouTube channel, it was a reliable source. If it's not, I understand. But there has never been any doubt that Politifact is a reliable source. Baxter329 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this other edit that I made: I quoted a report from NASA. The info that I quoted is highly relevant, and the source is highly reliable. Baxter329 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC) References
Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]I am WP:INVOLVED but I was thinking of bring an AE request against Baxter if they continued their disruption. I support an AP2 topic ban. I will add some more diffs in a couple hours to demonstrate the pattern of disruption by this user. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Previous ANI report - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Baxter_329_WP:GREATWRONGS_WP:NOTFORUM
EvergreenFir (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Comment - Baxter329, please only comment in your section. Unlike talk pages, this board is set up to have each user/commenter use only their own section and not reply in others' sections. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by DanielRigal[edit]I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:Rebecca Watson#Defending shoplifting?. I think we may have a broader pattern of problematic POV editing where they are constantly trying to spin sources (see Talk:Food desert#Shoplifting) or just confect complete non-issues (e.g. the issue on Watson's article) into something to support obvious POV narratives and possibly even grudges against BLP subjects. I suspect that this is indicative a general WP:NOTHERE attitude but, if it is not, then WP:CIR becomes the issue. What I don't see is much editing outside of these problematic areas. If they were doing good work in other areas then I'd be happy let them continue with that but, as they are not, I wonder whether there is any point in any sanction other than a block. As for the "trained Marxist" thing, I think it is a pretty much meaningless phrase with very unclear implications and I suspect that that is the intent. I also find it funny because it makes Marxism sound like some sort of martial art and inadvertently makes it sound way cooler than it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Kire1975[edit]I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation#I_propose_changing_the_name_of_this_article_to_"Media_defamation_of_Covington_Catholic_High_School_students". I agree with DanielRigal. There is a broader pattern of POV editing here. Baxter329 appears to be intentionally WP:NOTGETTINGIT, regularly ignores consensus and WP:SEALIONs. If a topic ban is warranted, it would have to cover a lot more than just Black Lives Matter. Kire1975 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Baxter329[edit]
|
Proletarian Banner
[edit]| Thank to PB themselves, this was a pretty easy report to handle. Indef blocked, email and talk page revoked, all as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Proletarian Banner[edit]
The user has broadly and disruptively been engaging in a widespread change of the descriptor used for the Marxist-Leninist states (often the Soviet Union and the Albania) from "communist" to "socialist" across a grand number of articles without seeking consensus. At the time of writing, the user has made 46 edits to the article space, of which 21 have removed mentions of the term "communist" or "communism". This disruptive behavior, which began before they were aware of the sanction, continues after they were made aware. Albania:
USSR:
Hungary:
Multiple countries, including at least one Eastern European or and/or Balkan state:
N/A
The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in a consensus-based manner and is being rather disruptive across the Eastern European and Balkans topic area. The editor is engaging in clear POV-pushing and repeatedly insists upon using their own definition of communism when writing articles and rejects basically all sources they personally disagree with as being Update: the user is also somewhat uncivil, referring to me as an
Discussion concerning Proletarian Banner[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 Proletarian Banner[edit]Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish[edit]Just block now and save the time and drama. [16][17] [18] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Lee Vilenski[edit]Just as a note, due to the recent contributions, I've handed a block to the user to avoid further harasment. Feel free to extend. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Proletarian Banner[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ypatch
[edit]| Appeal declined. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Ypatch[edit]I am requesting my topic-ban to be lifted or modified. I was given a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page, where I’m currently taking part in 3 different content disputes:
My topic ban concerns “stalling out the consensus-building process”, but I have proposed alternative solutions that have at times been met with violations of the article's Consensus Required Restriction. Nevertheless I have tried to steer arguments towards WP:DR (what I thought we were supposed to be doing in such cases).
Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]I believe that Ypatch's recent contributions to People's Mujahedin of Iran and its talk page are aimed at preventing content they dislike from being included by any means necessary, rather than at discussing disagreement in good faith. This isn't based on any single diff, but on the totality of their recent behavior. I am happy to answer questions from uninvolved admins, but I doubt I will change my mind about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Iskandar323[edit]I am far from a regular in "post-1978 Iranian politics", and my principle interaction with this page has been to effect a name change in a move request with unanimous support, but, based on my limited experience I would have to agree with Vanamonde93's assessment that the editor in question would benefit from some time away from the subject (as I have in other areas). Ypatch seems to tread a particularly fine line between neutral and tendentious editing with regards to the PMOI, and appears very much overly invested in the subject. In the diffs cited above by Ypatch, which they are presumably upholding as an example of good editing, we see them boiling down existing material on the funding of either terroristic/militaristic activities into a bland statement about funding. You also have them deleting substantial reliable, secondary sources such as Guardian long reads that make use of detrimental terminology about the group, while adding less ironclad/no consensus sources such as Daily Beast material to reinforce sympathetic viewpoints. In the active discussion on names, Ypatch is pushing back against the mentioning of a term that reliable sources say was a standard name for the group prior to the 1990s, at which point the PMOI made an active public relations (PR) push to change its image. Content aside, Ypatch, based on no particular Wikipedia policy or guideline (but heavy reference to the discretionary sanctions, and the need for consensus/an RFC to undo anything that they have reverted), takes a position that aligns with that PR. Meanwhile, on Commons, Ypatch has also been trying to bring about the deletion of public domain images that I suppose might arguably be construed as portraying the PMOI in a negative light - here the group's leader meeting with Saddam Hussain. Make of all this what you will. I'll leave it at that, but, as I began, I believe Vanamonde93 is well merited in having concerns over this editor's current ability to edit neutrally in this subject-matter area. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ypatch[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 (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Ypatch[edit]
|
Hob Gadling
[edit]| Springee's contributions are actually the most helpful here. Hob Gadling, you can get a bit over the top at times when it comes to civility. It's one thing to tell someone to "fuck off" (rude), but it's another to call them a liar (personal attack, casting aspersions). Neither is helpful, both will get you blocked if you make a habit of it. Consider this an informal but stern warning on civility. As for the original report, I feel A. C. Santacruz has failed to provide evidence that backs up her claims. The comments you linked were very mild (much more so than Springee's examples) and are what we expect in a heated debate. If you see the first comment as a "gross personal attack", your threshold may be too low. WP:AE is a big hammer that shouldn't be used lightly, and I see no reason to use the tools available to us in this instance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Hob Gadling[edit]
His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hob Gadling[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 Hob Gadling[edit]There is nothing wrong with bringing forth valid arguments for downgrading the SI source, but as soon as bad reasoning is used for that purpose and the refutation of that reasoning sidestepped, the encyclopedia is not being improved. Not retracting bad reasoning is bad behaviour, and I will continue to stand up against it. Criticizing user behaviour is not a personal attack, and neither is pointing out that a certain user behaviour is not helping the encyclopedia. That is what I did. <angry comment withdrawn> --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by MrOllie[edit]Since you brought this discussion up for wider comment: When discussing things 'as civilly as possible' in the future maybe don't help escalate or use phrases like 'petty piss-fighting.' MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Shibbolethink[edit]@A. C. Santacruz, my sincerest advice is to withdraw this case proposal. You seem a very well-reasoned editor with a calm demeanor. Someone who occasionally holds opinions contrary to the tide of the editor base, but who does it with aplomb and kindness. I would say this ARBE proposal is uncharacteristically reactionary.
Shibbolethink dismounts ungracefully from the high horse he has no business riding.--— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by JoJo Anthrax[edit]The OP's wholly hyperbolic statement here ("His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case."), and their posts here and here, provide ample justification for quickly declining this case. A. C. Santacruz, please follow the excellent advice of Shibbolethink above and withdraw this case now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Springee[edit]Hob Galding's civility is an issue. Is it serious enough to require a block? Probably not but their behavior, over the long haul is an issue and they should be warned for their general battle ground like behavior.
This is needless hostility towards other editors (who very well may be wrong in the bigger picture). Per CIVIL, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." If nothing else this should close with a simple, clear statement that comments like these are not compliant with CIVIL and need to stop. Note: I'm not involved in the RSN discussion in question and I don't have an opinion on the outcome. I have had unpleasant interactions with HG in the past hence my CIVIL concerns here. Springee (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Hob Gadling[edit]
|
CapnJackSp
[edit]| First, thanks to Kautilya3 for bringing up some interesting points, in particular that it is fine to have a bias, as long as that bias isn't permeating your edits. We all have biases of one kind or another. In the end, I'm not inclined to sanction CapnJackSp, although I am going to warn them firmly about copyright infringement in particular, as well as behavior. This means you have a short piece of WP:ROPE and you will simply be blocked without warning for either. You ALL need to discuss more, in good faith, before editing. This report went off in so many directions, I'm not sure I can summarize it fully except to say there is a lot of misbehaving in the WP:ARBIPA area, and no one on this page is perfectly innocent. So aside from the warning, I'm closing with no hard action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning CapnJackSp[edit]
Following this, Venkat TL tells them its not the same and Toddy1 restores the first part (on the link between the automated messages and the database) and removes the unverifiable "centralised" from the section on database of private citizens leaving explanations for both on the talk page (see Talk:Tek Fog § Removal of content from section on Automated messaging).
I'd think this is just trolling and WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Note that the account became active on 10 January, commented on the article's AfD pushing for deletion on the same day, and has since been persistent in trying to skim off content, introduce expressions of doubt and badger people on the talk page. The Tek Fog article isn't the only one, there is similar behavior on every article they have significant involvement in; for instance see the retaliatory accusation in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092 § BLP violation by Venkat TL after receiving a copyvio warning in User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 1 § February 2022. The date and time in the above diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CapnJackSp[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 CapnJackSp[edit]An apology to the admins - This has gotten elongated to 600 words, and I feel I would be removing relevant material if I cropped out more. Kindly bear with me. This seems to me to be a content dispute being brought to DE, but I will nevertheless answer the points raised by Tayi below. (As a sort of "background" for points 1-3, this issue cropped up after Venkat TL made an edit to the article, Tek Fog. I saw that the material introduced had been repeated earlier in the article, and removed the sections that had been repeated. Venkat, without discussion, reverted my edit and his edit summary suggested that the onus lay with me for the material - I removed it and reminded him of the current standard procedures at Wikipedia.) (1) The points about the database and the automated messages being sent were covered in the section "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" and the first sentence of "Automated messaging". Here, I had also mistakenly removed the point about "centralised document", which I subsequently, in my later edits added back to the article (see point 2). (2)Here, I reverted Venkat's edit (which had reinstated the material, without any attempt at following BRD) while addingthe part about the centralised document to the section for the database. The same is reflected in my edit summary, which Tayi seems to have misunderstood. The "centralised document" is explained in the original report by The Wire to be a Google Sheet, and that it was only accessible through the database. The information has now been included in the article with much more clarity. (3) The section quoted covers two of the three points - The third being covered by the first sentence of "Automated messaging". No idea what the issue is here. (4-6) After this, editor Toddy1 pointed out that while the material had been individually covered, the Wikipedia article had not linked these two as the cited source had. Toddy and I settled on a version with minor changes after his edit, here. A day later, Tayi put a warning on my talk page at User_talk:CapnJackSp#March_2022. I responded politely, and again in more detail when asked. Following this, Tayi, without making any attempt to take up his issues with either Toddy, Venkat or me, reinstated the material. I reverted, pointing out that he needed to discuss before reinstating material removed with consensus. [a] The comment on the talk page refers to the "centralised document" being a google sheet per The Wire - Here I am forced to speculate as Tayi did not engage on the talk page at all despite my ping. As both Tayi and Venkat have talked about my ANI report on Venkat, I think I need to clarify. The report was about Venkat repeatedly calling a murder victim a "terrorist" after being asked to stop doing so, a few days after he was reported on ADE [33] by Abhishek0831996 (where he was asked to tone down his rhetoric) and more recently on ANI by Kautilya3. It was pointed out to him (by Kyohi and Chess) there that my report was indeed correct and Venkat was wrong to use such language. The report can hardly be misunderstood to be as a "retaliation" when it happened two weeks after the warning, with Venkat and I having multiple constructive discussions in the meantime, ending with both of us reaching a consensus. Venkat's claim that I revolve around his articles, seems to be unfounded - Many spaces I edit are untouched by him, and I haven't edited in many areas he frequents. Our "intersection" lies around topics that are featured prominently in Indian media, where sometimes I edit an article first, and sometimes he does. If the admins do want any further clarification, I would be open to them. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Venkat TL[edit]Apologies as entire Statement approx 600 words. (excluding quotes) I am an involved user as CapnJackSp has multiple disputes with me and has targeted me on admin boards.[35] I agree with the observation by the admin User:Black Kite on ANI case that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build. But the case for Boomerang action on CapnJackSp did not get enough traction there. I have tried my best to assume good faith with CapnJackSp but now I have become tired by the incessant sealioning and tendentious editing by this user. Some of which are borderline trolling. Tendentious editing of whitewashing and censoring reliably sourced information. CapnJackSp's edits on Wikipedia mostly revolve around the articles that I have created/edited, associated talk pages, and admin boards where he comments only to target me. I can add individual diffs, but they are all available on this Xtools page. Based on the talk page interactions, I cannot decide if this is competency related issue or deliberate refusal to follow the policies like Copyright violations, close paraphrasing and edit warring. He argues ad nauseam and is a total time sink for the wikipedia contributors. I will welcome some action. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]This is subtle trolling, at best. Suggest a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3[edit]This seems like a storm in a teacup. CapnJackSp's first deletion was technically correct. The sentence he deleted was already covered in the earlier section titled "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" (as the section title itself makes clear). But his later claim that somebody else should follow "BRD" while he was reinstating his deletion is not correct. (If your edit was already reverted then you are in the "D" stage.) Likewise, when Venkat TL demands on the talk page, " There are newish users on both sides, who have only hazy understanding of procedures and are not being very cooperative with each other. I would recommend closing with warning to both sides to collaborate more sincerely. I also think that page is in a mess and quite disorganised and incomprehensible. The content should be junked and rewritten fro scratch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning CapnJackSp[edit]
|
Clean Copy
[edit]| They edit so infrequently, they may not notice, but a 48 hour block is due. This will still serve for increasing blocks later if they don't learn from this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Clean Copy[edit]
16:50, 6 March 2022 — breach of topic ban, mentioned the S-word
14:44, 3 February 2022 — topic banned
Not applicable.
@Dennis Brown: Not only he violated his topic ban once, he violated it twice, as shibbolethink stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Clean Copy[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 Clean Copy[edit]Statement by Shibbolethink[edit]Further example of Clean Copy breaching his TBAN: 06:11, 17 February 2022. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Clean Copy[edit]
|
Hob Gadling
[edit]| Hob Gadling's behavior, while not ideal, did not breach policy and this fact should have been clear before filing this report. MarshallKe is formally warned against filing frivolous reports against other editors, for what seems to be the purpose of taking them out of the topic area. This weaponization of the WP:AE system will be logged and the next frivolous report will likely result in a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Hob Gadling[edit]
Normally I would let things like this go, but considering that Hob was informally warned about civility on A/R/E mere days ago, I consider it prudent to file this request. Had a discussion with Hob regarding the status of Alexander Gorodnitsky as a climate change denier. I am primarily concerned with the very last sentence in the provided diff, You will not succeed in turning this article into fringe propaganda. This is a direct attack on me, and a particularly offensive one, as I take WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS very seriously. If this was not an obvious personal attack, I don't know what is. If I was mistaken in making this report, I ask for some guidance to understand what a personal attack is and is not so I can avoid wasting people's time in the future. MarshallKe (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC) I don't feel the need to address the accusations against me from other users commenting here, as the actual diffs they provide to supposedly back up their false interpretations of my editing behavior betray them, and I think that any reasonable admin who reads them in context will understand what is really going on here. I consider my debates on Wikipedia to be solidly grounded in policy and devoid of personal bias, except that I have an interest in editing in certain subjects. With the possible exception of civility and AGF sometimes (everybody messes those up), I consider my debate style to be not just policy-abiding, but exemplary of a Wikipedian. I am unlikely to change my editing philosophy. MarshallKe (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hob Gadling[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 Hob Gadling[edit]Statement by XOR'easter[edit]One moderately testy sentence at the end of a well-founded WP:FRINGEBLP argument seems like a waste of AE time. If the linked edit is a "personal attack", then so are Statement by Generalrelative[edit]@MarshallKe: Let me get this straight: 1) You said to Hob Statement by KoA[edit]I'll third the above comments. This goes beyond a frivolous report and into a prime example of WP:BOOMERANG when a report ends up highlighting the filers behavior more than anything. The edit was fringe propaganda by any plain meaning of the phrase. Unqualified statements like that never belong in an article and always need some statement of what the science actually says. Denialism is frequently snuck into discourse with terminology like that, which is why we're so careful about adhering to WP:FRINGE. Trying to stir things up in this manner about that is just plain disruptive in fringe articles. I am concerned that it looks like MarshallKe is staking out a battleground behavior in fringe articles though. In the AE case just above we have another fringe article subject, and MarshallKe has jumped in there too[39] accusing those of dealing with basic fringe issues of POV pushing now. That kind of stuff doesn't belong in fringe articles. I'm not familiar enough with their background to check other areas, but this at least looks like a trend. Maybe not pseudoscience topic ban territory yet in my mind (though a bit more than just WP:TROUT territory ), but that could change if others have other examples of similar issues. KoA (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Alexbrn[edit]I agree with KoA that it seems MarshallKe is "staking out a battleground behavior in fringe articles". MarshallKe seems to have become obsessed with a notion about editors in the fringe/medical topic space and it looks to me like this AE is an attempt to take one out. I believe the origin of this was at Shiatsu last July where MarshallKe took exception to Wikipedia saying that qi (a mythical form of vital energy) did not exist.[40] The ensuing edit-war, page protection, and consensus against MarshallKe's position seems to have led to a screed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), "Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Wikipedia's Values Upside-down ".[41] In this, MarkshalKe details their concerns about "certain editors" and "articles that have fallen under their purview". The complaint ends with a little note of self-praise, as MarshallKe is surely by their own account is "here to uphold is WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV". Needless to say, the village pump posting went nowhere, although (uninvolved) editor Schazjmd astutely twigged its purpose was "getting back at specific editors that you feel are Doing Wikipedia Wrong".[42] Within this context, a pattern is apparent, with a particular focus on fringe health:
Overall, it looks like MarshallKe's editing has become an elaborate WP:BATTLE in an attempt to prove some kind of WP:POINT that exists in their head about "certain editors". If there's to be a TBAN I think its scope would need to be pseudoscience and WP:Biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Springee[edit]This is not a violation by Hob Gadling. While the statement was terse in a way that was not productive it doesn't cross any lines as it sticks to commentary on the edit/article, not the editor. MarshallKe when trying to decide if this sort of comment is a CIVIL violation consider the following. Does it speak about an editor or the edit/what the edit does to the article? In general if it speaks to the editor or the editor's motives in a negative way then it can be seen as an attack on editor. The quotes in question basically speak to what HG feels your edits will do to the article in question. Consider a hypothetical, you want to add [claim] to an article. I say, "that's a stupid claim and it will make the article a clear POV propaganda page". THe use of "stupid" and "POV propaganda page" aren't value add to the quality of my arguments but they don't attack you as a person nor are they profane or unsafe for work type comments. You would likely feel insulted by such a summary of something you have proposed but it isn't going to cross the CIVIL line. Alternatively consider, "that's a stupid claim and you are trying to make the article a propaganda page." In this case I assigned a negative motive to your intent. I said your intent is to make the article a propaganda page. In short, you intend to do something that is negative. Now that would be an attack on your character and a CIVIL violation. The same would be true if I said "A person would have to be stupid to add that claim." Since now I am making it clear that I think "stupid" applies to you the editor vs the [claim]. Note that none of my example replies would be good. It would be better to say something like, "the problem with that [claim] is [reason]. It will make the article read like propaganda [because]." By avoiding the emotive words in my rejection of your hypothetical edit I hopefully communicate the issue without making it feel personal. Springee (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by JoJo Anthrax[edit]I am going to quote the complainant from above, because I couldn't agree more: Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]This made me revisit some old threads I had in my notes and then look at the filer's recent editing. Alexbrn has already provided some relevant links. There was no reply to a previous concern of mine, but this may be further evidence of WP:TE and perhaps even trolling. That specific clueful regular editors appear targetted also suggests harassment. I support a formal warning for MarshallKe. —PaleoNeonate – 06:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Hob Gadling[edit]
|
Tombah
[edit]| Tombah is warned not to tread Wikipedia as a battleground, and to be mindful of our policy on neutrality, particularly the sections on false balance and due weight. Further behavior that does not meet behavioral expectations may be met with a block or extended topic ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Tombah[edit]
Revision as of 21:52, 13 March 2022 Added "excluding the United States" Revision as of 00:07, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Onceinawhile. Revision as of 08:40, 14 March 2022 Readded. Revision as of 09:48, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Selfstudier. Revision as of 10:10, 14 March 2022 Readded.
Subsequent to the appeal above, in February 2022, discussed with this editor the need to faithfully represent sources. Warnedby the previously blocking admin about disruptive editing at Talk:Al-Khader and assuming bad faith in March 2022. Warned editor about making false statement. I have asked the editor to self revert several times, which they have refused to do, instead making accusations that I am being abusive and making personal attacks in requesting same.
Discussion concerning Tombah[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 Tombah[edit]I have joined Wikipedia a few months ago, aiming to expand and democratize knowledge regarding the history and archeology of Israelite period and Second Temple period. However, since I have joined I am repeatedly exposed to a clear anti-Israel bias in many articles on these subjects, and in some places, even anti-semitic. I try to assume good faith, I really do - but it's getting harder seeing how deep the problem is. In some instances, these edits border re-writing history - with the purpose to erase Israelite/Jewish/Israeli history. Here are few examples:
The same article, Israeli Settlements, also stated that "the international community has rejected any change of status in both territories and continues to consider each occupied territory." While in fact, the US has recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights. I edited the article to point that out. This was quickly reverted by Selfstudier, who deemed it as a "false statement", removing the US reference along other material I added to the article. Some hours later, I re-added the US reference, and provided more citations for that reference. My previous edit incorrectly mentioned Jerusalem along the Golan Heights as one of the territories the US recognized as part of Israel, so I left that out, and kept only the Golan Heights reference, which is indeed correct. Upon learning this was a violation of the 1R rule, I manually reverted my edit. Since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I'm still gradually learning the rules. I don't claim for expertise, but as someone with experience in UX design, I can confirm Wikipedia is a platform with a very steep learning curve. Honestly, up until today, I didn't fully realize how the revert rule works, especially regarding edits (as distinct from re-reverts). Unfortunately, it seems that tolerance for mistakes made by new editors who try to challenge the biases is non-existent, even for someone who asks for mentorship. I'm afraid there is a small group of editors here who are systematically trying to discredit other editors whose editing might oppose their point of view. I believe that a quick visit to my talk page showcases that quite vividly. Even if the final decision is indeed to block this account, I hope from the bottom of my heart that Wikipedia will investigate this matter in greater detail and create more sophisticated solutions mechanisms to protect its neutrality and reliability from editors trying to game the system, especially in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Statement by Shrike[edit]Was a request to self revert was made? --Shrike (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]Yes, a self-revert request was made (here), and ignored in favor of claiming phantom personal attacks when being told they are in violation of the 1RR. Been consistent edit-warring and accusations of bad faith against others (see for example edit summary here, and this outrageous accusation.) nableezy - 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Saying that sources call the settlements colonies so we should include it as an alternate name is the very opposite of original research. Whereas dismissing sources because of the ethnicity of the authors, well that seems like something more serious. Imagine somebody saying we cannot include some material because the authors that support it are Jewish. Somebody saying something like should be booted out faster than they can press save page. But saying the sources are all written by Arabs, well nobody bats an eyelash at that display of, ummm well what would you call it if somebody dismissed sources because they were written by Jews? nableezy - 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree Tombah could be a valuable editor, and personally think this can be closed with a warning to be mindful of ones own biases and rein in the bad faith accusations. I think Shrike's going from "Seems to me like content dispute. The user have valid concerns that some of our articles are biased" to "I agree that his comment was unacceptable" to be just the latest in the list of deflections and diversions abandoned once penitence seems to be more likely to achieve the desired effect. But I dont really think a topic ban is all that necessary, I actually think Tombah could be a fantastic editor if he abandons the Im right and thats that style of editing that has at times characterized his efforts. nableezy - 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]Tombah is also WP:AWARE due to a December 2021] DS/alert notice. Adding this in case others were as unsure as I was if Doug Weller's block was an Arb enforcement action or just a regular admin action. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by IP[edit]If nothing else, this editor should be sanctioned for making verifiably false claims right here in this very discussion. They say, first, that the category "Palestinians" should only ever be treated as "one of the sides in a conflict", and dismissing positions because "Palestinians" are the source is not the same as dismissing an "Arab" source, and therefore is not racist. Yet they seem to say that "Israeli" is a synonym for "Jewish", and therefore disclaiming a position as being held by "Israelis" is the same as disclaiming a position as being held "by Jews". They claimed here that an article made a reference to some town only being called by some alternative name by "Jewish scholars", with the implication that this was antisemitic (which it would be if it were actually true). Yet as shown by Nableezy's diff, the article didn't say "Jewish", it said "Israeli". And this editor is implicitly claiming that as racist, anti-Jewish bias, yet in the very same post is arguing it would be perfectly fine to write articles that treat Palestinians in the exact same fashion. That is to say, "it's racist if the statement is about Israelis, but not if it's about Palestinians." Aside from this being a blatant double standard on its face, they also tried to mislead this discussion by claiming the article said "Jewish" when in fact it actually said "Israeli". This is, at best, an editor incapable of editing neutrally due to inability to recognise the fact that they are applying an obvious double standard, and at worst an attempt to deliberately mislead this discussion. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:60F7:9667:FE24:3EE (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]Tombah is one of those many editors who come to the I/P part of Wikipedia with a strong POV and then get upset that they meet resistance from editors who don't have that POV. So far Tombah has not learned how to navigate this situation in a collegial fashion, instead accusing other editors of bias while not judging himself by the same standard. Tombah has a good knowledge of the subject and could be a valuable editor. I often agree with him on content issues. But statements like the last part of "a clear anti-Israel bias in many articles on these subjects, and in some places, even anti-semitic" (see above) are utterly unacceptable and should bring a sanction. So should the assertion that a common name should be omitted because it is only used by Arabs. As Nableezy pointed out, someone who wrote that about Jews would be out the door quick smart. Zerotalk 06:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Foreverevermore[edit]Tom is being targeted here by users who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Tom is being targetted due to his perceived ideology and possible ethnicity. This kind of targetting reflects poorly on those who comment above me in support of their cause. Statement by Huldra[edit]About the Al-Khader article; Tombah states above that "with some editor claiming that "Solomon's Pools" should not be described in this article, in a move that essentially seems like Temple denial."
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Tombah[edit]
|
Bhaskarbhagawati
[edit]| Bhaskarbhagawati blocked indefinitely for long-term tendentious editing(normal admin action following discussion; not an WP:AC/DS decision) |
|---|
| 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 Bhaskarbhagawati[edit]
Discussion concerning Bhaskarbhagawati[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 Bhaskarbhagawati[edit]Statement by Vanamonde[edit]I must admit, when I saw the posts TrangaBellam links to above, I was expecting them to be from a newbie, not from an editor with 5000 edits and 14 years tenure. The aggressive response to DS notifications [51] is concerning; the use of "genocide" in Wikipedia's voice [52] is likewise concerning. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3[edit]The talk page (Talk:The Kashmir Files) is seeing upwards of 100 posts a day, and the regular editors who are trying to write content as well as field questions (most of which are repetitive, partisan, and peddle the establishment POV in clever ways, like "why is X review ignored", "why is BJP mentioned", "not allowed by MOS:FILM" etc.), are fatigued. It shows here as TrangaBellam describes Diff 3 as "rank NPOV addition" whereas he meant "rank POV addition". The editor concerned is an experienced user with a first-hand experience of ARBIPA regimen. It is inexplicable how they could do the mainspace edit in Diff 3, that too in the lead, without any source or any explanation of what they are doing. Their talk page comments are mundane and WP:BATTLEGROUND. They are a net negative here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]I was pinged by User:Abecedare, whom I sort of thank for mentioning some unpleasant episodes. My first and main encounter with this editor was, as noted below, in one of the most difficult DRN disputes that I have mediated, in which more than once I had to warn the subject editor that I would fail the mediation if they persisted in being uncooperative. It was this editor whose behavior made it necessary to me to write the rule Be Specific at DRN, because they would repeatedly say, "All viewpoints must be presented", rather than saying what viewpoint needed to be included in the article, and this was one of the reasons why the DRN took two months. In 2019, I said that a topic-ban might be necessary, and in 2020, I said that I thought that a topic-ban was necessary. In 2022, the question should not be whether to impose a topic-ban, but a choice between a topic-ban and a site ban. A site-ban would be too harsh for an editor who has apparently managed to avoid a topic-ban until now. I haven't read the recent report, but this editor has been a repeat offender. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Bhaskarbhagawati[edit]
|