Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}} |
|||
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE|the automated editing program|Wikipedia:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude> |
|||
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd|the English language varieties in Wikipedia|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English{{!}}Wikipedia:Manual of Style § National varieties of English|administrator elections|Wikipedia:Administrator elections}} |
|||
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}Requests for enforcement=</includeonly> |
|||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- |
|||
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}{{shortcut|WP:AE}} |
|||
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly> |
|||
</noinclude> |
|||
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!-- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} |
|||
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
<noinclude>{{TOC limit}}</noinclude> |
|||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|counter = 331 |
|||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|||
|counter = 87 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(7d) |
||
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |
||
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} |
|||
}} |
|||
== |
==Abhishek0831996== |
||
{{hat|Consensus is that this is essentially a content dispute with some conduct issues which do not rise to the level of requiring administrative action. All parties are reminded to [[WP:CTOP|follow editorial and behavioral best practice]] if they wish to avoid sanctions in the future. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{hat|Closed without action, but please be more careful.}} |
|||
'' |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning Abhishek0831996=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Kautilya3}} 17:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Abhishek0831996}}<p>{{ds/log|Abhishek0831996}}</p> |
||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia: |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]] |
||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861202 27 March 2024 15:36] at [[Article 370 (film)]], strange edit summary "{{tq|Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact...}}", placed on a wrong revert. The actual revert came [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=next&oldid=1215862140 later (17 March 2024 16:07)], which removed a tag of "unreliable source?" on a historical claim, without any improvement in the sourcing. |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&curid=20855562&diff=425146778&oldid=425089801 21 April 2011] Revert of edit made by me |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215864585 27 March 2024 16:03], at its talk page. Rude & bombastic comment: "{{tq|That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why that is so hard for you to understand?}}" |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861845 27 March 2024, 15:41] at [[Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)]], meaningless edit summary, given the weighty deletion of "Aksai Chin". Tag-teaming with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1215802471, Capitals00]? |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1216525187 31 March 2024, 14:27] at its talk page. Trying to bully a newbie editor citing [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. If you read through the discussion, you see Abhishek majorly gaslighting and stone-walling, claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state", which is ridiculously false. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216687701 1 April 2024 12:46] at [[Aksai Chin]]. More biting of the newbie editor: "{{tq|Revert half baked edits of Haani}}". This is Abhishek's very first edit on this page. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAksai_Chin&diff=1216690091&oldid=1216555927 1 April 2024 13:03] at its talk page. "{{tq|One is a 2022 article and another one is a geography dictionary. None of them are reliable enough.}}" Not any reasonable grounds for claiming unreliability. The so-called "geography dictionary" is published by Columbia University Press. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1215642234 26 March 2024, 09:45] at [[Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film)]]. Similar bombastic edit summary "{{tq|No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history}}". Reinstating content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=1215143555 previously added by Capitals00] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1197646407 21 January 2024 10:53] at [[Babri Masjid]]. An older example of a bombastic deletion of content without evidence. Here Capitals00 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Masjid&diff=next&oldid=1197728990 reinstated] the edits after having been reverted once by {{U|Vanamonde93}} |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1214044546 16 March 2024 16:49] at [[Indian independence movement]]. similar deletion of a well-known fact. Subhas Chandra Bose's name is mentioned in the body, including even a photograph. |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> |
|||
# |
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=777011278 24 April 2017]. A 72-hour block for disruptive editing. |
||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
;Enforcement action requested ([[WP:BP|block]], [[WP:BAN|topic ban]] or [[WP:SANCTION|other sanction]]) : |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
Block or topic ban |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=1041566189 31 August 2021], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=1092297526 9 June 2022] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=1215862336 27 March 2024] (see the system log linked to above). |
|||
*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1166888400 24 July 2023]. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
I have seen {{U|Abhishek0831996}} occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an <nowiki>{{unreliable source?}}</nowiki> tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, {{U|Haani40}}. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless. |
|||
Jaakobou has not edited the Gaza War page since early May 2009. Shortly after I edit the page the user reverts my edit. [[WP:IBAN]] specifies that if editors X and Y have an IBAN in place, editor X may not ''undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)''. |
|||
Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent. |
|||
Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kautilya3|contribs]]) </small> |
|||
: Interesting that {{U|Capitals00}} finds fault with me placing a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_%28film%29&diff=1216090453&oldid=1216057918 POV template] on a faulty section. Surely they know that [[WP:NPOV]] is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 21:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|Abhishek0831996}}'s responses to the issues raised here continue to make [[red herring]] arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible. |
|||
For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in ''The Hindu'' and a news article in the ''The Guardian''. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of ''justifying'' the improper deletion of an <nowiki>{{unreliable source?}}</nowiki> tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. ''Neither of these has been done.'' |
|||
As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves. |
|||
On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
||
[ |
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek0831996&diff=prev&oldid=1216733718 1 April 2024 17:49] |
||
===Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Abhishek0831996==== |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861202 1st edit]: I described that "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact. The Hindu has also dismissed this episode of the movie, not just Deccan Herald." Kautilya3 has cropped my edit summary and cherrypicked just to suit his report. This movie has been criticised as a propaganda movie[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/22/brazen-propaganda-pro-modi-films-flood-bollywood-before-india-election] and its episode on Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru has been dismissed by [[The Hindu]][https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/article-370-movie-review-yami-gautam-steers-this-explainer-on-the-governments-kashmir-policy/article67877818.ece] and [[The Deccan Herald]][https://www.deccanherald.com/entertainment/article-370-movie-review-another-thinly-veiled-propaganda-film-2908141] but Kautilya3 is opposing this all based on his personal views, not backed by any sources, contrary to [[WP:OR]]. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215864585 2nd edit]: Only for using the word "nonsensical" (which is not offensive), Kautilya3 went to falsely allege me of breaching [[WP:NPA]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=next&oldid=1215869852] This is a breach of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] on Kautilya3's part. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861845 3rd edit]: There is nothing "meaningless" about this edit summary. Also, what tag-teaming? I am editing this article since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1211456552 2 March 2024]. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1216525187 4th edit]: The message I was responding to, "We will revert you and even seek mediation if you continue your edit war" reeks of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality since it promises to edit war and falsely accuses of an "edit war" that wasn't even happening for days.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1216378440] Now Kautilya3's false claim on this report that I am "claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state"," is outright misleading. I am instead saying: "None of this confirms if this princely state controlled [[Aksai Chin]]".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJammu_and_Kashmir_%28princely_state%29&diff=1216525187&oldid=1216405864] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216687701 5th edit]: I was restoring the last stable version against the unconstructive edits that had been also reverted by another editor some hours ago.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216465199] It is wrong to preserve misleading edits on these highly controversial articles. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAksai_Chin&diff=1216690091&oldid=1216555927 6th edit]: An article and a geographical dictionary cannot be used for challenging the article that is built on scholarly sources. On talk page I had myself provided [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAksai_Chin&diff=1216690091&oldid=1216555927 scholarly sources] (including the one from [[Harvard University Press]]) to rebuke these edits but these sources have been wrongly demeaned as "Chinese views" by Kautilya3.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aksai_Chin&diff=next&oldid=1216690091] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1215642234 7th edit]: This is yet another movie just like Article 370 that has been criticised as a propaganda movie created to promote the cause of the [[Bharatiya Janta Party]] [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/22/brazen-propaganda-pro-modi-films-flood-bollywood-before-india-election][https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/india-elections-modi-bollywood-article-370-savarkar-b2516879.html] and it has been also criticised for distorting history.[https://enewsroom.in/swatantra-veer-savarkar-movie-propaganda-pushes-divisive-agenda/] After knowing this you won't see anything wrong with that edit. |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1197646407 8th edit]: Nothing wrong with this edit. Yes it is disputed that who placed the idols of Ram and Sita in 1949. Some Indian officials claim they placed the idols,[https://openthemagazine.com/features/india/the-villain-nobody-knows/] and the activists belonging to [[Nirmohi Akhara]],[https://www.scobserver.in/reports/m-siddiq-mahant-das-ayodhya-title-dispute-know-the-parties-nirmohi-akhara/] [[Hindu Mahasabha]][https://radianceweekly.net/gandhis-assassin-among-those-who-installed-idols-in-babri-masjid/][https://thefederal.com/category/opinion/ayodhya-ram-temple-1949-to-2024-nine-dates-that-changed-everything-106420] have either claimed or they have been alleged to have placed the idols. This is why many sources simply avoid giving credit to any particular entity.[https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/ram-mandir-inauguration-timeline-of-the-ayodhya-babri-masjid-dispute-leading-to-mandir-inauguration/3365220/] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1214044546 9th edit]: Kautiya3 is falsifying this edit as well. The Wiki text concerns those who are "the leading followers of [[Mahatma Gandhi|Gandhi]]'s ideology". Subhas Chandra Bose has been instead criticised for departing from Gandhi's ideology and making alliance with the Nazis and fascists as noted at [[Subhas Chandra Bose#Anti-semitism]]; "How did a man who started his political career at the feet of Gandhi end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo? Even in the case of Mussolini and Tojo, the gravity of the dilemma pales in comparison to that posed by his association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership." |
|||
It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (Haani40)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. {{noping|Capitals00}} and {{u|Abhishek0831996}} who {{u|Kautilya3}} is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that {{noping|Kautilya3}} has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of [[User_talk:Capitals00]] |
|||
:Removal of sourced content that was using a Reliable source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216687701&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 diff] |
|||
:Restoring the word, "propaganda" without a reliable source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1216176911&title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_%28film%29&diffonly=1 diff] |
|||
:Restoring edit of {{noping|Capitals00}} with bombastic edit summary, "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215642234&title=Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_%28film%29&diffonly=1 diff] |
|||
:False claim that India never controlled [[Aksai Chin]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1216525187&title=Talk%3AJammu_and_Kashmir_%28princely_state%29&diffonly=1 diff] |
|||
:Removing [[Aksai Chin]] from the "Today part of" section of the infobox at the [[Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)]] article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&diff=prev&oldid=1215861845&title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_%28princely_state%29&diffonly=1 diff] which {{u|Curious man123}} reverted. |
|||
:After reading the allegations of {{u|Capitals00}} below, I state that I am new here but learning the rules. I have placed the <nowiki>{{this is a new user}}</nowiki> template on the top of my Talk page. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at [[WP:PG]]. I observe that every few days, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. {{U|Kautilya3}} has stated that those edits are his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216712973&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 here] but {{u|Capitals00}} is alleging that it is mine, so he must be directed to read [[WP:DONTBITE]] |
|||
:: I have also read the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]] after {{noping|Kautilya3}} mentioned it on my Talk page. |
|||
:::In his reply above, {{noping|Abhishek0831996}} has repeated his false claim, "I am instead saying: None of this confirms if this princely state controlled [[Aksai Chin]]".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1216885822&title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&diffonly=1] |
|||
::::{{noping|Capitals00}} has again reverted {{u|Kautilya3}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1217494053&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 here] - it certainly looks like he and {{noping|Abhishek0831996}} are working in tandem to get their viewpoint added which is a false claim that India never controlled [[Aksai Chin]].[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 06:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{noping|Abhishek0831996}} has changed his statement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1219043963&title=Talk%3AAksai_Chin&diffonly=1 here] saying that China did not occupy any extra territory in between 1959 and 1962 and, "false claim that China got control in 1962".-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1218835292&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1217494053&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216754149&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216749010&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216687701&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1219532668&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 this] diff to understand that {{noping|Capitals00}} and {{noping|Abhishek0831996}} are repeatedly removing sourced content from the [[Aksai Chin]] article.-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 13:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{re|Firefangledfeathers}} [[Aksai Chin]] was occupied by China and for "Aksai Chin occupied" by China, there are [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Aksai+Chin+occupied%22+by+China&sca_esv=288b86a47c11e67b&hl=en&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn09Ge9QPQC591lOC1F0pZHRyQKqveA%3A1713190521058&ei=eTYdZqyTA-ymhbIP3NajoAU&ved=0ahUKEwjss8KDtMSFAxVsU0EAHVzrCFQQ4dUDCAo&uact=5&oq=%22Aksai+Chin+occupied%22+by+China&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIh4iQWtzYWkgQ2hpbiBvY2N1cGllZCIgYnkgQ2hpbmFI7SxQ8ApY1CdwAXgAkAEAmAFYoAGqAqoBATS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB9YE&sclient=gws-wiz-books dozens of sources]. However, {{noping|Capitals00}} and {{noping|Abhishek0831996}} are repeatedly removing the text {{u|Kautilya3}} and I added with reliable sources that China occupied Aksai Chin. I am expecting them both to be sanctioned.-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Capitals00==== |
|||
Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond [[WP:BATTLE]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArticle_370_%28film%29&diff=1215719408&oldid=1215715290][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215694973] and even [[WP:CIR]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhagavad_Gita&diff=prev&oldid=1216653430][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABhagavad_Gita&diff=1216672693&oldid=1216659387] |
|||
While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_%28film%29&diff=1216090453&oldid=1216057918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215835344][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215888351] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own [[WP:OR|original thoughts]] by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215715290] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the [[WP:ABF|worst meaning]] of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216465199][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_370_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1215967947] against their will on the cited pages. |
|||
I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2016&diff=prev&oldid=732071181] [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (Bookku)==== |
|||
I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest. |
|||
{{collapse top|Importance of [[WP:DDE]] protocol and going back to [[WP:DR]] }} |
|||
Here I am not commenting on specific merits of the case (emphasis added). |
|||
As usual at this WP:ARE forum, intermittently I come to make good faith reminder; If for some reason discussions go off the track from content dispute usual preference should be, 'go back to the track of solving content disputes as per [[WP:DR]]' rather than personalizing them. As far as personal issues before any disputes coming at WP:ARE checking protocol mentioned @ [[WP:DDE]] also be considered important. |
|||
[[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
*'''Some different facets''' Diff1 |
|||
* '''Brief''': [[MOS:FILMHIST]] says, "..If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .." |
|||
{{collapse top|Detail appreciation Diff1 issue}} |
|||
**While my primary perception about above case has been that like many other content dispute spilling over in personal realm and that continues; I gave a re-look into discussion between Kautilya3 and Abhishek0831996 specially about Dif 1 deletion of <nowiki>{{unreliable source?}}</nowiki> tag. |
|||
** Can any history film, other than academically transcripted and peer reviewed documentary; be called academically accurate? Who is going to decide those are just fiction or fictionalized or academically accurate history? Whether even any reliable news media can sit on judgement of it's veracity like academics? |
|||
**What Wikipedia lacks at policy level is well identified allowance of weak sources. So be it. If at all a RS media is being used where academic should have been then why not at least provide attribution to the media. |
|||
**Above discussions are mentioning WP:HISTRS essay but inadvertently seem to miss on [[MOS:FILMHIST]] which provides some good via media for above explained difficulties. '''[[MOS:FILMHIST]] says''': |
|||
**".. If ample coverage from secondary sources exists about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology). .. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .." |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
** Did I not end up explaining content dispute aspect above, that's why my emphasis on WP:DDE protocol mentioned earlier. |
|||
{{collapse top|Some related advise}} |
|||
** We all users being human it's very understandable we prefer to stick to more suitable positions and RS. To draw a parallel whether any one would appreciate that court judges getting influenced by media even if RS? Similarly in a role of encyclopedist do we not need to understand many of our perceptions and positions are being constructed by media and mediums around us and there may be need to revisit our own positions and do effort to understand from where other user's point is coming and can there be space for that? |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
** @[[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] Yes it's true other users too may need introspection but when thing come to WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. My purpose is not to judge you on merit, other users are there for that. I suggest you revisiting statements like ".. Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact..." and read [[WP:TRUTH]] then confirm yourself by reading "..So, if you want to:..Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue,.." from [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]], and inadvertently we do not go closer to [[WP:POVPUSH]]. In my own case when other users expressed concerns about my own editing it took me time to understand from where other users perceptions are coming and how I can revisit my editing in this collaborative environment and do better. |
|||
I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all. |
|||
[[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (User name)==== |
|||
===Result concerning Abhishek0831996=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
*As is all too common in this area, there's a lot to review here; I'll try to when I get a chance. I will note up front that we almost certainly do not need ''more'' information to go through, and that the 500 word/20 diff limit on this request will be very strictly enforced. If you must add additional commentary, please keep it ''brief''. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{u|Seraphimblade}}, I'd still love to hear your thoughts on this matter, but you're right that it's a lot to go through. Per the below, I'm inclined to close without action, except to advise everyone involved to watch their toes a bit more. Planning to close as such in a couple days unless you or someone else wants to go another way or requests more time. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I think this ''ultimately'' boils down to a content dispute, but I'm seeing some behavioral issues here as well. I don't see any truly egregious ones, but a reminder to everyone to tone it down a few notches or there will be some action taken in the future would not be a bad idea. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 07:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I'm reviewing and will likely have some thoughts in the next 24 hours. I urge all the participants to be mindful of the word limit. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I'm sorry to say that I'm hampered by a lack of a general understanding of the topic areas involved in these disputes. It makes it hard to parse much of the evidence provided. For example, diff #9 is presented as "deletion of a well-known fact", but judging just based on the article, Bose is raised as a figure from the Congress Party who "diverged" from "Gandhian Values". In the main Bose article, there's lengthy description about differences between the two. Is it so factual to say that he was a "leading follower of Gandhi's ideology", and so patently unacceptable to remove such a statement? Haani40 cites multiple diffs of Abhishek and Capitals "repeatedly removing sourced content" but the citations provided do not appear to support the content about a 1959 occupation. I might be way off on all of this, but the evidence provided is not clear enough to make firm conclusions. |
|||
*:Reading the evidence provided, and looking at the page history, there's plenty of evidence of content disputes turned acerbic. I'm not seeing a diff or two that jumps out at me as being over the top. I'm not at all happy with: |
|||
*:# Abhishek's description of other editors' work as "nonsensical" and "half baked". |
|||
*:# Kautilya's suggestion that Abhishek and Capitals are [[WP:TAGTEAM|tag-teaming]]. I'm not seeing enough evidence of coordination to make such a suggestion appropriate. |
|||
*:# Haani40's casting aspersions at an article talk page |
|||
*:I don't think any of that rises to the level where administrative action is needed, at least not yet. I'd caution everybody to turn down the rhetoric and be a bit quicker to seek outside content dispute resolution. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Haani40's response to me is emblematic of the problem here. The Google Books link shows many sources, the first two of which (at least for me) say: |
|||
*::* [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Beyond_NJ_9842/XW1QBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Aksai+Chin+occupied%22+by+China&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover "... Aksai Chin occupied by China in 1962"] |
|||
*::* [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kashmir_Dispute_Terrorism_and_Pakistan/cz2qDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Aksai+Chin+occupied%22+by+China&pg=PT196&printsec=frontcover "Aksai Chin occupied by China in 1962 Indo China war"] |
|||
*::Neither supports, and both implicitly contradict, the disputed article text which said "Between 1959 and 1962, China occupied 5,985 sq mi/15,500 sq km. of territory claimed by India in the region". I am neither the holder nor the arbiter of the truth at the heart of this content dispute, but I can't support administrative action based on the quality of the evidence presented so far. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Grandmaster== |
|||
{{hat|No action necessary. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Grandmaster=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vanezi Astghik}} 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Grandmaster}}<p>{{ds/log|Grandmaster}}</p> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:AA3]] |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_3#Ocampo 22 December 2023] Grandmaster wants to remove Luis Moreno Ocampo from the lead, but does not get a consensus to do so. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1206985508 13 February 2024] An admin officially warns Grandmaster the following: "Don't revert more than once to your preferred version of content, even if some time has passed, unless you have clear consensus." |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1219526854 18 April 2024] removes Moreno Ocampo from the lead because "not a place for individual minority views". |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1219526709 18 April 2024] Creates a new discussion simultaneously with removing Moreno Ocampo, repeating the same points as if not already doing so in a previous discussion, which Grandmaster abandoned after being shown proof the Azerbaijani government hired a lawyer to help fight Moreno Ocampo's analysis |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1219532378 18 April 2024] Grandmaster changes "disputed" with "denied", claiming it is better wording. There was an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians/Archive_5#Enver_Pasha_Street article discussion months earlier], which Grandmaster participated in. Grandmaster [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1180381550 didn't want to use the word dispute], but the consensus was "disputed" is better wording.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1179939247][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1180439624] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1072615557 18 February 2022] previous [[WP:AA2]] topic ban, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1116086867 appealed] in October. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grandmaster/Archive_8#Armenia-Azerbaijan_3:_Arbitration_case_closed 18 March 2023] placed under an indefinite probation following AA3 |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1072615557 18 February 2022] by {{admin|Rosguill}}. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
In both discussions, Grandmaster did not even contest the final point of the last user and just abandoned the discussions. Yet months later, after the activity quieted down, Grandmaster changed the established wordings again as if they hadn't been explicitly by a consensus which Grandmaster is aware of and took part in. [[User:Vanezi Astghik|Vanezi]] ([[User talk:Vanezi Astghik|talk]]) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:THE [[WP:BRD]] cycle states "you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns", but Grandmaster just ignored the previous discussions entirely. Grandmaster abandoned a discussion for something they wanted to remove because the consensus was against it, then 4 months later removed the same content without any consensus, and opened a "new" discussion repeating same talking points already addressed in the previous discussion. Grandmaster also says they forgot about the previous discussion, but is trying to make the exact same disputed/denied change that was thoroughly discussed and is the one who started the previous Moreno Ocampo discussion. I hadn't commented in the new discussion yet, because the POV-pushing and lack of regard for the established consensus seemed more alarming. |
|||
:As for the admin advice given in the previous AE threads, I was not a part of those discussions, while Grandmaster was. So I do not understand what is meant by "us". [[User:Vanezi Astghik|Vanezi]] ([[User talk:Vanezi Astghik|talk]]) 19:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Does Grandmaster waiting 4 months after a consensus discussion to revert the established versions of without a new consensus, violate the AA3 indefinite probation and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1206985508 warning] given by {{U|Firefangledfeathers}}? And it was a revert (albeit 4 months later) despite established consensus because if you look at the article history, Ocampo was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1190525282 removed] from lead on 18 December with no explanation other than "updated header", then it was restored with "no consensus" explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1191169653], and after that a day later, Grandmaster starts a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_3#Ocampo discussion] that they end up abandoning, and the rest/details I've already shown chronologically in the diffs section and my comments. [[User:Vanezi Astghik|Vanezi]] ([[User talk:Vanezi Astghik|talk]]) 21:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandmaster&diff=prev&oldid=1219684139] |
|||
===Discussion concerning Grandmaster=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Grandmaster==== |
|||
Regarding removal of Ocampo from the lead, I just followed the standard [[WP:BRD]], and started a discussion at talk. I was advised to not rv more than once, and this is a single revert that I made. Vanezi reverted me with no edit summary other than "rv", and did not join the discussion that I started. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1219684306] Regarding the change of the word "disputed" to "denied", I indeed forgot about the previous discussions from the last year. We had many discussions with multiple archives on 3 related articles, so it is hard to keep track of what exactly was discussed a few months ago. I was going to rv myself when I saw the report here, but Vanezi already did. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1219684649] |
|||
Previously the admins advised us to ask the other party to rv themselves if their edits are disputed, and only escalate if the other party refuses to cooperate. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328#KhndzorUtogh] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328#Grandmaster] |
|||
This is what I did when Vanezi themselves made an edit against the consensus. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanezi_Astghik#UN_mission] The closing admin confirmed that there was a violation of the consensus, and Vanezi self-reverted. |
|||
If Vanezi had notified me of my mistake, I would have reverted myself, but Vanezi never contacted me at my or the article talk. I always try to resolve any dispute by following the dispute resolution process, as one can see from all the [[WP:DR]] processes that I started, and I would certainly do so again if I was alerted about present or past disagreements with my edits. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
It should also be noted that there is an [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KhndzorUtogh|SPI case]] on the filer open over a month ago, and until that is formally closed, it is unclear if they are allowed to post here. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Grandmaster=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
*I'm not seeing anything here. It looks like 0RR was followed. Any objections to closing with no action? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Agreed with SFR, I don't see any need to take action here. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 08:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Haani40== |
|||
{{hat|Haani40 blocked as a sock. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Haani40=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Srijanx22}} 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Haani40}}<p>{{ds/log|Haani40}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]] |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_reunification&diff=prev&oldid=1219543137 18 April] - Added thoroughly unreliable sources in a topic that is sensitive towards religious conflicts |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&diff=prev&oldid=1219575788 18 April] - Removes critical content about the subject by misrepresenting [[WP:BLP]] in edit summary |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&diff=prev&oldid=1219576715 18 April] - Same as above |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rahul_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1219618409 18 April] - Engages in [[WP:BLP]] violation by using unreliable sources and misrepresenting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1219615956#WP:BLP_violation this discussion] on edit summary |
|||
What is more surprising, that the last diff came after this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haani40&diff=prev&oldid=1219597971 clear-cut topic ban warning by Bishonen] on his talk page. This user has actually misrepresented the sources with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rahul_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1219618409 this edit] as correctly observed by another admin (Cordless Larry).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rahul_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1219626331] Even after this all, he is still arguing on the article's talk page that how his edits are not WP:BLP violation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rahul_Gandhi#Reversion] |
|||
While this user is overly enthusiastic about these controversial topics, I believe the inputs and warnings on his talk page have so far [[WP:IDHT|ended up getting ignored by him]]. [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User_talk:Srijanx22|talk]]) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haani40&diff=prev&oldid=1215515341] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haani40&diff=prev&oldid=1219770658] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning Haani40=== |
||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Haani40==== |
|||
At [[WP:DR]], it says, "{{tq|If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages. There are several templates you may use to warn editors of conduct issues,[b] or you may choose to use your own words to open a discussion on the editor's talk page. In all cases, and even in the face of serious misconduct, please try to act in a professional and polite manner}}" |
|||
However, there was no edit war nor any discussion on any article's talk page or my talk page about these edits by the filer. {{strikethrough|I therefore believe that this ARE/AE is filed with a malafide intention.}} |
|||
====Statement by Jaakobou==== |
|||
I had realised the error a split second after pressing the 'save' button (to fix an issue of deleted content) and immediately clicked the 'stop' button on the browser. I refreshed the history page a number of times and also opened my user contribution page to make sure that the edit did not take place -- or, in the case that it had, in order to revert myself. Both pages showed that the 'stop' has successfully stopped my edit and I had no alternative but to assume I had successfully avoided possible drama. I would have reverted it then had it appeared on my browser and would have reverted it now, but it was already reverted. I have no plans on reverting or creating any IBAN issues regardless if I feel that content has been removed or any other issue. Apologies to everyone involved -- this will NOT happen again. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC) +fix 15:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC) +declaration of intent. 15:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC) + shorter, better 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the first diff: That was copied from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article (which someone else had added in that article). {{U|Srijanx22}} then reverted it. In the mean time, an admin ({{noping|Vanamonde93}}) removed it from the [[Anti-Hindu sentiment]] article for some reason and so, I did not edit war over it in either the [[Anti-Hindu sentiment]] article, nor in the [[Indian reunification]] article (I did not add it back). |
|||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou ==== |
|||
Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the second diff:- |
|||
===Result concerning Jaakobou=== |
|||
That was reverted by an admin ({{noping|RegentsPark}}) and I did not add it back |
|||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|||
Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the third diff:- |
|||
*Jaakobou's response is fair enough, I think. Shall we close? '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
That was reverted by a Rollbacker, {{noping|TheWikiholic}} and I did not add it back |
|||
* Agreed. Multiple slips would of course strain credulity, but Jaakobou's response seems fair. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the fourth diff:- |
|||
I asked at the [[WP:Teahouse]] and added that with reliable sources but since it was reverted, I didn't add it back and started a discussion on the Talk page of the article (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rahul_Gandhi#Reversion this]) where the consensus was against adding it (however, only one experienced editor who had reverted it responded to the question if it was acceptable and the filer of this AE was not a part of that discussion at all). I have abided by that consensus. |
|||
I have been extra careful about my edits after the warning by an admin ({{noping|Bishonen}}) on my Talk page and have asked for clarification at the Teahouse before my next edit. After that was reverted and discussed on the Talk page of the article and the consensus was to avoid adding it, I didn't add it back. I have understood why my edits were reverted and apologise for it. I shall learn, improve and avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, I will ask some experienced editor or maybe at the [[WP:Teahouse]] before making any edit I feel is going to cause a problem. |
|||
I have not received any warning by the filer ever before. <s>He/she has directly come here for Arbitration/getting me sanctioned with a malafide intention!</s> |
|||
The filer may be sanctioned as per [[WP:BOOMERANG]] |
|||
:I read what {{noping|Bookku}} has written below and so, I request you not to block or ban me. If you really want to, please make it light. For example, a block for 72 hours. A topic ban would be a very severe punishment for a first time sanction!-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 07:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{noping|Srijanx22}} has also opened a false SPI against me [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Souniel_Yadav#Comments_by_other_users|here]]. It is possible that he had a bad experience with that user and is now [[WP:WIKIHOUNDING]] me. That is all the more reason to sanction him instead of me.-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 16:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::As per instructions at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry/Notes for the accuser]], {{noping|Srijanx22}} had to, "Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages" which he didn't.-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 17:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:According to {{noping|Bookku}} below, {{noping|Srijanx22}} has not followed the [[WP:DDE]] protocol, so that also calls for a sanction against him instead of me, as per [[WP:BOOMERANG]].-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (Bookku)==== |
|||
I observed {{noping|Haani40}} as uninvolved editor form Abhishek0831996 case (still on this board while commenting here), there after I tried to give some mentorship like peer advice. I concur with OP that User:Haani40 seems overly enthusiastic about some controversial topics. They seem to pick some part of advice and overlook some. I doubt similar mistakes might be happening while interpreting the sources due to haste. Some of this mistakes may happen from any new user. |
|||
Hence I had advised Haani40 to not edit in these topic areas at least for couple of months. I suppose after my advice User:Haani40 should have got opportunity un til they do not repeat the mistake. There is specific [[WP:DDE]] protocol for such cases that too has not been complied before coming to ARE. In any case the case is on board so I feel let us observe {{noping|Haani40}} for 8-10 days by keeping this open, then take the call whether to leave them with warning or Haani40 deserves Topic Ban for some months. |
|||
{{collapse top|Following part of [[WP:DDE]] protocol could have been followed before filing this request}} |
|||
.. |
|||
* If tendentious editor ''is'' using sources, but <u>if the sources are poor or misinterpreted</u>: |
|||
** Do not go to ANI yet. |
|||
** '''Review''' [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. |
|||
** '''File a report''' at the [[WP:RSN|Reliable Sources noticeboard]], if appropriate. |
|||
** Continue attempts to engage the editor in dialogue. '''Refer to policies''' and guidelines as appropriate. |
|||
*** If only two editors are involved, '''seek a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]]'''. |
|||
*** If more editors are involved, try a '''[[WP:RFC|Request for comment]]'''. |
|||
* If attempts at dispute resolution are rejected or unsuccessful, or the problems continue: |
|||
** '''Notify the editor you find disruptive on their user talkpage'''.<br />Include diffs of the problematic behavior. Use a section name and/or edit summary to clearly indicate that you view their behavior as disruptive, but avoid being unnecessarily provocative. Remember, you're still trying to de-escalate. If other editors are involved, they should post their own comments too, to make clear the ''community'' disapproves. |
|||
.. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
{{collapse top|This advice is followed by Haani40 hence collapsed}} |
|||
@[[User:Haani40]] just in recent discussion about Abhishek0831996 on this board itself I had mentioned [[WP:DDE]] protocol, you could have used that as I used above, instead your sentence about OP {{talkquote|He/she has directly come here for Arbitration/getting me sanctioned with a malafide intention!}} seems without proofs overly harsh against spirit of [[WP:AGF]] and unhelpful for yourself. I advice to strike it out at the earliest. [[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 06:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
@{{ping|Haani40}} Here in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1220240948 this edit of yours] you attributed me but did not ping. In above guidance I suggested to use [[WP:DDE]] but did not ask to go after OP. You should have read my advice to Abhishek0831996 ".. at WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. ..". Read: time to [[Law of holes|stop digging]] and [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|drop the stick]]. To regain the confidence of the community you need to promise and prove yourself by working in non-contentious areas without any controversy. Last but not least, going after OP or biting good faith advisors itself is last thing to help you. [[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Haani40=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
* {{u|Haani40}}, you're past your word limit. Please do not respond further unless you're requesting an extension. Also, there is no notification requirement for SPIs, and the page you linked is marked at the top with "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I am not impressed by the editing (especially falsely stating that things violate BLP, and then proceeding to ''actually'' violate BLP), nor by the [[WP:LAWYER|wikilawyering]] here. I don't think that this editor is a net positive in the ARBIPA area, so I would be in favor of excusing them from it. I also don't think the SPI was filed in bad faith; there are at least credible reasons to suspect socking, even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, and it would certainly not be the first time we've dealt with that problem in this topic area. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with Seraphimblade about giving Haani40 a holiday (indefinitely) from the [[WP:ARBIPA]] area. As for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav|the SPI]], I found {{u|Srijanx22}}'s research there persuasive and actually came pretty close to blocking Haani40 per [[WP:DUCK]]. There was a smidgeon of doubt left in my mind, though — the evidence being all circumstantial — so I didn't. I'd be glad if another admin took a look; possibly I was too timid. (CheckUser has been requested, but I believe it's behavior, not technical evidence, that must resolve the matter.) One more thing: {{u|Haani40}}, you frequently use the noping template, for example when linking my username above. Why do you do that? The effect of "nopinging" me is that I don't get pinged. Were you trying to prevent me and the other nopinged admins, such as {{ping|Vanamonde93}} and {{ping|RegentsPark}}, from noticing this discussion? That's not a good look, and not a good use of the noping template. (It's best used for out-and-out vandals that you don't want to aggravate.) [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 22:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC). |
|||
*{{ping|Firefangledfeathers|Seraphimblade|Bishonen}} topic ban on A) ARBIPA, or B) politics and religion in India, broadly construed? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Shall we close this enforcement request as moot? Haani40 has been blocked as a sock of Souniel Yadav. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 23:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC). |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
== [[Havana syndrome]] == |
|||
{{hat| Eyes requested. This is not the venue for discussion. I've fully protected the article for a month. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
I am hoping that some uninvolved administrators can review [[Havana syndrome]] and determine if: |
|||
# it is covered by the [[WP:ARBPS|pseudoscience and fringe topics contentious topic area]] |
|||
# and if some AE restriction can be added to help with the ongoing edit warring. |
|||
The article was fully protected for two weeks, by {{u|EdJohnston}}, from 5 April to 19 April. Within a day of the protection's expiration, edit warring had resumed. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*There are multiple government investigations into Havana syndrome that are ongoing, and three review articles published on the subject acknowledging different possible causes. A subset of editors, primarily from the "fringe noticeboard", are pushing to classify the weapons hypothesis as "fringe", just as everything to a hammer looks like a nail. An uninvolved administrator will have a very hard time arguing he/she does not have a POV on the issue in making a decision that this subject is pseudoscience, and specifically which theory is pseudoscientific. [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Wouldn't the 60 Minutes etc reports which seem to be the primary reason for the recent flare-ups come under EE? I have no idea how this is generally interpreted but would think it covers allegations of EE government actions even outside the EE geographical area. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I wasn't aware of what the EE abbreviation was, but Eastern Europe CT would make sense as well as any American politics CT too. There's a more clear intersection there while pseudoscience would be more limited in scope there. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 03:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks Firefangledfeathers for asking this here after I originally asked for help in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_eyes_needed_at_Havana_syndrome this ANI thread]. The hope there was to get an admin to tamp down on the battleground behavior and edit warring before things escalated further or needing editor sanctions. Even for those of us who were largely outside the topic and saw issues from the noticeboards while trying to mediate a little, it's definitely above my pay grade when I'm seeing repeated edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havana_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=1220256472 like this] over the last month reoccur where editors are told about [[WP:ONUS]] policy only it ignore it and guidance on the talk page about how to handled disputed edits on talk. |
|||
:To answer question 2, perhaps a consensus is required restriction would help with the issues of content continually being reinserted without getting consensus on it? Cut down on that and it would take care of what's mostly destabilizing the article and talk page to a degree. With the battleground sniping I linked to at ANI though, just someone to enforce [[WP:TPNO]] at the talk page would help a lot too. I'm seeing too many folks treating [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Havana_syndrome&oldid=1220229189#Further_edit_warring the talk page] as a battleground, and I'm out of energy for the topic as someone who tried to help a bit on the normal editor side of things. Not sure if threaded AEs are ok or not since this isn't a specific enforcement request, so I'll just leave this as my 2 cents. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The latest flare-up was because of an attempt (in essence) to say Havana syndrome was caused by a direct energy weapon, despite there being no medical evidence this was the case, to even that the Russians have such a capacity, thus some people felt that was a medical claim "In March 2024, an investigation by 60 Minutes claimed that the Russians had perpetrated the attacks through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons.", Note as well that this claim was made in three separate places within the article (at first). It keeps on being re-inserted with no agreement as to what we should say or where, based upon the claim that "well we have agreed we can have it, and thus we have consensus for my version". [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::There was no attempt to "say" (assuming you mean in wikivoice) that Havana syndrome was caused by a directed energy weapon (check the text here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havana_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=1220256472]). You also keep on mentioning "evidence" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Havana_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=1220258342], as if this is somehow important for us to cover the allegations made in the relevant section. It isn't. Our responsibility as Wikipedians is only to cover the allegations as reported, not to verify them ourselves. [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:There's too many names that I'm [[WP:INVOLVED]] with around there for me to do much, and I already spend a lot of my free time babysitting one CTOP. If an RFC is started on the actual wording to include I'd be more than happy to full protect the article while it runs, though. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] Why should we entertain an RFC when there is a [[Talk:Havana syndrome#Further edit warring|firm consensus]] from a majority of editors across three discussions, just because of a persistent few? Initiating an RFC requires a prior discussion under [[WP:RFCBEFORE]], which includes suggestions for alternative text, but these editors have done no such thing. Now that they see that the content has been restored to the page, they have simply changed their tactics to trim it, claiming it violates MEDRS, when there is already an RFC on the page in that regard, with a very obvious outcome. This seems more like a conduct issue, inappropriate for an RFC and better handled directly on this noticeboard. [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 17:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Because there is not firm consensus for inclusion of the details and structure you want for that information. The only thing there is firm consensus on is that it was significant enough to be due mention. The rest is an open question that should be discussed and hashed out at article talk ''before inclusion.'' [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::As @[[User:TinyClayMan|TinyClayMan]] pointed out in response to your trim, there is no point in including the allegations on the page if we don't say what they are. You trimmed the contents purely to sustain an edit war and maintain your position about MEDRS, even though it has no grounding in policy. [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 17:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Please at least try to assume good faith. I have some serious concerns about [[WP:RECENTISM]], the quality of the source, and the way it is being framed to support specific proposed causes. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Nicoljaus== |
|||
{{hat|Blocked indefinitely, first year covered under AE. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Nicoljaus=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Selfstudier}} 15:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Nicoljaus}}<p>{{ds/log|Nicoljaus}}</p> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbpia/CT |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euro-Mediterranean_Human_Rights_Monitor&diff=1220390536&oldid=1220380219 Diff 1 Revision as of 14:20, 23 April 2024] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euro-Mediterranean_Human_Rights_Monitor&diff=1220394447&oldid=1220391708 Diff 2 Latest revision as of 14:45, 23 April 2024] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANicoljaus&diff=1009239712&oldid=1008166004 ARBPEE tban (2021)] |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
*Placed a {{t|Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
When requested to self revert, commented "Oh, I'm so sorry. I need to bring in this area a couple of friends to make reverts instead ne.". |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANicoljaus&diff=1220402888&oldid=1220402427 Notified] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Nicoljaus=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Nicoljaus==== |
|||
====Statement by BilledMammal==== |
|||
There’s a 1RR violation here that needs to be reverted, but there also appears to be a lot of recent edit warring by all parties in the article. |
|||
I’m also concerned by the removal of sources that were used as evidence of [[WP:SIGCOV]] in the recent AFD on the grounds of unreliability - either they are usable or they are not, you can’t have it both ways. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Nicoljaus=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
*Based on their block log for CTOP violations, edit warring, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nicoljaus&diff=prev&oldid=1220398969 this gem] I have blocked indefinitely, the first year as an AE action. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu== |
|||
{{hat|Topic ban modified to post-2000 Russia/Ukraine relations. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small> |
|||
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small> |
|||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Anonimu}} – [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; Sanction being appealed : Broad topic ban from the subject of Eastern European topics, imposed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive303#Anonimu]], reconfirmed 2 days later at, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive304#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Anonimu]], and logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe]] |
|||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|El_C}} |
|||
; Notification of that administrator : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1220417024 diff] |
|||
===Statement by Anonimu=== |
|||
More than 2 years have passed since the ban was enacted. I am fully aware that my behaviour then was far from encouraging civil and productive discussion of the content in a highly contentious topic (Russian-Ukrainian war), and I am sorry for that. My plan was to wait for the war to end before appealing the topic ban, unfortunately it is dragging on with seemingly no perspective of peace. Due to lack of sources/interest in other topic areas, as well as the broadness of the topic ban, in the past two years my editing was mostly restricted to fixing some issues and adding some content related to areas that could not possibly be considered as connected to Eastern Europe. I think that restricting the area of the topic ban would allow me to come back to more productive editing. Thus, if you consider that the topic ban cannot be completely overturned, restricting the topic ban to modern Russian-Ukrainian relations (say, after 2000) would still serve as a remedy to the original situation, while not preventing me from using the knowledge and sources I have in order to improve Wikipedia content related to other areas of Eastern Europe. Thank you. [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{u|El_C}}: I was a bit confused about the procedure, considering the first failed appeal. I am impartial about which way to finalize this appeal procedure. As mentioned in my initial statement, I am fine with any result that allows me to contribute to articles regarding Eastern Europe not related to the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict. [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 10:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by El_C=== |
|||
*This appeal lists a previously failed appeal, but not the original enforcement action. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*No objection on narrowing the scope on my part. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::*{{u|Anonimu}}, since this a sanction originally imposed by me, I can just implement the change you proposed immediately, unless you'd rather go through the appeal process and let someone else close it (likely with the same outcome). So let me know what you prefer. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::*{{u|Anonimu}}, since it's not a clear yes from you, I'll let the appeal run its course, and let someone else close it and enter the changes into the log. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by tgeorgescu=== |
|||
Anonimu can be an useful editor. I don't say this because I like his POV, but because he can act as a counterweight to Romanian nationalist POV-pushers. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by (involved editor 1)=== |
|||
===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== |
|||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonimu === |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)==== |
|||
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)==== |
|||
===Result of the appeal by Anonimu=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. --> |
|||
*I'm generally favorable to a loosening of sanctions. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I'm going to give this another day to see if there is any further input and if there's no objection close this with an adjustment to a topic ban on post-2000 Russia/Ukraine relations, unless {{u|El_C}} feels like amending it now. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Crampcomes== |
|||
{{hat|{{u|Crampcomes}} blocked for one week for edit warring/1RR violations, and topic banned for six months for misrepresenting sources. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Crampcomes=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|AP 499D25}} 02:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Crampcomes}}<p>{{ds/log|Crampcomes}}</p> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions]] |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1220121710|23:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)]] 1st revert within 24 hours |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1220167697|06:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)]] 2nd revert within 24 hours |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
(none) |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [[Special:Diff/1194959949|17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)]] (see the system log linked to above). |
|||
*Was informed by another user about the 1RR restriction on [[Special:Diff/1220170417|06:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)]]. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
Talk page discussion has been attempted by the other involved editor ([[User:Mistamystery]]) [[Special:Diff/1220123825|here]], but it has not been responded to. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[[Special:Diff/1220489751|diff on User talk:Crampcomes]] |
|||
===Discussion concerning Crampcomes=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Crampcomes==== |
|||
Bringing this case here is totally against [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] policy. I already explained myself [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1220300196&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diffonly=1 here]. It's been two days and I haven't edited the article in question since then. BTW, '''I was the one who created that article in the firstplace.'''[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Occupation+of+the+Gaza+Strip+by+Israel] Nonetheless, I will repeat: The article, which I created recently, has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219441100&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1218256762&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1 IP] and account [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220121710&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220123761&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected (it was extended confirmed protected very recently). Please note that '''I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1].''' ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1 another very experienced editor first reverted him]) I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220121710&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1], but he refused[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220123761&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1]. He at some later time put a vague note on the talkpage without pinging or notifying me about it anywhere not even in edit summaries.[[User:Crampcomes|Crampcomes]] ([[User talk:Crampcomes|talk]]) 07:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Sorry for replying late, very busy with work today. I created that article recently and it became the target of persistent IP vandalisms e.g.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219441100&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1218256762&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1], all of which were reverted by other editors. Then IP removed this exact same chunk for which I am being accused of edit warring, but IP was reverted by an experienced editor who asked the IP to explain removal on talkpage[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1]. I was not edit warring, I just repeated what that experienced editor said: to explain on talkpage, but the IP editor when editing through account flatly refused[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1220123761&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1]. That statement had two linked articles [[Siege of Khan Yunis]] and [[Battle of Beit Hanoun]], and both seemed to support what was stated. I concur it was my mistake for not actually checking the sources and just blindly believing in another experienced Wikipedia editor seemingly fighting vandalisms. |
|||
*:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1] [[User:Crampcomes|Crampcomes]] ([[User talk:Crampcomes|talk]]) 20:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: (@Selfstudier) It's highly likely. [[User:Crampcomes|Crampcomes]] ([[User talk:Crampcomes|talk]]) 20:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::BilledMammal really has no clue about what he's saying. I added this info with source:"According to [[CNN]], the attack by Iran was "planned to minimize casualties while maximizing spectacle", and noted that Iranian drones and missiles went past Jordan and Iraq, both with US military bases, and all the air defenses before penetrating the airspace of Israel.<ref>{{cite web|title=Iran's attack seemed planned to minimize casualties while maximizing spectacle|website=CNN|date=14 April 2024 |url=https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/14/middleeast/iran-israel-attack-drones-analysis-intl|access-date=14 April 2024|archive-date=14 April 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240414171934/https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/14/middleeast/iran-israel-attack-drones-analysis-intl|url-status=live}}</ref>" '''And it's still in the article''' [[User:Crampcomes|Crampcomes]] ([[User talk:Crampcomes|talk]]) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Selfstudier==== |
|||
{{Re|Crampcomes}} Something confusing me a bit, are u saying that the IP in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1219447926&title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diffonly=1 this diff] is the (original) complainant (ie Mistamystery)? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by BilledMammal==== |
|||
There was also an edit warring/1RR issue at [[2024 Iranian strikes in Israel]]: |
|||
#{{diff2|1218948085|20:54, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
#{{diff2|1218942691|20:17, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
#{{diff2|1218936069|19:33, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
#{{diff2|1218917842|17:23, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
#{{diff2|1218915063|17:01, 14 April 2024}} |
|||
They sought to include the claim that Iranian missiles went past "all the air defences" of Israel's allies - a claim that doesn't appear aligned with the source, which says "Israel’s allies helped shoot down the bulk of these weapons". They also at one pointed added the claim that "According to ''[[CNN]]'' it was an Iranian operational success" (17:23); again, this doesn't appear aligned with the source. 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Crampcomes=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
*Did anyone give {{u|Crampcomes}} a chance to self-revert before filing this report? Also, Crampcomes, I'm less than impressed with your edit warring over clearly NPOV material that does not match the sourcing. Can you explain how the source you cited saying {{tq|The government's decision to withdraw the maneuvering forces from Gaza and switch to ongoing defense proves that the IDF was able to bring Israel many achievements and victories in the military arena and undermine Hamas' capabilities.}}[https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-795724] turned into {{tq|By April 2024, Hamas was able to expel Israel from southern Gaza}}? There is plain source misrepresentation going on here. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I'm thinking a one week block for the edit warring, and a 6 month topic ban for source misrepresentation/NPOV issues. If there is no other admin input in a day or so I'll implement that. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I concur. This has also been reported at ANEW, and I was ready to block when I saw a thread had been opened up here (it didn’t ''need''to be IMO, but it’s here now so we play it as it lays) [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Christsos== |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Christsos=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Pppery}} 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Christsos}}<p>{{ds/log|Christsos}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA4]] extended-confirmed restriction |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faiq_Al-Mabhouh&diff=1220104830 Created] [[Faiq Al-Mabhouh]] |
|||
# Created [[Sahar Makhlouf]] (since deleted as A7) |
|||
# Created [[Ibrahim Biari]] (deleted by me as G4) |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Eyal_Shuminov&diff=1220061045 Created] [[Draft:Eyal Shuminov]] |
|||
All of these are very obviously related to the conflict |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Christsos&diff=prev&oldid=1219933421 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)] (see the system log linked to above). |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[[User talk:Christsos#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion]] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Christsos=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Christsos==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Christsos=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
*<!-- |
|||
--> |
Latest revision as of 04:39, 28 April 2024
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Abhishek0831996[edit]
Consensus is that this is essentially a content dispute with some conduct issues which do not rise to the level of requiring administrative action. All parties are reminded to follow editorial and behavioral best practice if they wish to avoid sanctions in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Abhishek0831996[edit]
I have seen Abhishek0831996 occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an {{unreliable source?}} tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, Haani40. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless. Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent. Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)
Abhishek0831996's responses to the issues raised here continue to make red herring arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible. For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in The Hindu and a news article in the The Guardian. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of justifying the improper deletion of an {{unreliable source?}} tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. Neither of these has been done. As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves. On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996[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 Abhishek0831996[edit]
It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (Haani40)[edit]I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 who Kautilya3 is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that Kautilya3 has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of User_talk:Capitals00
Statement by Capitals00[edit]Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE,[18][19] and even WP:CIR.[20][21] While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[22][23][24] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own original thoughts by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[25] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the worst meaning of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[26][27] against their will on the cited pages. I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[28] Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (Bookku)[edit]I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest.
I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all. Bookku (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (User name)[edit]Result concerning Abhishek0831996[edit]
|
Grandmaster[edit]
No action necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Grandmaster[edit]
In both discussions, Grandmaster did not even contest the final point of the last user and just abandoned the discussions. Yet months later, after the activity quieted down, Grandmaster changed the established wordings again as if they hadn't been explicitly by a consensus which Grandmaster is aware of and took part in. Vanezi (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Grandmaster[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 Grandmaster[edit]Regarding removal of Ocampo from the lead, I just followed the standard WP:BRD, and started a discussion at talk. I was advised to not rv more than once, and this is a single revert that I made. Vanezi reverted me with no edit summary other than "rv", and did not join the discussion that I started. [33] Regarding the change of the word "disputed" to "denied", I indeed forgot about the previous discussions from the last year. We had many discussions with multiple archives on 3 related articles, so it is hard to keep track of what exactly was discussed a few months ago. I was going to rv myself when I saw the report here, but Vanezi already did. [34] Previously the admins advised us to ask the other party to rv themselves if their edits are disputed, and only escalate if the other party refuses to cooperate. [35] [36] This is what I did when Vanezi themselves made an edit against the consensus. [37] The closing admin confirmed that there was a violation of the consensus, and Vanezi self-reverted. If Vanezi had notified me of my mistake, I would have reverted myself, but Vanezi never contacted me at my or the article talk. I always try to resolve any dispute by following the dispute resolution process, as one can see from all the WP:DR processes that I started, and I would certainly do so again if I was alerted about present or past disagreements with my edits. Grandmaster 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC) It should also be noted that there is an SPI case on the filer open over a month ago, and until that is formally closed, it is unclear if they are allowed to post here. Grandmaster 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Grandmaster[edit]
|
Haani40[edit]
Haani40 blocked as a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Haani40[edit]
What is more surprising, that the last diff came after this clear-cut topic ban warning by Bishonen on his talk page. This user has actually misrepresented the sources with this edit as correctly observed by another admin (Cordless Larry).[38] Even after this all, he is still arguing on the article's talk page that how his edits are not WP:BLP violation.[39] While this user is overly enthusiastic about these controversial topics, I believe the inputs and warnings on his talk page have so far ended up getting ignored by him. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Haani40[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 Haani40[edit]At WP:DR, it says, " However, there was no edit war nor any discussion on any article's talk page or my talk page about these edits by the filer. Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the first diff: That was copied from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article (which someone else had added in that article). Srijanx22 then reverted it. In the mean time, an admin (Vanamonde93) removed it from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article for some reason and so, I did not edit war over it in either the Anti-Hindu sentiment article, nor in the Indian reunification article (I did not add it back). Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the second diff:- That was reverted by an admin (RegentsPark) and I did not add it back Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the third diff:- That was reverted by a Rollbacker, TheWikiholic and I did not add it back Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the fourth diff:- I asked at the WP:Teahouse and added that with reliable sources but since it was reverted, I didn't add it back and started a discussion on the Talk page of the article (see this) where the consensus was against adding it (however, only one experienced editor who had reverted it responded to the question if it was acceptable and the filer of this AE was not a part of that discussion at all). I have abided by that consensus. I have been extra careful about my edits after the warning by an admin (Bishonen) on my Talk page and have asked for clarification at the Teahouse before my next edit. After that was reverted and discussed on the Talk page of the article and the consensus was to avoid adding it, I didn't add it back. I have understood why my edits were reverted and apologise for it. I shall learn, improve and avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, I will ask some experienced editor or maybe at the WP:Teahouse before making any edit I feel is going to cause a problem. I have not received any warning by the filer ever before. The filer may be sanctioned as per WP:BOOMERANG
Statement by (Bookku)[edit]I observed Haani40 as uninvolved editor form Abhishek0831996 case (still on this board while commenting here), there after I tried to give some mentorship like peer advice. I concur with OP that User:Haani40 seems overly enthusiastic about some controversial topics. They seem to pick some part of advice and overlook some. I doubt similar mistakes might be happening while interpreting the sources due to haste. Some of this mistakes may happen from any new user. Hence I had advised Haani40 to not edit in these topic areas at least for couple of months. I suppose after my advice User:Haani40 should have got opportunity un til they do not repeat the mistake. There is specific WP:DDE protocol for such cases that too has not been complied before coming to ARE. In any case the case is on board so I feel let us observe Haani40 for 8-10 days by keeping this open, then take the call whether to leave them with warning or Haani40 deserves Topic Ban for some months.
@@Haani40: Here in this edit of yours you attributed me but did not ping. In above guidance I suggested to use WP:DDE but did not ask to go after OP. You should have read my advice to Abhishek0831996 ".. at WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. ..". Read: time to stop digging and drop the stick. To regain the confidence of the community you need to promise and prove yourself by working in non-contentious areas without any controversy. Last but not least, going after OP or biting good faith advisors itself is last thing to help you. Bookku (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Haani40[edit]
|
Eyes requested. This is not the venue for discussion. I've fully protected the article for a month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article was fully protected for two weeks, by EdJohnston, from 5 April to 19 April. Within a day of the protection's expiration, edit warring had resumed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Nicoljaus[edit]
Blocked indefinitely, first year covered under AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nicoljaus[edit]
When requested to self revert, commented "Oh, I'm so sorry. I need to bring in this area a couple of friends to make reverts instead ne.".
Discussion concerning Nicoljaus[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 Nicoljaus[edit]Statement by BilledMammal[edit]There’s a 1RR violation here that needs to be reverted, but there also appears to be a lot of recent edit warring by all parties in the article. I’m also concerned by the removal of sources that were used as evidence of WP:SIGCOV in the recent AFD on the grounds of unreliability - either they are usable or they are not, you can’t have it both ways. BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Nicoljaus[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu[edit]
Topic ban modified to post-2000 Russia/Ukraine relations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (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 and substantial 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 Anonimu[edit]More than 2 years have passed since the ban was enacted. I am fully aware that my behaviour then was far from encouraging civil and productive discussion of the content in a highly contentious topic (Russian-Ukrainian war), and I am sorry for that. My plan was to wait for the war to end before appealing the topic ban, unfortunately it is dragging on with seemingly no perspective of peace. Due to lack of sources/interest in other topic areas, as well as the broadness of the topic ban, in the past two years my editing was mostly restricted to fixing some issues and adding some content related to areas that could not possibly be considered as connected to Eastern Europe. I think that restricting the area of the topic ban would allow me to come back to more productive editing. Thus, if you consider that the topic ban cannot be completely overturned, restricting the topic ban to modern Russian-Ukrainian relations (say, after 2000) would still serve as a remedy to the original situation, while not preventing me from using the knowledge and sources I have in order to improve Wikipedia content related to other areas of Eastern Europe. Thank you. Anonimu (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by El_C[edit]
Statement by tgeorgescu[edit]Anonimu can be an useful editor. I don't say this because I like his POV, but because he can act as a counterweight to Romanian nationalist POV-pushers. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonimu[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 Anonimu[edit]
|
Crampcomes[edit]
Crampcomes blocked for one week for edit warring/1RR violations, and topic banned for six months for misrepresenting sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Crampcomes[edit]
(none)
Talk page discussion has been attempted by the other involved editor (User:Mistamystery) here, but it has not been responded to.
Discussion concerning Crampcomes[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 Crampcomes[edit]Bringing this case here is totally against Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. I already explained myself here. It's been two days and I haven't edited the article in question since then. BTW, I was the one who created that article in the firstplace.[44] Nonetheless, I will repeat: The article, which I created recently, has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [45][46], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both IP and account [47] [48] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected (it was extended confirmed protected very recently). Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question[49]. (another very experienced editor first reverted him) I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals[50], but he refused[51]. He at some later time put a vague note on the talkpage without pinging or notifying me about it anywhere not even in edit summaries.Crampcomes (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier[edit]@Crampcomes: Something confusing me a bit, are u saying that the IP in this diff is the (original) complainant (ie Mistamystery)? Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by BilledMammal[edit]There was also an edit warring/1RR issue at 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel:
They sought to include the claim that Iranian missiles went past "all the air defences" of Israel's allies - a claim that doesn't appear aligned with the source, which says "Israel’s allies helped shoot down the bulk of these weapons". They also at one pointed added the claim that "According to CNN it was an Iranian operational success" (17:23); again, this doesn't appear aligned with the source. 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Crampcomes[edit]
References
|
Christsos[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 Christsos[edit]
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Christsos (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:ARBPIA4 extended-confirmed restriction
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Created Faiq Al-Mabhouh
- Created Sahar Makhlouf (since deleted as A7)
- Created Ibrahim Biari (deleted by me as G4)
- Created Draft:Eyal Shuminov
All of these are very obviously related to the conflict
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
User talk:Christsos#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Discussion concerning Christsos[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 Christsos[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]
Result concerning Christsos[edit]
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.