Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive306
3Kingdoms
[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 3Kingdoms
[edit]- Appealing user
- 3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic ban on Arab-Israeli conflict [1]
- Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction
- Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Newslinger (talk)
- Notification of that editor
- [2]
Statement by 3Kingdoms
[edit]Yeah I was too hot-headed and edit-warred a lot. I've cooled off and have a firmer understanding of the revert rules. Plus I am under a 0rrr for about another 2 months and than a 1rrr for another three, so I will not be engaging in any wars. I have not had any issues since coming back regarding edit-warring or clashing with other editors. I have no intention of starting any fight over this sensitive topic, just plan to patch up pages and make the odd addition. Since Newslinger has not responded to my request on his page, which is understandable given the circumstances, I am asking for it to occur here. Hope this clears things up. Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Galobtter I get that kind of reasoning. Is there a way to make a compromise where select pages (current news) I do not edit, but others are allowed? If not I get it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. Just to be clear the ban only applies to the topics that have the "Arab Israeli" note? So a page like Peasants' revolt in Palestine that does not have it I can edit no problem? 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had a feeling that was the case. Just wanted to clear up so there was no misunderstanding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am confused by the idea that I somehow broke the my 0rr. Regarding the first abortion edit I explained that I looked through most of the books in question and found them to not say what they were used to say so I removed. I engaged on the talk page here [3] and changes were made. There was no issue and no fighting. Regarding the one on Latin America it was full of editorial language and lacked numerous citations. If one wants to readd go for it. Regarding the removal of the block quote regarding TX V. PA one of the links is to editing from January 2021. So nearly a year and a half ago. Finally I was not aware of any edit-warring regarding these issues. If I did not look hard enough I am sorry. When these were reverted I made no objections and just talked it out. Three different editors have restored my removal here are some pages where that occurred. Mike Bost, Jeff Fortenberry, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Again I made no argument on the pages themselves. Finally regarding having "disdain" for opposing views I would say that both of us were too argumentative and combative. I believe in letting bygones be bygones. Have a nice day to everyone. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I went through all the members of congress and on none of their talk pages was there any discussion about the two quotes removed. Aswell I saw no previous debate in the edit history. So I really do not see how any of the removals were edit-warring. Finally regarding the claim of "nonexistent Consensus" As I have said before, after my edits were reverted (which I did not reverse and instead had a productive talk with the person who did it) a day later my edits were readded by at least three different editors. Since they were not taken down, I felt that this warranted me taking down the quotes on other pages that I had no edited. I understand that people make mistakes so no hard feelings. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am confused by the idea that I somehow broke the my 0rr. Regarding the first abortion edit I explained that I looked through most of the books in question and found them to not say what they were used to say so I removed. I engaged on the talk page here [3] and changes were made. There was no issue and no fighting. Regarding the one on Latin America it was full of editorial language and lacked numerous citations. If one wants to readd go for it. Regarding the removal of the block quote regarding TX V. PA one of the links is to editing from January 2021. So nearly a year and a half ago. Finally I was not aware of any edit-warring regarding these issues. If I did not look hard enough I am sorry. When these were reverted I made no objections and just talked it out. Three different editors have restored my removal here are some pages where that occurred. Mike Bost, Jeff Fortenberry, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Again I made no argument on the pages themselves. Finally regarding having "disdain" for opposing views I would say that both of us were too argumentative and combative. I believe in letting bygones be bygones. Have a nice day to everyone. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had a feeling that was the case. Just wanted to clear up so there was no misunderstanding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. Just to be clear the ban only applies to the topics that have the "Arab Israeli" note? So a page like Peasants' revolt in Palestine that does not have it I can edit no problem? 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Newslinger
[edit]Comments by others about the appeal by 3Kingdoms
[edit]Statement by Aquillion
[edit]Looking over their history, I think 3Kingdoms may have breached their 0RR restriction recently; very shortly after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction, they went through a large number of articles to partially or completely remove this text ([4], many others.) That text had been the subject of a revert war (often with IPs) on at least some of those articles; see eg. [5]. The full list of articles would be a massive number of diffs but can easily be seen in 3Kingdoms' edit history. And 3Kingdoms knows this was a past dispute, in a way that makes it hard to imagine they were unaware that they were reverting someone - when challenged about the rationale for removing the text, they cited a (nonexistent) consensus to omit it, which by definition requires that it was added and removed previously. I feel that this is enough to at least seriously consider revoking 3Kingdoms' appeal and re-instating their ban; but it's certainly enough of a reason to not further remove their restrictions given what they did immediately after getting the previous one removed, ie. instantly diving into controversial topic areas and removing massive swaths of text.
See also eg. [6][7] - there are several others; some of 3Kingdoms' first actions after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction and a promise to be less hot-headed were to go down a list of articles (largely related to abortion, Catholicism, and right-wing politics) and remove large swaths of text. I am sympathetic to the fact that for a 0RR in particular we have to be cautious about the "every removal is technically a revert" logic, and I do accept the need to fix similar problems on multiple articles, but someone who just got back from a ban by promising to be less hot-headed and who is now asking for another sanction to be relaxed needs to be on their best behavior. To make these sweeping removals of clearly-controversial content that they could reasonably know had been previously contested, often with no explanation, immediately after being let back in, and then to come to AE and to ask for sanctions to be relaxed further, seems like a bit much. And saying that they were too hot-headed in the past but are calmer now doesn't seem particularly compatible with this.
I will also point out that 3Kingdoms' previous appeal for this restriction looked very similar to this one (they were blocked for revert-warring elsewhere after that), and in the appeal for their first indefinite block, before that, they said essentially the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
[edit]The probblem isnt understanding the revert rules, thats the bare minimum of being able to count to 1 or 3. The problem is understanding what edit-warring is, that reverting once a day is still edti-warring, that attempting to enforce your view through reversions is edit-warring. The problem was the total disdain for anybody else's view in any editing conflict. Thats what needs to be shown to have changed, not that he is now willing to count to 1. nableezy - 14:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
[edit]Result of the appeal by 3Kingdoms
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- You only got unblocked from an indefinite block for edit warring a month ago. I think it's best to wait until the restrictions expire in 5 months and there's no issues with that before you come and edit such a sensitive topic - it's hard to avoid conflicts in this area and I'd like to see you have more practice being cool-headed before removing the tban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- A topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict is already a pretty narrow topic ban - there's definitely lots of other articles you can edit. Pretty much by definition anything in that topic area is controversial so I don't see a reason to narrow it beyond that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @3Kingdoms, see WP:TBAN for an explanation of how topic bans work. An edit can still be related without the page having the "note". Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- A topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict is already a pretty narrow topic ban - there's definitely lots of other articles you can edit. Pretty much by definition anything in that topic area is controversial so I don't see a reason to narrow it beyond that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not believe this is the time to remove the topic ban. Especially while they're under revert restrictions as a condition of coming back from an indef, I think I would first want to see 3Kingdoms do a substantial amount of good quality editing in less difficult and fraught areas prior to consideration of lifting the TBAN. Seraphimblade Talk to me
Abrvagl
[edit]| Abrvagl is formally warned for edit warring. Any further instances, including slow motion edit warring, will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Abrvagl[edit]
Abrvagl repeatedly tries to remove the 2020 Ganja missile attacks being a response for the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert from the lead, despite there being multiple sources confirming this, as has been explained to Abrvagl many time on the talk page. Abrvagl also tries to add expressions of MOS:DOUBT further down in the article by writing, "According the Armenian sources, Ganja was hit in response to...". Eurasianet is clearly not an Armenian source, and the article leaves no doubt about what Abrvagl is trying to dispute: "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja."[8]. The constant WP:SEALIONING of the issue on the talk page, edit-wars, and refusal to drop the stick (doing the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edit even after a month) leaves me no choice but to bring this to AE's attention. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Abrvagl[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 Abrvagl[edit]I NEVER removed sourced information. 1.14 April 2022[15][16] I rephrased the statement. Reverted by ZaniGiovanni[17]. 2.16 April 2022, I reviewed the case in details, and identified following: - The statement was added by banned[18] user Steverci. Diff:[19]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR. - Provided sources didnot support the statement. All sources are either primary or just quotes primary sources. The statement is WP:SYNTH and not in line with WP:NPOV. Considering the above, I removed the statement, and in detail explained myself on the talk-page[20]. Zani replied [21], but his reply was ignoring my points. So I wrote even more detailed explanation for him [22]. Number of times I tried to get solid justifications and answers to my concerns from the Zani [23] [24] [25], but Zani continued repeating 3. On 29 April 2022[26] I reviewed case again, ensured that statement definitely violates Wikipedia policies, and removed it again. On 30 April 2022 ZaniReverted edit[27]. 4. On 31 April 2022[28] ZaniGiovanni added new source. As new source was supporting the statement partially, I proposed a consensus[29], but Zani ignored me for 3 weeks. 5. On 22 May 2022 I rephrased the statement in line with WP:OR and WP:NPOV and according to last source provided by Zani, in order to reach consensus. Also removed unrelated sources[30]. I left a note on the talk-page[31]. I attributed it to Armenian sources, as an article in the body referring to the Armenian sources. Then I was going to take it to the NPOV/noticeboard because experts who conducted investigation do not support above statement HRW Amnesty. The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral. ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [32] and personal attacks[33][34]. I observe the same behaviour against me: 1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing. 2. Here, I raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani responded: ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [35] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN[36]. He stopped only after warned[37]. Here [38] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times. Here[39] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN[40] and RfC[41]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry. Reply 2 Rosguill, This is not a case of WP:BRD. The statement was added by the Steverci, who knew that majority of the editors are against his edits on Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks#2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, and it was left unnoticed for a while. However, that was not the reason for my edits. My point was that the initial statement was WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Provided sources didn't support the statement at all. Later, Zani provided a Eurasianet article that partially supported the statement, based on which, as I explained earlier, tried to reach a temporary consensus. I did not remove but rephrased my first and last edits[42][43]. The last edit was done after I made a consensus proposal on the talk-page but was ignored for weeks. Only then I made an edit to see if there will be any positive or negative reactions to my proposal. I also left a note on the Talk-Page about that. By the way, I summarized my point on the Talk-Page[44] of the article. It is not for this report, but you can look at it to see the full picture behind my decisions. I want to assure you that I had no intent to edit war, and my active participation on the talk-page also supports that. Edit wars are disruptive and never help reach consensus, and we should avoid them. I always tried to stick to the 3 revert rule. From now on I will do my best to stick to the one revert rule, to eliminate misunderstanding. However, I'm not sure what to do when another editor is ignoring me or reverting my edits without proper justification. However, assuming good faith and keeping everything civil is as important as avoiding edit wars. Reviewing this case, please consider that ZaniGiovanni continuously breaking civility rules. He often gives personal remarks and uses hostile language. This creates a hostile environment, inflames disputes and ruins the collaborative atmosphere. It is visible even from his replies on this report: "groundless and disgusting rant you posted", "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions", "What the actual f*ck is happening", and examples I brought earlier. All editors are equal in Wikipedia. I may be right or wrong; I might make mistakes, which is normal. We are all humans, and we are not perfect. But it does not matter if the editor is wrong or right or makes a mistake; no one has a right to use hostile language and mock editors for their views or errors or past. I find the tone/words that Zani uses insulting. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by Armatura[edit]#diff It seems that user Abrvagl is struggling to grasp the meaning of BLD, simply reverting when he disagrees, even when he already knows there will be disagreement. I would support a warning at this stage (hoping he truly doesn't yet understand well how Wikipedia operates, being a relatively new user) and if he keeps beating the dead horse as he has done here in a discussion innvolving myself, he may need another review. --Armatura (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Abrvagl[edit]
|
Rp2006
[edit]| The consensus is that the addition of a reference was not a violation. The second edit likely was, but is a very technical and clearly not malicious violation. Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Rp2006[edit]
Also see this relevant discussion on talk page [45]
Discussion concerning Rp2006[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 Rp2006[edit]Statement by Geogene (filer)[edit]Pinging @Firefangledfeathers: and @ScottishFinnishRadish: since they participated in that user talkpage thread I linked to. Geogene (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish[edit]Oh good. I noticed this back when it happened, and reached out to a couple editors that would be more likely to be seen as neutral to see if they would bring it up to Rp2006, and failing that, I ignored it and hoped it would go away, which apparently it didn't. To address a couple of the points here:
They've made fewer than 100 mainspace edits since the topic ban, and at least three of those edits have been topic ban violations. A warning here that they should probably put a bit more care into not violating their topic ban, and clarifying the ban itself would probably be helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Rp2006[edit]
|
Спидвагона
[edit]| Blocked as a sock --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Спидвагона[edit]
Extended confirmed restriction
N/A
N/A as a general sanction, but informed here. pretty obviously a sock account, but no matter, should be blocked as an account whose single purpose is to violate an arbitration restriction.
Every single edit by this user since registering has been a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction.
Discussion concerning Спидвагона[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 Спидвагона[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Спидвагона[edit]
|
73.158.47.129
[edit]| Blocked; nothing more to do --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 73.158.47.129[edit]
The IP editor claims to be the article subject, but the article subject is blocked from using Wikipedia. This appears to be a case of block evasion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 73.158.47.129[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 73.158.47.129[edit]Hello, I posted on a discussion page that was directly about me, and immediately identified myself and the ban. As for the ban, I was never told why I was banned other than "offline & online conduct." I was never even told I was even being investigated. I had no notice negative action would be taken against me. In fact i had reported misconduct against me, and the investigation apparently pivoted to *me* at some point. I was given no warnings, ever. My account was in use for over a decade with no prior warnings & only praise. There was no specific ban/block before a wider ban/block, there was no temporary ban before an indefinite ban. was never provided an explanation of why I was banned or how to appeal, or if I could appeal. I was told I was banned from editing, but it was unclear if that meant only editing articles or if that also applied to administrative matters, like an article deletion discussion. The order was vague and overbroad, and I've struggled to interpret it. It does seem quite unfair to prevent me from weighing in on a deletion discussion about the article about me, without explicitly telling me the ban applies to administration discussions as well as articles. In fact, I was given notice and this text box to edit as part of this enforcement notice, which is confusing if I'm supposed to be banned. Why would I get notice or an opportunity to provide input, if i was prohibited from providing input? I worry that I'm violating the ban again by even responding now here. 73.158.47.129 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 73.158.47.129[edit]
|
Seggallion
[edit]| No violation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Seggallion[edit]
Here, the response also indicates awareness about reverts
The editor when initially requested to self revert expressed confusion about how one edit was a breach of 1RR. When eventually explained here the response was to blank the page. When given a final chance to self revert here the response was again to blank with edit summary "Did not breach anything. Why threaten like this?". This pattern may by now be familiar, an editor reaches 500 edits and immediately jumps into the middle of an ongoing content dispute.
Discussion concerning Seggallion[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 Seggallion[edit]Why was my name wrong in some sections here? I made one edit to the article and one edit is just one revert. I was told by Selfstudier on April 9th to wait until I had 500 edits before more Arab-Israel edits. I had around 400 edits then. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1081780290&oldid=1081732694 I followed instructions and waited. At the end of May I saw a requested move advertised on the al-Aqsa article and I voted on it, just like I voted on other advertised moves. I checked before voting that I met the rule. The changes to the naming have been opposed by other users too, I have been watching this pair of articles since the requested move. I didn't wait until 500 to edit the topic. I was told to wait by Selfstudier after I edited a church in April that he thought was in the topic. I also made a request in January to edit an article in topic I was blocked from. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramla&diff=prev&oldid=1065377343 In this month I saw the Aqsa move advertised. Also fixing errors like novellist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marie_Linde&diff=prev&oldid=1065211857 scheluded https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_Antonio_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1065794748 Borwn https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_Mississippi&diff=prev&oldid=1072564164 Mississipi, not p but pp, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nate_Dogg&diff=prev&oldid=1072762154 Is not a game. Can someone scrutinize Selfstudier's reverts and threat on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092010968&oldid=1092010433 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092012794&oldid=1092012058 I felt under the gun with last one. Statement by Nableezy[edit]That's a single revert, it does not matter how many edits were reverted if it happened in a single revert. However there is blatant extended confirmed permissions gaming, with the overwhelming majority of their first 500 edits being single byte additions and removals. Then their 501st edit is to a restricted topic's requested move here. Curiously, the single byte changes started to pick up steam right around when this happened. nableezy - 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323[edit]It is a single reversion, but by undoing the work of two other editors, it is also in essence a restoration of a prior version. The basic requirement with any revert, not least a restoration effectively rollbacking edits by multiple other editors, is a fairly fulsome explanation of the reasons why it is being done, and
Statement by Onceinawhile[edit]I would also like to discuss what can be done about 500/30 gaming. Coming up to 500 edits through mass automated / semi-automated / very minor edits is not consistent with the spirit of the rule. This editor made >350 edits in Jan/Feb this year, by finding and replacing common typos. A useful job of course, but the interest in clean-up edits disappears at 500. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by Shrike[edit]First of all the premise of this filing is frivolous the filer is experienced enough to understand what revert is. Regrading the gaming it seems that users has continued to do minor edits in other topics contrary to what claimed here so it doesn't seem like gaming to me --Shrike (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]Seggallion, could you explain why you didn't sign your comments above and you formatted the links so poorly? You displayed a deep knowlege of the links formating (note "here" added) back in February [55] and you also nicely signed your comment. What happened? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Seggallion[edit]
|
Zusty001
[edit]| Two edits with the discretionary sanctions alert issued after the first does not warrant a sanction. Zusty001 is advised to discuss issues on article talk and not repeat challenged edits in a topic under discretionary sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Zusty001[edit]
From the edit summary at [58] they knew they are fighting against WP:CONSENSUS, nevertheless chose to put What does it mean that the meaning of pseudoscience is oblique? What does it mean that it is occulted? Who treated pseudoscience as monolithic and what's the evidence that they did so? The talk page of the article is crammed with explanations about WP:PSCI, so I felt no need of adding extra explanations. The problem with Steiner's fans is that they have a thoroughly in-universe view and no longer know how mainstream science views Steiner. But I once met an important Anthroposophist who was fully aware that the Institute for Beautiful Sciences (Schöne Wissenschaften) sounds completely ridiculous to outsiders. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zusty001[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 Zusty001[edit]SeraphimBlade, my reasons were explained essentially in the comments of the relevant edits. If this is not deemed sufficient, and if these comments can be viewed anywhere (It appears cut off in the public view of the edit), then I do not think I should try strenuously to achieve some victory in a litigatory struggle against a user of this site far more prolific and powerful than myself. I would explain myself more elsewhere outside of this context, but here I will, for the most part, simply note that in the wide array of citations attached to the section initially removed by myself, there are a great many in which 'expertise' or authority is simply not there, even in some academic sense. (The latter part may be the more considerable here. I noted the use of Dan Dugan in my original comment as a particularly striking example, whom is also used as a main and positive, or encyclopedic, source for another section of the article which I have not edited.) I do not regret noting such 'expertise' in quotations, here or in my edit. As for the 'anonymous' edits you note, I should say that they are not my own. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Zusty001[edit]
|
LearnIndology
[edit]| LearnIndology is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed (WP:ARBIPA). Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Request concerning LearnIndology[edit]
LearnIndology (LI) is not a prolific editor: they are often inactive for weeks and engages in routine anti-vandalism, maintenance tasks etc. This necessitates a scrutiny into their activities across a long span of time, which might be unnecessary otherwise. The evidence presented above supports that the losses accrued by letting LI edit in this area — reduction in content accuracy as well as waste of editorial resources in combating his POV-laden activities — outweighs the positives. I wish to emphasize that LI is cautious enough to not run afoul of any bright-line rule but nonetheless, tests the boundaries as evident from the 3RRN example. Multiple established editors — me, Kautilya3, Fowler&Fowler, RegentsPark, Joshua Jonathan, and maybe others — have warned him about NPOV violations but they show little effect.
Discussion concerning LearnIndology[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 LearnIndology[edit]Nearly all of the diffs are dating back to 2020 and 2021 and concern some usual content disputes and some include misleading claims such that I created this article. I find this reporting to be lacking any sense. Though I would still comment on the recent diffs. 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy was created[61] over 28 hours after Nupur Sharma (politician) was created.[62] It was being redirected to Nupur Sharma because it was a complete POVFORK created in violation of copyrights per WP:CWW. Just compare these two versions: [63],[64]. Only difference was the creation of more sub-sections and some quotefarming, but that was also insignificant. The discussion on Talk:2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy#Opinion of Dutch politician and Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability shows that I am regularly responsive and abiding by the consensus. My edits aren't even violating WP:SYNTH like your recent edits on this page, let alone justifying them like you are doing. ARE shouldn't be misused just because you disagree with some of my edits. LearnIndology (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare: With this message I was saying that either we should keep statements like that of Dutch politicians and others, or we should only keep statements related to the foreign ministry and the main administration. At that time there was no particular criteria set, and selective removal was not helping in setting consensus this is why I only restored the stable version with that regard. This is not mind-boggling because ultimately the consensus supported my view, contrary to the view of those who wanted to only remove the statement of the Dutch politician but keep statements of politicians who are not even notable. @Bishonen: There is clearly no doubt that I did a number of mistakes at Romila Thapar dispute in Feb 2021 but I learned a lot from that and have made more than 1,300 edits since. By saying "per discussion" on this edit summary I was talking about this discussion where I had mentioned the sources. While there was a content dispute at the Religion of the IVC article, I was correct with each of my messages there as it can be read here but TrangaBellam's main objection was that the article is a POV fork and should be a redirect.[66] The ultimate consensus was against this view. LearnIndology (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Post-filing statements and responses by TrangaBellam[edit]
Statement by Vanamonde[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning LearnIndology[edit]
|
Abrvagl
[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 Abrvagl
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Abrvagl (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:ARBAA2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 29 May 2022 - WP:HOUNDING and "jumping" into a discussion between me and another user
- 20 June 2022 - WP:HOUNDING hours after my edit
- 21 June 2022 - Possible WP:PACT and WP:GAMING violations, further explanation below
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 26 January 2022
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I'm following up on this as I find Abrvagl is still being problematic and needs AE's attention. The first diff is a WP:HOUNDING by them, where they randomly "jumped" into a discussion between me and another user. This confused me at the time but I tried to not pay attention to it. However, because of their recent repeated hounding, I couldn't just restrain myself and ignore it; after my edits yesterday in Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, made this edit in the article among others, hours after me. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language [79], which isn't an improvement and shouldn't have been added. This kind of behavior with hounding is unpleasant to me and discourages me as an editor.
Third diff; some time after the previous AE case, they left this comment in the same discussion, which I believe breaches WP:PACT and WP:GAMING and I'll explain why shortly; considering the fact that Talk:2020_Ganja_missile_attacks#The_missile_attacks_happened_one_week_after_Azerbaijan_began discussion was linked in that previous AE case and Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;
- "Saying that bombardments of civilian areas of Ganja, which resulted in the death of civilians, was in response to Stepanakert civilian areas bombardment, which also resulted in the death of civilians, is an unsourced attempt to justify war crimes and insert of the wartime ethnic retribution logic into article. It is gross violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral and there no place for that in Wikipedia."
And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.. Please also keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me on the talk page ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1) How convenient to "jump" into the middle of a discussion with me and another user, despite never editing on that article, and now claim the "page was on my watchlist".
- 2) The specific diff I linked isn't an improvement, you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article, hence it is hounding. And you did so hours after my edit despite hardly editing through 13-20 June. And again, you didn't have a single edit on that article prior.
- 3) I didn't cut anything from your conclusion segment, I included it as a whole, it's a publicly available diff. It's also convenient that you link your own comment judging what's "sufficiently substantiate" by a third-party editor, but didn't link my reply to you [80]. Considering all of this and the above, pretty sure your demanding good faith from me at this point could be considered WP:GAMING and perhaps WP:PACT. I'll leave that to admins to decide. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Rosguill Perhaps I should've provided more diffs/context, but I didn't want this to get long. This isn't the first time Abrvagl is hounding someone, their hounding against a different user was brought up on this ANI report, which I happened to take part in. From that thread, there are quite a few other examples;
- [81], [82], [83], [84] [85] (these specifically show them hounding the user and edit-warring over an info cited by a partisan source, see discussion).
- So this isn't the first time Abrvagl hounds someone, and the articles are very niche for them to randomly stumble upon, such things cannot happen repeatedly.
- Regarding Ganja attacks, BBC reports that it was a response, attributing it to Artsakh. Eurasianet reports that it was a response with no attribution. Talk consensus is also against Abrvagl, as even the third-party user still disagrees with them. I honestly don't know what else I should do, it's not on me at this point to reach anything with Abrvagl. They could've used any mechanisms necessary like RfC, third opinion, etc. instead of dragging me every time to the talk page, since clearly as of now, talk consensus is against them. Bottom line is, I would kindly ask you to evaluate your opinion regarding hounding, since clearly this isn't the first time from them. And regarding Ganja strikes, I have nothing else to say. It's been enough already, I'm not planning to waste months of time just to appease this user. They know all the necessary tools, they should've already used them if they didn't like the talk consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not obliged to read through a 4000byte+ wall of text, so I'll address the diffs you brought up against me. I also think some of these were already brought up by Abrvagl in the previous AE, it's just repetition all over again;
- 1) Had it watchilsted way before you, proof? I'm not just going to say "I have it watchlisted" like you did, here my edit. Also, not a personal attack.
- 2) Same scenario as the first [86]. And what's the personal attack?
- 3) You probably found that discussion on my talk page User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Golden, so you should've seen just below that I, in good faith, also asked about it in the TeaHouse User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Your_thread_has_been_archived ([87]) because it was still unclear to me whether discussing user conduct on article talk pages should always be prohibited. I'm certainly more careful about this now, and I make sure just for good measure to raise complex conduct issues on user pages instead or appropriate noticeboards like I'm doing now.
- You say I brought up 2-month-old diffs (which I only brought up as backup to my current accusation of your hounding and only after Rosguill's comment), but what are these then, and why are you bringing up these irrelevant even older diffs in AE case regarding your hounding; 26 March 2022, 10 April 2022?
- And why are you discussing Kadyrova here? Have you forgotten the extensive talk page discussion? I thought we reached that RfC conclusion which you still have to launch, I'm so confused. Rosguill please tell me if I need to address anything here regarding Kadyrova or if this should be discussed on talk instead, I'm not sure about this essay comment and the purpose of it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Abrvagl
[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 Abrvagl
[edit]Seriously Zani, you could have at least tried to talk to me before dragging me into this unnecessary AE only 9 days after your last report.
1. 29 May 2022 This page and talk page are in my watchlist. I saw a conversation between two editors and shared my own view on the conversation. How is it Hounding? WP:HOUNDING clearly states: if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behaviour
, my comment did not mean any of that. it was aimed to help conversation. It is really strange to hear such concerns. If my comment is hounding, what is this then, where you jumped into a discussion with +1,879 bytes of text and raising personal remarks about me? I believed you did that with good intentions because I assumed good faith every time you joined discussions like this and expected the same from you. But it seems I shouldn't have.
2. 20 June 2022 No hounding or else here. Page is on my watch list. It brought my attention because there were recent changes. I actually expanded and improved the article. Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week,
- as I mentioned earlier[88], I had emergency surgery and was having a rest. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language
- [89] is the official webpage of State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, which is perfectly fine for statistical information about missing persons, especially considering that I correctly attributed it in the article. If you believe that source is not RS for that information, you could have talked to me or at least raise it to RS board.
3. 21 June 2022 - not sure how me asking you to stop writing personal remarks on the talk pages and informing you that we need to take this case to the dispute resolution is WP:PACT and WP:GAMING. Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;
I never said that Eurasianet is not reliable. You actually cut the conclusion out of the context which may lead to misunderstanding. Here is the full comment[90] read the paragraphs 9 and 11 about Euroasianet. And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.
- Zani, making personal remarks on the article talk page is not appropriate, I and other editors[91][92] already told you that many times. If you want to discuss anything unrelated to the article you are always welcome to use the editor's talk page. keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me
- this third-party editor did not sufficiently substantiate his comment[93], as I already told him[94].
Reply 2
Rosguill I am not sure why Zani brought up diffs which are more than 2 months old and was not even related to him to say that I am hounding.
Diffs mentioned by Zani were a case when I noted that one of the editors was going through the Azerbaijan-related articles and removing tons of information(sometimes obvious information) from the articles with "unsourced" comments. At first look, it may look like edit warring, but in reality, I was reinstating removed material and adding sources. For example: Revert[95] and added source[96]. Revert[97] and adding source[98]. Revert[99] and added source[100] and so on.
ZaniGiovanni, didn't link my reply to you [26].
- I did not, because I did not want to show you in a bad light as you were making personal remarks about me there [101].
Zani, we shall always judge other people as we judge ourselves. If you saying that my good faith edits are Hounding, then can you please explain a few examples listed below? Do you think that they can be considered as hounding? I personally don't, as I assume good faith, but looks like you have a different view on what the hounding is.
- [102] - you jumped into conversation writing personal remarks.
- [103] - 17:21 I made a revert as consensus was not reached. 9 minutes later, you, who was uninvolved created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text again with personal remarks.
- [104] - here you jumped into the conversation and made personal remarks about other editor's behaviours by bringing up eight 1-2 years old diffs.
you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article
- I agree that the source generally not reliable as it is not this party source, however official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Not sure how it is hounding, but you could talk to me if you had concerns or at least take it to the RS board.
Zani, again, we shall judge others such as we judge ourselves. Here[105] you added two sources about the living person(WP:BLP). One of the sources is the Russian search engine Rambler.ru[106], which refers to not existing webpage Kdpconsulting.ru. When you click to open Kdpconsulting.ru, it actually opens an unknown yellow pages website runews.biz. The second source[107], which seems to be personal blog[108] focusing on IT from France perspective, does not even know if Kadyrova is male or female, and wrongly says that she is male, and focuses on her nationality calling her Azerbaijani journalist, while not mentioning that she is actually Russian journalist ...Azerbaijani journalist Saadat Kadyrova revealed to the Russian TV... He compared the residents to terrorists.
Do you believe that sources are reliable for information about the living person?
Long story short - I never hounded anyone or had intentions to hound anyone, don't have anything else to add.
Statement by (username)
[edit]Result concerning Abrvagl
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Noting first for the record that both ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl contacted me on my talk page to ask for advice related to this dispute, reviewing the evidence here, I don't think that the HOUNDING accusation holds water. Having compared both editors' contributions on and immediately prior to June 20 and May 29, this looks like coincidental overlap on topics of mutual interest and don't see any clear-cut evidence of hounding. Reading through the entirety of the discussion at Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks, while Abrvagl's conclusions cited here in ZaniGiovanni's additional comments (with additional emphasis add by ZG) are hyperbolic, I don't think that the argumentation is tendentious overall: they acknowledge Eurasianet as an RS and make an argument that the reference in question does not fully support the claims made, then provide an analysis of other sources. While one need not agree with Abrvagl's argument, I don't think it's sanctionable. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, the additional diffs you provide are certainly edit warring and possibly hounding, but they're also around 2 months old. I'm open to hearing disagreement from uninvolved editors as far as my initial assessment on hounding, but at the moment I stand by my initial assessment of the recent edits. As far as the continued discussion regarding the Ganja strikes, you have no obligation to continue responding to Abrvagl's arguments; it appears that the stable status quo is your preferred version, so the ball is in Abrvagl's court to call for an RfC, since a third party has already weighed in and you're clearly not interested in taking it to DRN. Given that the state of discussion on the talk page is an extensive back-and-forth between you and Abrvagl, plus a single-sentence affirmation in favor of your perspective from another editor (we can also count Kevo's revert as another voice in favor), I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, no I don't think that Kadyrova needs to be discussed here. It's not really relevant to either of the allegations you raised in this case, and the argument as presented falls short of the evidence of persistent or willful failure to respect community standards and processes around sources that would justify sanctions in my view. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, the additional diffs you provide are certainly edit warring and possibly hounding, but they're also around 2 months old. I'm open to hearing disagreement from uninvolved editors as far as my initial assessment on hounding, but at the moment I stand by my initial assessment of the recent edits. As far as the continued discussion regarding the Ganja strikes, you have no obligation to continue responding to Abrvagl's arguments; it appears that the stable status quo is your preferred version, so the ball is in Abrvagl's court to call for an RfC, since a third party has already weighed in and you're clearly not interested in taking it to DRN. Given that the state of discussion on the talk page is an extensive back-and-forth between you and Abrvagl, plus a single-sentence affirmation in favor of your perspective from another editor (we can also count Kevo's revert as another voice in favor), I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
JameyRivendell
[edit]| User blocked as a sock--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JameyRivendell[edit]
I will also note that I reverted my second edit removing their edit as I didn't realize until afterward that it was a 24hr cycle restriction. Beyond that, it appears that JR is mostly here to stir up trouble in AP2 topics, given their editing history to the articles above, Matt Walsh (political commentator) and The Daily Wire. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Bishonen I think I fixed it. Also I wanted to add, since notifying them of this request, they've been rather pleasant.
Discussion concerning JameyRivendell[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 JameyRivendell[edit]JameyRivendell pleads not guilty. The left wing troll who keeps reverting my edits seems to have an agenda. I believe in symmetry of information. If every single conservative politician on wikipedia is labed "right wing" or "far right" using biased sources than this should apply to left wing politicians as well. AOC is far-left af for those in the bunker. Wikipedia is not a DNC platform. Please stay neutral. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning JameyRivendell[edit]
|
GizzyCatBella
[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 GizzyCatBella
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GizzyCatBella (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
- WP:APLRS
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 15 June 2022 - attempt to relitigate a previous APLRS-related closure;
- 15 June 2022 - further insisting on overturning that closure;
- 23 June 2022 - threat to remove + further insistence on non-reliability of previously-considered reliable source;
- 23 June 2022 - more of the same; likely misunderstanding of underlying APLRS remedy;
- 23 June 2022 - going again;
- 23 June 2022 - and again;
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above: [116] - two blocks (both self-reverted, one technical) in August 2021
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- The Warsaw concentration camp returns again to the Arbitration Committee.
- On 2 November 2021, GizzyCatBella challenged the usage of this source. GizzyCatBella properly challenged that article since it was non-scholarly and the user provided some sort of rationale other than the point of non-scholarship (in that case, the participation of banned Icewhiz). Acting on this challenge and given my interest in making that article as comprehensive as possible, I started what proved to be an acrimonious RfC three days later that later escalated to ArbCom. The RfC ultimately was closed with the following relevant point, that there is
consensus that the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied.
- In June, Jens Lallensack, who was not involved into any of the prior discussions, started the GA article review. GizzyCatBella stated in diff 1 that they don't want the reference to appear in there, without any qualifiers, if that was to be a GA, but ignored the request to refer the RfC to review. No policy I am aware of allows some sources for inferior articles but disallows for the others. The user repeatedly showed their will to challenge the closure and threatened to disregard it by removing the source in question (diff 3). They claim that the RfC closure said that since it is reliable as used in a footnote, it is not reliable anywhere else (likely due to the user's own opinion on it as unreliable), and suggested to go with an ArbCom clarification, or else challenge it again, which would be very likely burdensome for the community. [Another usage of that source is quoting from Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss, both subject-matter scholars]. The user repeatedly said that
multiple other sources available
for the same content, but provided none to back up their point. The user seems generally to believe that whatever was not written by a historian is unreliable for the topic, which is not what APLRS says. - GizzyCatBella additionally threatened to challenge two videos from YouTube, one being a France24 report, and the other being an Israeli TV interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust, without stating any problem other than being YouTube videos (WP:SQSAVOID obliges the reverts have a "clear substantive explanation", which the user avoided to share so far despite being asked to do so).
- I ask the admins to instruct the user to comply with the closure, order the editor to stop abusing APLRS as a way to automatically remove any reference without explanation, and otherwise stop the uncooperative and combattive behaviour.
- I request 200 more words for replies. TonyBallioni is pinged as the administrator imposing discretionary sanctions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, this board is in the category of "dispute resolution" boards for a reason.
- Also, given the very long discussion about that source (and several others you have engaged in, i.a. over the meaning of the word "hoax" in Wikipedia), obviously I've had enough of that once I've been that shitshow, and I struggle to understand why others haven't and want to remind us of that waste of editor resources over and over again.
- My very best wishes, exclude a source for what reason? Reliability? The RfC said we were over it. DUEness? Also over it. Narrative of a banned Wikipedian? Well, it is there, no denial, but that objection was also overruled anyway as we don't cite it. I have no complaints about civility here, but repeating the same arguments in different venues, when the editor knows that these were overruled, and then trying to argue the RfC closure is not what (most) people think it is due to a grammatical/technical quirk, is disruptive. And even if we disregard all that, the editor knows that most people agreed to disagree anyway, so why raise this issue again? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, the problem here is not the source itself, it is your behaviour with relation to that close, which was clarified to mean what it means by plain reading of that source (thanks for confirming that, Isabelle). The enforcement request is about compliance with the RfC, it is not about the source, for which this venue is not appropriate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, I used this one. I downloaded the audio track of that YouTube video and then split it into 1-min intervals. Then I pasted whatever Hebrew text was generated into Google Translate and saw the English translation (YouTube does not automatically generate captions for Hebrew). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, the problem here is not the source itself, it is your behaviour with relation to that close, which was clarified to mean what it means by plain reading of that source (thanks for confirming that, Isabelle). The enforcement request is about compliance with the RfC, it is not about the source, for which this venue is not appropriate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [117]
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella
[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 GizzyCatBella
[edit]I'll address the issue as soon as I can (busy for most of the day) as there are numerous inaccuracies here such as number 3 (just a quick example for now) - a threat to remove --> Where do I say that I'll remove or where is the threat of me removing anything from the article Szmenderowiecki?
Meantime, please read the entire conversation and (among other things) notice this comment --> [118] were the filer disrespectfully insinuated that my good faith involvement in GA review is to overturn the RfC, which is untrue, that is not my intension at all. Also Szmederowiecki, why didn't you ask for a wider input from our community, as I suggested, instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith? You came here to resolve the disagreement? You know that this might be a tremendous unnecessary time sink, right? You are requesting the AE to resolve that debate instead of asking the community for consensus? What's up with that Szmenderowiecki? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes - Sorry, I’m still busy, just scanning here. So the article with such troubled history could be freely used directly, anywhere in such uneasy toopic area? I understood the closing of RfC completaly different. (Use ok as a source for a footnote - only in this particular article) I’m not arguing with your evaluation, looks like you're skilled in Linguistics (judging by your front page also), and English is my second language, but I'm a little stunned.. Should we ask the closing editor for clarification or study the RfC and clarify it ourselves elsewhere? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Szmenderowiecki - So if you (quoting you)
had enough of that once I've been that shits how
why on earth it’s so important to you to maintain that particular source in the body of the article, to the point that you came here with this dishonest (not only my opinion) report? What it’s more important to you Szmenderowiecki? Maintaining the potentially troubled source in the body (instead of the footnote - no objections here) that has a prospect to destabilize the article in the future or passing the article into the GA status? Explain that to me, please? GizzyCatBella🍁 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Szmenderowiecki - So if you (quoting you)
@Isabelle Belato Thank you for clarification Isabelle - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent conversation with the filer on the talk page of user Deborahjay preserved here for the record -->[119] (Initial Diff in case it gets archived) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- What is to be uncovered in the conversation linked above:
- A) - On November 14, 2021 Szmenderowiecki enters the video TV interview with Gideon Greif, in Hebrew language, and uses it to reference information in Warsaw Concentration Camp article.
- B) - Two days after this filing, on June 25, 2022, Szmenderowiecki asks for translation of the mentioned video declaring they don't speak Hebrew.
- Findings:
- Szmenderowiecki enters the source (video) into the article, they later argue (numerous times) to keep They used the source as an example while writing this report (quote from his above filing):
GizzyCatBella additionally threatened to challenge two videos from YouTube, one being a France24 report, and the other being an Israeli TV interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust, without stating any problem other than being YouTube videos.
- Conclusion (related to this particular AE report only):
- Szmenderowiecki enters unverified YouTube video, they later state they don't understand, into the article and uses it to reference information. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Notice the subtitles/closed captions button in the above discussed video -->[120] Click CC button below the video - it says Subtitles/closed captions unavailable.
- Question. What voice recognition software are you referring to in your remark here Szmenderowiecki? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Szmenderowiecki this should work just fine. I’ll confirm later if necessary. For now, that’s all from me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Haaretz's article date is October 4, 2019
- Video upload time to YouTube is October 6, 2019
Statement by Volunteer Marek
[edit]Let me get this straight. User:Szmenderowiecki filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion??? Every single one of these diffs is a comment. Not article edits, not anything even resembling incivility, nothing. I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!”
I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for spuriousness..es..esses(?)
Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
[edit]A contributor (GizzyCatBella) can reasonably believe that a source should be removed from a page if we want this page to become a Good Article, regardless to any previous RfCs. This is not an unreasonable opinion because during the RfC a number of other contributors argued that the page would be better off without this reference. If we simply remove the disputed ref, the article will remain just as good (GA), as it is. End of story. Why bring this here? Perhaps there are some reasons, but I do not understand them. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes. Yes, I see it: Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. However, I do not see how anyone (like GizzyCatBella) arguing to exclude a source (an article in Haaretz) from a page to make it a Good Article might be viewed by anyone as a violator of sourcing requirements. Even if it was a reference satisfying the requirements by Arbcom, one can always argue to exclude it for whatever good reason. This is not a violation of any remedy by Arbcom. Only someone arguing to include an insufficiently good reference on talk (like Szmenderowiecki) might be viewed as a potential rather than an actual violator. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Isabelle
[edit]It seems like my poor domain of the English language has finally come to haunt me. Firstly, I have no opinion on this particular matter as it relates to GizzyCatBella, and am here just to clarify any misunderstandings related to this close. Wugapodes is correct in their assessment that my findings were that the article is reliable, generally speaking. While the discussion was focused entirely on the source as it related to the information found as a footnote, participants agreed that it was reliable, meaning that if that same information was to be added to the body of an article, it would still be reliable and usable (although I find it hard the community would find that WP:DUE). I hope this answers any questions. Feel free to ping me if any further comments are necessary. Isabelle 🏳🌈 01:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion
[edit]I think that the RFC was clear, but that bringing up objections again in a WP:GA is fair (though I wouldn't have gone on as long as GizzyCatBella did for risk of BLUDGEONING an already-settled point.) WP:CCC applies - people are allowed to dissent from or disagree with previous RFCs, and even suggest that they be overturned or ignored - and contrary to what was said in that discussion it's not really required to request a close review. Doing so too often would be WP:BLUDGEON / WP:DEADHORSE behavior, but a GA nomination is a specific one-time thing where every significant concern over the article is supposed to be gone over, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to note, in that context, that they still think it's a problem, regardless of the previous RFC... even if such an objection is unlikely to go anywhere. And it's also at least not unreasonable to suggest that the standard for a GA is higher, which can lead to previous discussions being reconsidered (even if I think it was vanishingly unlikely in this case.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
[edit]Result concerning GizzyCatBella
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- It's pretty clear to me that the RfC found the source was generally reliable. It says explicitly
the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one
, so with that context I struggle to see whythe Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied
should be read to mean it's only reliable for that footnote and nothing else like GizzyCatBella claims in the third diff. I think the phrase "used as a source for the footnote" is a restrictive relative clause that is used to specify which source is being discussed specifically. The ambiguity comes from the omission of the relative pronoun (common for restrictive clauses in English). So there are two potential readings depending on what relative pronoun you use to fill in that gap: "the Haaretz article [which is] used as a source..." or "the Haaretz article [when] used as a source...". Given that we list the source as "generally reliable in its areas of expertise" and the closer saidthe argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one
, I think the interpretation is clearly "which" not "when". I can see how an editor could, in good faith, misunderstand that given the ambiguity, so I don't think there's any need for AE to do anything beyond clarify that. — Wug·a·po·des 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)- @My very best wishes: The arbitration committee explicitly told editors to bring issues like this to AE. See clause 4 of that motion. — Wug·a·po·des 21:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GizzyCatBella: Sure, I've asked the closer for her comment. I think it's ambiguous even if your first language were English, so it's probably best we get some clarity to avoid future misunderstandings. — Wug·a·po·des 23:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pace Wugapodes I think this is swatting at a fly with a table saw. No, I do not believe that this is what arbitration is for--first of all because it is a relatively small content matter, and second because IMO arbitration should be reserved for disputes that cannot be handled in any other matter, and I do not see that that stage has been reached already. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)