Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive318
Oriental Aristocrat
[edit]| Oriental Aristrocrat is indefinitely blocked, with the first year as an WP:AE action. Galobtter (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2023 (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 Oriental Aristocrat[edit]
Deceptive POV pushing together with personal attacks and false accusations of misconduct is very common from this editor. Since he filed an ARE report earlier, there is no doubt that he is clearly aware of what he is doing.[11] He is indeed WP:NOTHERE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Oriental Aristocrat[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 Oriental Aristocrat[edit]El_C, the reason I didn't respond was because I was busy during the week and hadn't edited b/w 24-28 April. Secondly, I see this 'complaint' as nothing but a bunch of stale cherrypicked diffs and part of an attempted FORUMSHOPPING series carried out by a select group of editors. It all started after I left a comment at ARE filed against USaamo by AKG, back in Oct 2022 (which itself might have been a retaliation for USaamo's ARE filed against Bookku). This is given the fact that Bookku during the same month, miraculously filed a SPI against me even without a previous interaction and where AKG left multiple comments. Then, earlier this month, Orientls used the very same diffs (in the same order) with the same argument as AKG at ANI which gained no traction. Later, a week ago, CapnJackSp accused multiple editors (incl. me, Nooruddin2020, Ameen Akbar, War Wounded & Cheel) of canvassing, at ANI. Meanwhile, Capitals00 has filed a SPI involving me. And now this. Please also read what an admin had to say about AKG previously.
Besides, if one looks at the interaction b/w me and AKG you find that:
It is clear who without AGF, has been HOUNDING me and GAMING the system with a BATTLEGROUND mentality and NOTHERE to build encyclopedia. They deserve a BOOMERANG, as all they do is remove large chunks of text from different articles. Thus, before reaching any conclusion, I request the admins to thoroughly go through the OP's linked articles' history and their associated talkpages. — Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) El_C - Considering, I only have some 200+ edits to 77 articles in the past 11 months, every other edit that I make can easily be interpreted as me following someone especially if it's a revert. The same cannot be said for someone with thousands of edits. On Muhammad Iqbal, the AKG's edit in itself was contentious because of the removal of the text mentioning Two nation theory (an article where AKG et al. are edit-warring Mydust). My second revert was per BRD as the dawn.com source linked in the edit summary is FRINGE. — Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC) El_C - Again, per my earlier clarification I never linked to Consensus required, it is you who's doing that. Instead, I said "Consensus is required" and meant to link to BRD. Secondly, as you aren't "familiar with the subject matter" by your own admission, let me tell you that Two-nation_theory#Allama_Iqbal itself has a whole section on Muhammad Iqbal (which AKG must definitely be aware of considering their edits to that article). So the very removal of the Two-nation theory's mention from Muhammad Iqbal would constitute a FRINGE idea (although I never mentioned that in my edit summary). And there's nothing weak about AKG following me to Terrorism in Pakistan which too were out-of-the-blue reverts of my additions as their first edit in an article they've never contributed to before. — Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by (Bookku)[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Oriental Aristocrat[edit]
|
PalauanLibertarian
[edit]| PalauanLibertarian is topic banned from abortion. Their rollback rights are also revoked. Galobtter (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2023 (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 PalauanLibertarian[edit]
PalauanLibertarian seems to doing good work in several other areas of Wikipedia, but to me it unfortunately does not seem like they have the ability to properly assess source reliability in the topic area of abortion, nor a willingness to collaboratively edit in this area (see repeated reinstatement of contested material to articles and misuses of rollback). DanCherek (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning PalauanLibertarian[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 PalauanLibertarian[edit]I agree that I have not followed the policy on some articles, but I'm confused as to why my original 96% source is not a reliable source. It's from a peer reviewed reputable journal. Also, my third edit included many other reliable sources other than ACPeds why was it reverted instead of removing those specific sources. I'll make an effort to stay away from politics or you can restrict me from editing those articles (fine with me). PalauanReich🗣️ 00:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Shadow of the Starlit Sky[edit]I agree with @Femke: over here on a TBAN from abortion, broadly construed. Judging from the diffs, I can definitely tell that this user has difficulty telling apart sourced content from neutral content. Also, due to the history of rollback misuse I'd say a removal of rollback privileges would be a good idea too. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 12:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Result concerning PalauanLibertarian[edit]
|
Interfase
[edit]| Interfase is indefinitely topic banned from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts. Galobtter (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2023 (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 Interfase[edit]
Interfase has been highly incompetent and edit-warring in the 2023 European Weightlifting Championships. They edit-war on a whim and restore/remove info depending on their POV: on one hand they edit-war and restore irrelevant to a weightlifting cyclopedia article derogatory quote, explained why thoroughly on talk - [24], [25], [26]. On the other hand, they’d hide info that doesn’t suit their POV despite several reliable sources, and again edit-war in the process with multiple users - [27], [28], [29], [30]. What Interfase demonstrated with their recent conduct is categorically how not to behave on Wikipedia, especially in the contentious AA area; they edit-war on a whim, ignore notices on their talk, remove/restore info based on POV preference rather than merit, sources or strength of talk arguments, and finally they don’t bother listening to multiple users on talk [31], [32], [33], still continuing to edit-war despite clear disagreement with their edits and lack of consensus. Interfase has been blocked already for edit-warring so this seems like a repeating pattern, and I believe AE admins should take a look into Interfase’s disruptive conduct and incompetency. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Interfase[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 Interfase[edit]There is ongoing discussion on a talk page of the article and there is still no any consensus on information about the situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh in this article about the championship. The disputed text was hidden by me[39] after the dispute on talk page about the information related to Karabakh conflict till the consensus. But several users try to do POV-pushing and violate WP:CONS disclosing the disputed information that is not related to the article without reaching any consensus[40][41]. My position is to reach the consensus and not to do POV-pushing without any consensus. If we want to add the information about the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, then the brief information about the wars between two countries and occupation of Azerbaijani territories also must be added (this information was mentioned on reliable sources in the context of the championship as well). But this information was removed from the article by nominator[42]. In this case all information not related to the championship also must be removed. It seams that there is a flash mob by proArmenian users trying to keep disputed information in the article without consensus using their numerical superiority. --Interfase (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) The sentence on “casting WP:ASPERSIONS on the motives of all users who disagree with him” is not true. I am talking not about users "who disagree with me", but users who clearly violate WP:CONS and insteade of reaching any consensus are tryling to fight to implement their preferred version immediately in artice. Actually the users disclosing the disputed information shows the WP:Battleground mentality, not me. WP:EW clearly says that editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. There is still no any consensus on hidden text on a talk page. It means that users trying to disclose it engage in an edit war. --Interfase (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Interfase[edit]
|
Zaathras
[edit]| Zaathras is warned against edit warring, especially on BLP material and material related to the post-1992 politics of the United States. Additionally, Marjorie Taylor Greene is now subject to the consensus required editing restriction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2023 (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 Zaathras[edit]
Repeated edit-warring in a BLP in violation of WP:EW and WP:ONUS
N/A
This is super basic, an editor is seeking to enforce their view through edit-warring, repeatedly restoring material that a quick look at the talk page shows there is no consensus for its inclusion. This is discussed at Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Comments_on_Teixeira, where among other issues Zaathras calls another living person a "traitor" (without that person having ever been convicted of treason), shows five editors opposing or being unsure of inclusion, and three editors in favor. Yes, not a vote, but there being no consensus for inclusion means the material stays out. Zaathras apparently feels like ONUS does not apply to him or her, see the edit summary here. The page has since been protected, but this method of edit-warring to enforce a personal position violates the arbitration decision, and given this is also a BLP I feel this should be met with sanctions.
Black Kite I think Kcmastrpc was reverting too much as well, though they did have both ONUS and a talk page majority on their side here. If this had been on AOC's page and I say Kcmastrpc reverting 4 times to push in material that was objected to by a majority of the talk page I would have reported them instead. But I dispute I was tag-teaming anything. I saw this whole sequence play out, and like in a bunch of other pages saw a contingent of edit-warriors trying to push in to an article material that did not have consensus. That should be dealt with, but sure, Kcmastrpc reverted too much. I dont think I did, but feel free to ban me from AP2 too if youd like. nableezy - 15:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zaathras[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 Zaathras[edit]The article is not under a 1RR or a "You may not reinstate a reverted edit for 24h" restriction that I saw. Users who edit in their preferred version of an article while there is an active, ongoing discussion about said content is what I consider to be disruptive here. There was not a BLP concern with the content, the discussion revolved around a question of due or undue weight, therefore, IMO, removal in mid-discussion (esp. this user who had no prior involvement in the discussion) was a quite naked act of bad faith. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC) I do not believe BLPRESTORE applies here, as the content is not damaging or damning to the subject if left in the article. I do not wish to get too far into the weeds of discussion on the content itself, but briefly, this is about whether the subject's public tweets in support of an alleged leaker/whistleblower. The subject publicly supports the leaker, so being linked to him in her bio is not a "negative", in the BLP sense. Zaathras (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) As for the "personal attack", sorry, but this user has apparently long been allowed to vice support of a terrorist organization on their user page. That the wording is extremely careful and couched is immaterial. We all know what it means. Zaathras (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by Kcmastrpc[edit]I was involved in this conflict, I felt the initial two reverts on April 15 were WP:GOODFAITH, at which point I'd backed off to let the conversation develop for roughly 5 days at which point it began to settle down. Before taking any action, I requested input from other editors and TFD suggested we revert unless any other major developments surfaced. In my judgement I felt consensus had not been reached, and while my primary concern was WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, there were aspects I felt were completely WP:UNDUE especially with regards to Liz Chaney's comments. Nevertheless, as other admins have pointed out, WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS apply here since the material in dispute was never stable nor gained consensus through discussion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]@ScottishFinnishRadish: Am I correct that the editor you appear to be referencing as the uninvolved reverter was @Kcmastrpc:? That editor had been edit warring this content before Zaathras' involvement and is currently blocked regarding another FoxNews-adjacent page. I left a note on the article talk page in the hope that editors there will provide some context to these events. Also, I took a look at Zaathras previous CT sanction. He restored valid content that was removed without by @Mr Ernie: who gave no reason and did not engage on talk and Zathraas' edit was not challenged by any other editor. Zaathras' edit there did indeed have consensus. I'm surprised to see that he was sanctioned, but the page was fairly chaotic due to persistent Republican and right wing media coverage of the subject matter. In the current complaint, while Zaathras reacted poorly by taking the bait and edit warring, the behavior is hardly egregious enough for a draconian sanction such as 0RR, or anything more than a week's page block. FWIW, Zaathras is one of the best-informed and generally constructive editors active in the most contentious politics articles, and his contributions are based on mainstream sourcing and policy. The tone of this complaint feels a bit like weaponizing an unfortunate but harmless misstep. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Wordsmith, I think 0RR/Consensus Required is contradictory. The best page restriction is 24-BRD, which has worked well at many difficult AP pages. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Nableezy and SFR, there was already an edit war in progress and I would say Nableezy was part of that. I also did not consider citing WP:ONUS to be particularly mom/apple pie standing up for policy. That's just shorthand for saying they consider the content UNDUE. So this is a garden variety edit war on a page with no explicit restrictions and as MASEM says, it's trout-level stuff. The question of editors picking and choosing from daily news is ubiquitous and lots of time and attention is wasted on it. Just to be clear, I meant to say Zaathras' prior sanction was IMO ill-advised, and subsequent events, with the drive-by reverter failing to give any reason or engage on talk and with Zaarthras' reinsertion going unchallenged ever after, seems to confirm that. I would not hold that up as any indication of depravity or anything else outside of that place and time. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) SFR, I may not have been clear I meant to indicate that the editor whom I called a drive-by reverter (whom I pinged so they can come to their defense here) gave a vacuous edit summary and did not meaningfully engage on the talk page. And the consensus was indeed demonstrated to be in favor of Zaathras' edit. That the reinstatement after the revert is a sanctionable violation actually points out one of the flaws with the "Consensus Required" as a page restriction. It allowed the unsubstantiated revert to sidetrack numerous other editors into a talk thread, only to endorse Zaathras' action for which he was shackled. That's why @Awilley: devised 24-BRD after a lot of experience with AP enforcement, and I presume why Arbcom codified it as one of the authorized page restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC) RE: WP:ONUS. Yes, it appears in a policy page, but it is not a prescriptive policy such as V, NPOV etc. ONUS gets cited in content disagreements. It's just a reminder that citing V does not resolve a content dispute. SO: I don't think we should be describing the removal of this MTG-tweeting content as if it were wrapped in the flag and glory of the five pillars. It was just a content dispute and the removal was to launch a garden-variety content disagreement which, per se, is beyond the scope of enforcement judgments. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC) @The Wordsmith and ScottishFinishRadish: I strongly disagree with this proposal. What harm are you preventing with such a draconian sanction on Zaathras?There's plenty of examples elsewhere of various editors earning such sanctions when they push UNDUE negative, contentious, or ill-sourced BLP content. That's not what Zaathras has ever done, to my knowledge. This was a bad situation, no harm done, and a quick AE trigger by the complainant. Moreover, to repeat again (3x total) "Consensus Required" is the least workable, leadt constructive of the permitted page sanctions. The most contentious AP articles have done well for several years now with "24-BRD", a fact that was recognized by Arbcom when they codified it in their long review of the enforcement process. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for your reply, but I asked what harm by Zaathras you expect to prevent. I'm well aware of BLP and the BLP Arbcom decision. The MTG bit is all over the talk page and has been in and out of the article and is published in various sources. This is not a bright line BLP issue. It's a WEIGHT issue. That takes on heightened importance in BLP-related content, but my previous comment stands. I see no pattern or inclination toward policy violations, egregious misconduct, or obstinate disruption from Zaathras, and I've become quite familiar with their work over the recent past as they've become increasingly active. I see no consensus among the Admins here that Zaathras needs a sanction to prevent damage, disruption, or BLP harm. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by Valjean[edit]Black Kite is spot on. No worse than trouting for anyone here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC) My abject apologies to User:Nableezy. I intended to modify my comment, got caught up in an edit conflict, saved it and posted it, and had to immediately run to other responsibilities, forgetting to modify it. Nableezy is obviously an experienced and respected editor. I'll modify my comment now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by DFlhb[edit]I disagree with Black Kite that there were "tag teams". Reverting was straightforwardly indicated by our policies as the proper course of action until affirmative consensus is reached. I'm not a household name, so you don't need to take my word for it, take Blueboar's. DFlhb (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Zaathras[edit]
|
Rayner111
[edit]| Partial blocks from his biography at J. E. R. Staddon and Charles Murray - ordinary Admin actions, not AE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Rayner111[edit]
This user came to my attention after making PROFRINGE edits to Charles Murray (political scientist): [44], [45]. A glance at this user's talk page revealed that he has identified himself as the psychologist J. E. R. Staddon, and has been warned about COI. Despite this, even after the warning, it seems nearly all of his edits have been self-promotional (not just to his BLP; he's also gotten up to a lot of ref-spamming, e.g. here, here, here, and here). The only exception to this COI editing appears to be recent edit warring against the consensus on race and intelligence. I attempted to engage with Rayner111 / Professor Staddon on his talk page (where, after an initial warning for vandalism, I realized that this was an elderly professor and attempted to explain the existing consensus). I also invited him to engage on the article talk page, which he ignored. Instead, I was informed yesterday that he'd published an op-ed on the conservative website Minding the Campus, titled "WikiBias: How Wikipedia erases “fringe theories” and enforces conformity". In it, he misrepresents events to make it seem as though his edits were more reasonable, and appears to dismiss me by noting that my user page states that I use they/them pronouns. I was prepared to let that go, since R&I is a topic area full of trolls to whom I prefer to WP:DENY recognition. But seeing as this user has now come back on-Wiki to make the three highly inappropriate and pointy edits linked above, I see no other option but to seek sanctions.
Discussion concerning Rayner111[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 Rayner111[edit]Statement by IP editor[edit]Just so I am clear, it appears Rayner111 included a link to Science Direct, which to the best of my knowledge is a reliable source and not subject to any kind of sanction. If I am wrong, forgive me, but I don't see what is disruptive about this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6d80:65a9:d528:c5d2:6e14 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken (Rayner111)[edit]Since Rayner111 self-identifies as J. E. R. Staddon, they should, at the very least, be partially blocked (as an ordinary admin action) from editing the article about himself. He's made 45 edits to the article, 24.4% of the edits to the article, [51] contributing 8.4% of the article's content.[52] Because of his obvious COI, he should be limited to suggesting changes on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Statement by IP editor[edit]The background to this report is important. The disputed wording in the Charles Murray (political scientist) article was added by Generalrelative [54] without (initially) any discussion on the talk page. Rayner111 tried to modify Generalrelative's wording several times, and Generalrelative undid those attempts before making this report. Generalrelative also undid attempts by six other users to modify his wording: by user:Bartinny, [55] user:TankRe, [56] user:Oveclocked66, [57] user:Nrunje, [58] and two IP users. [59] [60] A third IP user challenged Generalrelative's change on the talk page, and his response to that IP user was dismissive. [61] When one is restoring one's change that's been opposed by eight people in total, and there has never been a consensus for the change on the article talk page, it's disingenuous to claim, as Generalrelative claims above, that one's opponent is "edit warring against the consensus". Repeatedly restoring one's contentious change as others challenge it is also the opposite of how WP:BRD is supposed to work, especially in an article about a living person. — 24.246.138.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:07, May 5, 2023 (UTC).
Result concerning Rayner111[edit]
|
Emilimo
[edit]| Emilimo is topic banned from pseudoscience. Galobtter (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2023 (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 Emilimo[edit]
@KoA: I meant they look like a WP:SPA since 11 April. They had some edits in other articles, but that was earlier. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Emilimo[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 Emilimo[edit]Statement by KoA[edit]Tgeorgescu, it took me a second to catch what was exactly being reported without much background provided (and I'm a regular watcher at WP:FTN), but I'm guessing this report is because Emilimo has a history of trying to remove pseudoscience as a descriptor from articles, which violates WP:PSCI policy? Just making sure it's clear for admins that may not be as familiar with PSCI subjects here. From what I can see at Stephen C. Meyer, David Berlinski, and Michael Behe with the edit warring going on, it does appear Emilimo is WP:NOTHERE in terms of pseudoscience subjects and some sort of preventative action would be needed so the community doesn't have to deal with it there. They're technically not a WP:SPA as Tgeorgescu mentions in the evidence, but definitely WP:ADVOCACY issues in the last month that likely warrants a topic ban from intelligent design subjects. That could be expanded if they cause issues in other pseudoscience/fringe topics. KoA (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Emilimo[edit]
|
Review of Topic ban (Dev0745)
[edit]| Malformed request. But I'm pretty sure that editing a conspiracy theory article to claim it isn't a conspiracy theory and is an actual thing, using tabloid sources, isn't an optimal way of editing. Topic ban seems reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello, recently I got topic banned from editing India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related articles by Tamzin after editing article Love jihad conspiracy theory. She topic banned me by citing reason of verifiability and synthesis. But I am not convinced by her argument as I think I have cited reliable sources and not done any Synth. The sentence added by me were clearly mention in the articles. My edit link is here [70]. Can any uninvovled Admin review the TBAN decision. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC) |
Iskandar323
[edit]| Malformed request + content dispute. In my individual admin capacity, advised Salandarianflag to tone it down and to stop bludgeoning the related discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
We had a conversation about the name of Caesarea and Iskandar323 dismissed my academic sources which reject the notion of a source provided by another academic Masalha, I provided why I was removing the source from the Caesarea page as there was sufficient back up to remove the source provided by Masalha as the book is subject to controversy and cannot be given as a fair source. As such I removed it until a compromise can be reached and not because I removed it based on my own personal opinions. I was then in away blackmailed to reverse it by Iskandar323 despite given the explanation I had listed for its withdrawal and if I did not back into his wishes, he would report me. Salandarianflag (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
|
Salandarianflag
[edit]| For WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR issues, Salandarianflag is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Galobtter (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2023 (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 Salandarianflag[edit]
1. 10:46, 11 May 2023 Removal of Nur Masalha source and related material about the use of the name "Caesarea Palestina" from the lede of Caesarea_Maritima 2. 13:09, 11 May 2023 Repetition of the above
3. 00:31, 8 May 2023 Removal of Nur Masalha source and related material about the use of the name "Caesarea Palestina" from the lede of Caesarea_Maritima 4. 09:28, 8 May 2023 and 09:31, 8 May 2023 (combined series of edits) Repetition of the above
I and another editor have given this newish editor two separate chances to self-remedy 1RR violations, but the editor has ignored these opportunities. Note two other related discussions: (1) the AE filed by Salandarianflag against Iskandar323 immediately above, and (2) a discussion at WP:RSN.
Discussion concerning Salandarianflag[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 Salandarianflag[edit]I am not going like this like a lamb to the slaughter and I will defend my judgements as such I the response I shall make, firstly I believe that the context in which the source was in was highly biased in that it basically said that Jews took over a Palestinian City, which is not true as we know that Jewish settlement was one of the first settlements in Caesarea, when I removed the context, I stated why because to say as such that Jews took over a Palestinian City is just historically wrong, when archeological evidence points to plenty of Jewish history in Caesarea, note the Roman Theatre which contains the name of the Jewish Governor at the time of Caesarea. As such to say that Jews took away a city which had been historically Palestinian is just wrong and as such I provided context as to why a removed a portion of the section and made modifications to it, it isn’t like I just wiped it out without exposing why either, which is why I feel that this report is just a personal nab, since these views don’t seem to align with others. This isn’t as clear cut as you think it is because in most of these situations people removed context without providing an explanation but I provided an explanation and a source as to why I was removing it, further it wasn’t done with malice or ill wishes and I believe that the whole report should just be annulled as I had no ill meaning and provided a source which is this: https://www.britannica.com/place/Caesarea which clearly gives a source of defined Jewish settlement and that Caesarea was rebuilt by King Herod who was Jewish, so to say as such that Jews took over a Palestinian City is ludicrous. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:09 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish:, as this is my first run in with 1RR and I don’t know about too much so I’ll will go over it, I did try to my make edits in good faith, I believe that a topic ban or block is too much, I’ll take a warning and I’ll try next time if I have any disputes to start a compromise discussion if I feel context is off in a certain area. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Salandarianflag[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena
[edit]| The arbitration enforcement topic ban against Davidbena is lifted, on the condition of being mentored by Nableezy for one year. This mentorship means that Davidbena must ask Nableezy for approval before making edits to articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, broadly construed, and follow advice given by Nableezy. For clarity, the community topic ban at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Davidbena remains in place (removing it cannot be done here and requires an appeal at WP:AN). Galobtter (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Topic ban from editing in the ARBPIA area, broadly construed, imposed on 29 January 2022, and which Tban was subsequent to a failed appeal in November 2019 (see here), imposed by User:Ymblanter, and which original ban was related to disruptive editing by me (as seen here), imposed by User:Euryalus. It is to be noted that an appeal was submitted in September of 2022 to rescind my current Topic ban (as shown here}, but that it too was declined.
Statement by Davidbena[edit]I am asking that my Topic ban be lifted, since I am fully aware now (finally) where I had infringed upon my own Topic ban (here), where it was stated explicitly that I was prohibited from making “any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed, and regardless of whether an ARBPIA template is on the talk page,” but that I had wrongly taken the initiative (careless of me) to create a page entitled “Outline of Jerusalem,” following the Outline of Munich format, and which new page clearly discussed post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics. There is no excuse for this flagrant abuse of my limited topic ban, although I was permitted under the same ruling to “upload or add historical photos or multimedia of or about pre-1948 Levantine subjects,” as well as to contribute “verifiable and reliably sourced information regarding Levantine archaeological research,” in addition to “make edits relating to geographical features of the Levant.” This generous leniency and freedom given to me by my peers rendered my judgment obscured, and I had forgotten the most important proscription, namely, not to engage in edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed. I can now say honestly that the community was right to censure me for this flagrant violation, after giving me so much freedom. I will not be upset if the community should turn-down my current request to appeal the topic ban. I feel ashamed that I had not noticed my own error, before it came to this. With that said, for the record, I personally bear no grievance toward any man, and I fully understand the need to reach a consensus with my fellow editors, especially when dealing with contentious topics such as this. As a religious Jew, I have since come to learn something that will, hopefully, guide my attitude here on out in the future, and that is this: for Jews and Arabs, the country remains eternally under special sanctity, and both peoples have historical connections to the land. This calls for extra sensitivities when editing pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. My fervent hope and desire is to add important historical data to articles in the ARBPIA area, and to bring some of these articles up to "Good Article" status.Davidbena (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade[edit]With Davidbena, I think the problems we have seen have generally been an issue of negligence rather than malice. That's not to excuse them—editors subject to restrictions are still responsible for heeding them, and liable for the consequences if they do not. Part of that is either to stay well clear of any area which even might be interpreted as subject to it, or at the very least to ask for clarification and advice before doing anything that might be near the line. That said, if someone experienced were willing to act as an advisor/mentor for Davidbena during a gradual return to some of the area, and Davidbena were willing to accept such guidance, I could see that as a potentially workable solution and would not object to that. I do think that just wholesale removing this restriction (especially with the community restrictions still in place) is not something likely to end well for anyone involved; it certainly has not worked out well in the past. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]I have made no secret of my fondness for David, and have tried to ward him off from shooting himself in the foot in the past, and thats despite having been asked to be banned by David in the past, in fact two of his more ardent fans are the only ones he's ever asked to have banned I think. But he is without doubt one of the most sincere people on Wikipedia, and I have never doubted David's honesty or good faith. His zeal was the only real problem. But I absolutely believe that he thought he wasnt doing anything that violated his topic ban previously, and even though it was obvious to me, and to everybody commenting at AE at the time, I remain of the view that good faith mistakes should be forgiven, and honestly think you all should have just gone with escalating blocks up to one month for those good faith topic ban violations. Yes, it was a topic ban violation. But who cares really, it had zero impact on anything, and anybody could have removed it and he would have left it alone if told to due to his ban. I cant honestly say I have any real confidence that he wont make another good faith error in abiding by the AN imposed ban in the future, but I just dont see how this is beneficial to any of the parties here, David or Wikipedia. So my view, unchanged over years and years, is David can be an asset to articles that need knowledgeable editors who research thoroughly and have access to some of the world's best resources for the Jewish history in Palestine/Israel, and we are just depriving ourselves of that asset for technical violations of a ban that has barely any real benefit to Wikipedia to begin with. And it be better if we didnt do that. nableezy - 04:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Just so Im clear, we're just talking about the AE imposed ARBPIA wide topic ban, the AN ban would still need to be appealed some time in the future, and the mentorship here consists of David agreeing to follow my advice on if a proposed or made edit is a violation of that AN ban and committing to self-reverting and disengaging for any topics that I say are violations. Right? nableezy - 21:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) @Isabelle Belato, Cullen328, Euryalus, and Black Kite: pinging the admins below to ask for the clarification requested in David's question at the end of his statement. nableezy - 20:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]Like Nableezy, I'm one of those who generally sit on the opposite side of the fence to David on ARPBIA issues. And yet, like Nableezy, I see David as an asset to the project. To start with, David's knowledge of Jewish matters is spectacular. Second, David is good faith personified. The times when David violated the rules were more to do with his confusion about them than with an intention to be disruptive. And, yes, he does fail to understand the rules quite often, but I know from long conversation that he is genuine about it. This leads me to a proposal: give David a trial period with a mentor. During this trial period, David would be required to follow the mentor's advice, which would be mostly about policy and wikicraft rather than content. Zerotalk 20:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra[edit]
Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Davidbena[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 Beyond My Ken (Davidbena)[edit]
Statement by Selfstudier[edit]Recently, at Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine editor breached the tban and comments made in an RFC were eventually removed after an administrator explained the obvious. Editor has a history of pushing boundaries and always seems to reach a point of not being able to edit neutrally in this topic area.Selfstudier (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by Nfitz[edit]In his response to Selfstudier above, Davidbena notes that he was told that creating the article Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine wasn't a violation. But what he is being criticized for by User:Selfstudier isn't anything to do with that page. It's the words of his talk page edit that are the issue, where he said that "the addition of "and" makes it appear as though we're talking about two separate countries, when, in fact, we're talking about a synonym for the same country". With your topic ban you can't opine (anywhere in Wikipedia) of your opinion about whether the area in question is one country, two countries, three countries, or 50 countries! That even today you don't see that, is very concerning. In your title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1151399666 ANI request yesterday (which was closed and moved here) you said that you "simply mentioned while editing that page the name of the current government over Jerusalem". Reading the earlier ANI discussion, it notes that your neutral article "Outline of Jerusalem" (that I have not and cannot see) never mentioned Palestine, even though it governs a large potion of the city. Even in your ANI appeal you imply that Israel governs the entire city. In my mind this suggests there remains a lack of understanding or sensitivity regarding the situation. And in particular there seems to be a lack of understanding that even mentioning who you think governs all of Jerusalem (a highly controversial topic) violates your TBAN. With this lack of understanding of what the Topic Ban restricts, as recently as yesterday, I think the topic ban should continue, as making such a bold and controversial comments on Jerusalem, and the On a personal note, I applaud the community for trying to work with the editor, rather than simply penalize the editor; it's not something that the community is very good at. Nfitz (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Can someone clarify - I thought people weren't allowed to edit in another person's section (sorry, I don't appear here very often). But to respond to the statement, I had meant to write "insinuate" rather than "assert". I'm not sure how else to interpret ".. makes it appear as though we're talking about two separate countries, when, in fact, we're talking about a synonym for the same country. Though that's secondary to the current request to lift the topic ban. That you ever mentioned the number of countries in your comment is a topic-ban violation, as far as I understand it. Nfitz (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by Folly Mox[edit][W]eaklyand aroundso he doesn't get sanctioned for miscounting or forgetfulness.) Or 0rr? These sound pretty difficult to enforce, but Davidbena seems very open to the idea of feedback and education, and no one here seems to doubt his good faith, so I'm hopeful that enforcement won't be an issue. Folly Mox (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by Onceinawhile[edit]I am in support of David returning to this topic area. We disagree on many (most?) fundamental areas of the topic, but the disagreement is usually constructive, open-minded and honest. And source-based. None of us are perfect, but we need more editors on either “side” of this topic area who can talk to and work with each other. Good luck David. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by starship.paint[edit]I have barely, if ever, touched this topic area. I am not sure if I've voted before on topic ban of Davidbena, but it's possible that I have. Nevertheless, if editors in this topic area, particularly and especially those who may be of opposing POV to Davidbena, are amenable to lifting the topic ban, then I will also support the lifting. starship.paint (exalt) 03:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Davidbena[edit]
|
Ghazaalch
[edit]| No admin seems to find anything actionable here. Closing. Courcelles (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (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 Ghazaalch[edit]
WP:CRP: today Ghazaalch restored [71] a link to "MEK troll farm" to the P.M.O.I. (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran) page with the edit summary "restoring some changes to the original stable version" (but "MEK troll farm" is not part of "the original stable version"). Ghazaalch had previously added this to the page [72], which had been reverted [73] (Ghazaalch's "MEK troll farm" article was deleted, as well as its many alternate spellings). This is no isolated incident. For example Ghazaalch recently restored [74] "People's Holy warriors", also something he had attempted many times before ([75] [76] [77] [78] ) Ghazaalch was warned [79] to stop when I first reported that, and I have also repeatedly asked him to stop [80].
Additional comments by editor filing complaint[edit]
Neither Hogo-2020, or Fad Ariff, or myself were under WP:BLOCKEVASION (user:DreamBoat was). So your response about this means that (at best) you don't understand the policy. And the only reason I bring this up is because you recently violated WP:CRP when you restored "People's Holy Warriors" to the article yet again. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) What you're saying that I was "warned against filing unactionable reports" is also false. What's more, there have been numerous warnings and explanations of policy already posted on Ghazaalch's talk page ([81][82][83][84][85][86]), article's talk page ([87][88][89]), and throughout these reports. Ghazaalch even was a party in the initial ARBCOM case back in 2021, and after all of this, he's still unable to understand policies. You're also incorrect that I consider Ghazaalch to be my "opponent". I think his contributions to Shia related topics have been productive, but topics relating to politics tend have continual WP:CIR problems at best (see also for example here or here or his last response here about the Wikipedia:Consensus required policy). Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: here are Ghazaalch’s recent WP:CRP violations:
I'm counting 6 WP:CRP violations since Decembber 2022, and the only one Ghazaalch reverted was his latest one (after I filed this report). Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Ghazaalch[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 Ghazaalch[edit]
Statement by Iskandar323[edit]I'm not a personal fan of that 'restore', but this seems like a rather disparate and disjointed set of complaints, none of which amount to anything AE worthy. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Fad Ariff[edit]MEK troll farm does not form part of any recent or original version of the article, yet Ghazaalch added it claiming to be restoring the article to an original stable version. More: 1. During an ongoing RFC, Ghazaalch added tags to the article lead, which were reverted, but he restored them two more times: {1} {2}. 2. Ghazaalch also added to the article that "Abrahamian in his book The Iranian Mojahedin, describes the group as a cult that worships its leader, and writes that the Mojahedin were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons: political and geographical isolation, the disappearance of the veteran leadership, the marriage of Maryam and Massoud, the prevention of internal critique (members' criticism), and a propaganda war against external critique, even if directed by the organization's members". When I reverted and challenged that edit, Ghazaalch restored it 3 more times: {1} {2} {3} (all WP:CRP). 3. Also after the last warning he received to stop casting aspersions, Ghazaalch recently said that "
Statement by Ali Ahwazi[edit]Neither Fad Ariff's statement, nor Iraniangal's one, is AE worthy in my opinion, specifically when they were warned against filing unactionable reports before. They could have posted a note on Ghazalech's talk page instead, to inform him of Wikipedia's policy. These kinds of reports, in my opinion, and as said by others, is an attempt to take out an opponent. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Statement by MarioGom[edit]I would suggest giving a chance to honest discussion and compromise. Rather than further attempts ([97]) at knocking out others with wikilawyering. MarioGom (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ghazaalch[edit]
|
Cioppino123
[edit]| CU blocked. See this SPI for more information. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:44, 27 May 2023 (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 Cioppino123[edit]
No sanctions were made previously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cioppino123&diff=prev&oldid=1156864113 - CTOP alert in talk page
User made other blatant POV edits against the Japanese POV in Senkaku Islands related articles too - [102] [103]. I'd say that a TBAN on territorial disputes relating to Japanese territorial disputes, broadly construed or a NOTHERE indef block is probably the best course to take.
Discussion concerning Cioppino123[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 Cioppino123[edit]These are absolutely false accusations and I have done nothing wrong. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cioppino123[edit]
|
Buidhe
[edit]| Those involved are advised to discuss further on the article's talkpage before pursuing formal dispute resolution. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:23, 27 May 2023 (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 Buidhe[edit]
I am working on Collaboration with the Axis powers and reading up on the history of the period in the Balkans. I came to Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, where I dropped a cn tag for: Buidhe however reverted the tag with an edit summary saying that a reference was provided at the end of the next sentence:[106][107]
Attempt to discuss #1: [108] was reverted.
Attempt to discuss #2: [109] met with Note that I would have fixed the article myself but was prevented from doing so. It went on from there. [116][117] [118] [119] I double checked the article, found further problems and decided to come here since I was clearly getting nowhere. Elinruby (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Buidhe is warned that communication is mandatory, especially regarding disagreements about content and sourcing, and that the additional sourcing requirements applied to this topic area do not change this. They are further warned that AE must not be used to "win" content disputes. These are final warnings - any future examples of this or similar behaviour in the topic area will result in sanctions.
FOF 9. 10, 15 I apologize if I am doing this wrong as this is my first time at AE. I have no real interest in arguing about this article, or for that matter in the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide. I would like to respond to a couple of people, then I will be gone unless there are questions.
General remarks: to the people saying talk page: given the article's obscurity it was my assessment that Buidhe was telling me to get consensus with Buidhe. I think I tried fairly hard to discuss with someone who was handing out gratuitous insults. To the people saying don't go straight to AE, I try not to go to AE at all, but fixing that Collaboration with the Axis powers article is something I said I would do, which I was doing at the time, and something that consensus says it badly needs doing. I shouldn't need to take time out to explain the RS policy to Buidhe despite ugliness. reverts and really very false aspersions. The thing about letting these things stand is that people come to believe them. Been there done that in Ukraine. Let's bear in mind that this is a new page patroller on a final warning to learn to communicate with people. Let's also bear in mind that yes, I am indeed competent to assess RS, unlike the unfortunate new editors who may encounter Buidhe. She may be right that the author of her source says that the Armenian genocide caused the Holocaust, but I like some sources in my extraordindary claims and he doesn't say it on page 333. Let me repeat that I started from the assumption that I was fixing the article myself, but Buidhe was prepared to edit war over that. It took heroic measures to get her to discuss at all. That is all I have to say and if this is acceptable behavior.... which many new editors will encounter as their introduction to wikipedia... I don't know what more I could say. Note that this started with content but I am here about the ownership behavior and the aggressively sloppy sourcing. Unless I misread the recent decision, in a case where both Buidhe and I were named and unsanctioned parties, source distortion is indeed a behavior problem. Now. I am going to go fix what nableezy is talking about, then plant tomatoes and ponder whether truth and the encyclopedia are really worth dealing with this. Peace out. Close the case if you really think so. But dismissing this concern would be a mistake in my opinion. Elinruby (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [120] Discussion concerning Buidhe[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 Buidhe[edit]This is not the right venue; I advised Elinruby to post at WP:NORN about their concerns that the second sentence is not supported by the text. I do not think that their interpretation is tenable because "smoking gun" evidence is not the only type that historians can use to come to a conclusion about events. If that were the case we would have to edit many articles to say that there is no evidence Hitler ordered the Final Solution. The exact quote "No smoking gun" is indeed present on page 333; it is the title of the subchapter that begins on that page as you can verify by looking at the table of contents here. As for the sentence Adding tags that are not warranted or not adequately explained and refusing to seek consensus for them when challenged can be disruptive behavior. Currently, the banner tags on the article are not supported by any type of clarification or talk page comment about the perceived issue that led to them being placed.[121] Some of their edits to the article are ok, but others are concerning. For example, they think that "an act of perpetration" is "emotional language"[122] that merits removal, which indicates they are not familiar with the terminology used by professional historians and scholars to discuss genocide. That type of comment as well as their misinterpretation of Ihrig page 333 is why I became concerned about their edits. (t · c) buidhe 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]There's a direct quote in that diff Buidhe, that requires a citation. The article wide tags require explanation at the least if no attempt to fix is made Elinruby. But this is supposed to be discussed on the article talk page, not a user's talk page. Can we please go a week after the conclusion of the case before escalating here though? Withdraw this and open a section on the article talk page, pretty please? nableezy - 17:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion[edit]So, the source for the quote "a great genocide debate" was a different publication by the same cited author, a chapter that was also titled "Justifying Genocide", which was published the year before in the book Rewriting German History. It would have only taken a moment on Google Scholar to figure this out if people had raised the issue on talk before rushing here: [123]. Some things are hard to find the cite for, but for a direct quote... I can understand that WP:BURDEN means you're not required to search for it, but at least before taking someone to AE it's worth spending a few seconds googling to make sure it's not just a mix-up over titles or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Geez, an extremely difficult, contentious, and controversial arbitration case is closed, and this is the first complaint based on it, within days of the closing? It does not bode well for the future. Maybe ArbCom should add another statement to the decision: "All editors in this subject area are directed to at least try to work together collegially before making use of the big guns." This is the sort of thing that should have been sorted out on the article talk page; Elinruby should be trouted for not posting there. They've been here long enough to know better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (Bookku)[edit]The present case reminds me importance of WP:DDE protocol. On side note:IMHO WP:DDE seems very appropriate protocol, to be followed before approaching WP:ARE. As needed WP:DDE may be updated further for keeping it in line with present ArbCom policies. IMHO WP:DDE protocol need to find place in ARE/Header to guide the users better before ARE cases are filed. I am not sure if this is best place to make this proposal but hope more knowledgeable may take note of context of this for their future discussions and updates. Bookku (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by TylerBurden[edit]I am only going to comment on one related instance, that the editor filing this, Elinruby, added ″citation needed″ tags on Kraken Regiment for content that was clearly referenced if one would actually look at the references. Maybe in this case it wasn't so, but I think some effort should be put into looking into the references before drive-by tagging with citation tags. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Result concerning Buidhe[edit]
|