Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive323
CapnJackSp
[edit]| Editors of this article need to engage in dispute resolution collaboratively and without turning discussions about content and sourcing into discussions about editors. Editors also need to ensure that they engage in reasonable and purposeful consensus building. If editors fail to do this and are preventing discussions from reaching consensus we can look at sanctions at that point. My intention is to keep an eye on talk page discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 3 October 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 CapnJackSp[edit]
CaptainJackSparrow refuses to drop the stick. Despite multiple warnings, he repeatedly uses WP:OR and prevaricates about the obvious meaning of quotes from WP:RS to justify the removal of the result on 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, and attempts to WP:GASLIGHT me instead of engaging with me in good faith.
No sanctions issued, but warning issued - see below.
User has posted template on their talk page in early 2022.
User previously warned for behaviour on ARE and given
Discussion concerning User:CapnJackSp[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by User:CapnJackSp[edit]While I may be held guilty of not investing too much time in the discussion cited, the string of allegations are widely inaccurate. When making the reverts, I saw someone using one source to justify writing the result of an India - Pakistan confrontation as being the "failure" of someone, as is frequently done by by vandals and new accounts with a POV to push - Which was the reason for my actions and arguments, which admittedly, could be framed better. I will do so below.
In essence, this is at best a content dispute that the OP has presented here. The OP has not even justified their claims against me - The claims regarding WP:GASLIGHT and WP:CIR do not match up to even their summary of events, let alone an unbiased reading of the situation. Indeed, the OP has continued to introduce material that has already been challenged, for which they know there is no consensus, and is changing longstanding material in the lead - This is not the mark of an editor interested in collaborative editing. The editor made no attempt at resolving the impasses through third opinion or RFC, instead attempting to brute force their preferred version through repeated reverts. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]This doesn't look good to me - I agree with literally everything said by the OP. And, not the first time that I have seen CJS engage in an idiosyncratic reading of sources that would have smacked of trolling if not for their usual competence in most areas. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Statement by Googlegy007[edit]I dont have much to contribute here, I agree with the OP. Recently I recieved this comment from CJS which struck me as offposting, I proceeded to check their contribs which, while nothing immediately jumped out as a policy violation, also felt off. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Statement by DSP2092[edit]Solblaze (talk · contribs) has accused CapnJackSp of violating Wikipedia policies, including WP:OR (original research), WP:GASLIGHT (gaslighting), and WP:AGF (assume good faith), and seeks enforcement of WP:ARBIP sanctions. Solblaze claims that CapnJackSp has been engaging in disruptive behavior by repeatedly removing content from the article that describes the standoff as an "Indian failure." They argue that CapnJackSp's removal of this content is not supported by reliable sources and that he has instead relied on his personal analysis, which violates WP:OR. I find Solblaze this edit problamatic here, he explained the reason for changes in the summary as 'trim lead to <4 paragraphs per MOS. Solblaze asserts that CapnJackSp has not adequately supported content regarding the "Indian failure" in the article. Solblaze should provide sufficient evidence or reliable sources to justify the Indian failure and appears that the burden of evidence lies with Solblaze to justify the inclusion of this specific content, especially if it's considered contentious. CapnJackSp (talk · contribs) claims that the changes made by Solblaze were contentious and introduced a new perspective into the article without sufficient consensus. CapnJackSp claims that the sources provided by Solblaze do not unequivocally support the claim that the standoff was an "Indian failure." He also asserts that Solblaze has failed to justify their changes according to WP:DUE (due weight) and WP:VERIFIABLE policies. Based on the arguments, this appears to be a content dispute rather than a clear-cut case of policy violations. The issue revolves around the interpretation of sources and the inclusion of specific content in the article. It is recommended that the involved parties seek consensus on the T/P or consider dispute resolution mechanisms, such as a request for comments (RFC), to address the dispute. DSP2092talk 05:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Statement by Solblaze[edit]@Callanecc: I've tried my best to engage in good faith with CJS for the last month. But it's like talking to a wall. I can quote scholarly sources ad nauseam only for CJS to ignore it all and respond with WP:OR and prevaricate in a manner that seems like borderline trolling. I have not violated the 1RR restrictions on the article, and I am welcome to other uninvolved editors' input on the matter (@TrangaBellam:, @Googleguy007: and @DSP2092: included). I will also start an RFC. I reiterate that my concern does not stem from a mere difference in points of view held by CJS, but rather from CJS's prevaricatory behaviour and defiance of WP:RS. CJS's conduct has not only been noted by myself but also been condemned by others within the community including a closing admin on ARE. Solblaze (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Statement by Abhishek[edit]The edits by Solblaze clearly violates MOS:MIL (especially this and it was unwise for him to edit war over this thing without gaining consensus in the first place. That's all I have to say. Since "MOS:MIL" was not mentioned on the whole talk page,[1] I recommend no sanctions for any parties here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Result concerning User:CapnJackSp[edit]
|
Balkanite
[edit]| Balkanite banned from Bosniak identity topics for 6 months and 500 edits. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:02, 3 October 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 Balkanite[edit]
Balkanite has had issues with providing proper sourcing dating back to when they first started editing (talk page warning w/ explanation from 2020). This has continued to the present day, with many examples including the creation of articles entirely comprising OR at Draft:Bosniaks in the United Kingdom (6 May 2023) and similar titles. Their misuse of minor edits has also been continuous since they started editing, and they received a talk page notice about it in February 2022. The edits that I've highlighted at the beginning of this report, are particularly egregious, however, as they not only fail to provide adequate (or really, any) sourcing, they show clear intent to emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective (and, in the case of Bosniaks in Germany, directly contradict seemingly well-referenced claims at Bosniaks regarding the history of Bosniak vs."Muslim" identification under the successive governments of Yugoslavia. Given the persistence of sourcing issues over multiple years, there is a case to be made for a regular site block (although there perhaps has not been enough escalating warnings for that); I think that the persistent failure to cite sources and clear POV bent mean that at a minimum a topic ban from Bosniak history and identity is needed. signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Balkanite[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 Balkanite[edit]I've been made aware of these accusations for a while. Since then, I've always ensured to properly cite my contributions towards any article that I made the decision to create or edit. Also, noting that there has not been any progress in the making of such articles in the page, I simply wanted to fill in the gap that was not addressed towards anyone who may have been interested in the topic. Also, the accusation that I'm attempting to "emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective" is perposterous, because it was evident at the time that there were zero recording of anyone in SFR Yugoslavia that identified as "Bosniaks" up until its dissolution. I'm beginning to be concerned that you're accusing me of propping up a nationalist perspective of an ethnic group that has recently became more prevalent since 1991, especially given the fact that I belong to said group, and preventing the addition of more information about them to fulfill WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, even though I have made it evident that I made sure to include the involvement of the ethnic group in various sides during World War I and II, and including information about the diaspora in other countries. You can see the same thing being done with other ethnic groups, however no action has been taken against them. I understand that your concerns may seem alarming as I have been misusing the "minor edit" button when it came to editing articles, but the reason being that misusage is that the majority of the contributions that I've made are actually minor, and do not entirely change more than half of the article that has been written. I do suggest that you refrain from the idea of banning me from providing more information to Bosniak history and identity, as I'm one of the few that finds time to add more information about the people, and its diaspora. I have not seen you made ANY contribution to any of the articles you're accusing me of editing and contributing towards, and it's unfair to accuse someone of emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective, especially when I do not mean to spread information intended to incite or mislead, AND when it comes from someone who has done absolutely ZERO research on the various subjects that led to the creation/editing of said articles. Wikipedia suffered a similar situation with the Croatian page back in 2013, as it suffered from a group of nationalists that wanted to smear Croatia's history to those that may have taken an interest in it by abusing the administrative powers that were given to them, and it became severe to the point where the Croatian government advised its citizens to not use Wikipedia as a source of information. Since then, there were countermeasures made to prevent such an incident from happening again. The reason why I'm named "Balkanite" in the first place is because of the fact that ethnic identity in the Balkans is based on the individual's perception of their origins, and given that it does not show any ethnic connotations other than what I've previously mentioned, I believe it shows exactly my stance on my perception of my own identity. Balkanite (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Balkanite[edit]
|
Darkfrog24
[edit]| Not a topic ban violation, so no action is taken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:38, 4 October 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 Darkfrog24[edit]
DF24's long-standing restrictions are entirely absent from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive, for no explicable reason. This should certainly be fixed, even if no action is taken with regard to the diff above. The two still-extant restrictions are detailed below.
Elided here are multiple doomed appeals, and all the original AE cases that led to the above sanctions. Throughout all of that, DF24 endlessly recycled both a (real or performative) failure to understand the nature of the restrictions, and a persecution-complex approach, in which DF24 was simply a victim of "accusations" and seemingly could not understand the nature of their disruption. And here we are again with exactly the same problems in evidence.
The unblocking admin in 2022 was pretty specific: "Given the history here, WP:AGF is not going to apply to you for some time" and "I reiterate my comment that this was a marginal close which could equally well have concluded with your remaining blocked. In the event of any future disruption you won't receive the benefit of the doubt". And ArbCom's own notes, on the case page: "The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings. We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer. After review of the current appeal, we find that there is no evidence in favor of lifting or modifying the topic ban, and the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued." PS: I believe DF24 is also subject to one or more older T-bans that relate to specific fiction franchises, or something like that; they don't seem pertinent to this particular matter, though should be added to a DF24 entry at EDR.
@Courcelles: Yes, that resriction is certainly still in force. It's the one DF24 has appealed unsuccessfully over and over, and the reason their unblock was so marginal. Saying "I can't talk about that" is very different from linking pointedly to two sections of it, theorizing about whether you can get away with talking about MoS material because it happens to be on MoS subpages instead of the main MoS page, painting yourself as an "accusations" victim in the whole affair, and returning to the very subtopic that got you most in trouble, quotation puncutation, and declaring it an "issue" at MOS. If this isn't a T-ban violation, then I don't know what is. If it's allowed to slide, it will be taken as pure victory in having gamed the sanctions, and will surely escalate to more boundary pushing and more pretense that the crystal-clear T-ban is somehow incomprehensible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Darkfrog24[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 Darkfrog24[edit]Statement by Thryduulf[edit]I was very unimpressed by Darkfrog24's actions between the topic ban being imposed and their being unblocked and have been accused of various bad things by SMcCandlish recently so it's best I'm not regarded as neutral here (hence not posting in the section below) but the diff in this report is not, in my opinion, a violation of the topic ban I imposed all those years ago. Generally it is never a violation of a topic ban to discuss that topic ban, which includes explaining why it prevents you answering questions you've been asked or cannot take part in a discussion you've been invited to, as long as the discussion is not so extensive as to be disruptive. DF should not need it clarifying that their topic ban covers all MOS subpages (and their talk pages), but now that it has been clarified there should be no issues going forwards. I have not been following DF's editing since their unblock so I make no comment about whether their behaviour has improved only that there is no evidence presented here to show it hasn't. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Darkfrog24[edit]
|
KhndzorUtogh
[edit]| This specific dispute as presented is a content dispute that should be resolved through discussion on the talk page, and if at an impasse there, through any of the content-related options at WP:DRR. The OP has received a logged warning (diff) in a related complaint at ANI where WP:FORUMSHOP, which this AE report represents, played a role. WP:1RR was also applied to the page in question. Additional links and notes are in the Result section. El_C 01:21, 6 October 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 KhndzorUtogh[edit]
KhndzorUtogh showed some persistent unhelpful behavior where they try to override any concerns through edit-warring, reverting to their favorite version - typical for the WP:AA3 area. In this particular case the discussion has stalled and indeed, I think there isn't much to discuss further amid such problematic additions. Currently this significantly impairs article content and I placed the NPOV tag on the article. Perhaps an administrative action is now warranted. @El C: Personally I don't consider it to be "competing WP:AA3 complaints running in parallel" - the ANI thread was about different article and a comment made at the talkpage, while this one concerns different matter - an edit-warring in another's article namespace (even if both articles fall under WP:AA3). That's why I decided to file this report.
Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh[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 KhndzorUtogh[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning KhndzorUtogh[edit]
|
Lightburst
[edit]| Lightburst warned for discussion style in relation to BLP and GENSEX. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 7 October 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 Lightburst[edit]
For explanation, see below.
After British transgender activist and ex-convict Sarah Jane Baker was scheduled to run at DYK, Lightburst made a post at DYK's noticeboard in opposition; he objected to the specific hook and image, as well as the notion of finding any alternative. As a result, Baker was pulled from prep, where discussion continued. Lightburst criticized the hook as gratuitous, provocative, and confusing; he also criticized her scheduled DYK appearance in general (and the image slot in particular) as giving exposure to a person he feels does not deserve it. Throughout both discussions, Lightburst displayed the following behaviour:
I wrote that I was Taken together, this request is not about Lightburst's personal views on gender and sexuality. It is about disruptive and belligerent behavior in a contentious topic area as it pertains to the Main Page. Lightburst has spuriously advocated to bar Baker from running at DYK at all, citing only his view that Baker is a bad person and therefore should not be given Main Page exposure. This push was sprinkled with objectionable rhetoric, as well as Lightburst's personal opinions on Baker; when that rhetoric was challenged collegially, Lightburst refused to engage constructively. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Lightburst[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 Lightburst[edit]I have no history of editing articles in this area of the project. I engaged collegially with every editor in the the discussions and I discussed the subject of the nomination. The name calling began with Theleekycauldron referring to my valid concerns as transphobic. Enough people agreed with me that the nomination was pulled and sent back to discussion. But Theleekycauldron was still pushing for a version of the hook that was rejected. New hooks were proposed and I weighed in on which ones seemed best. 4meter4 then did a full review of the nomination which ended with them referring to my previous comments as transphobic; they specifically cited the fact that Theleekycauldron gave them license to call me the name. I asked 4meter4 to retract their PA but instead they sent up a wall of text justifying the PA. I tried again and they sent up another wall of text. I knew it would raise hackles for me to say "jump in the lake" or to place a charged request on 4meter4's talk page. If I need to be sanctioned for being curt with an editor who leveled a PA I can accept that. For me the matter was closed after the 4meter4 nomination review and there appeared to be a consensus to run one of the new hooks. I was only trying to get 4meter4 to remove what I consider to be a PA. As for the charge that I refused to use correct pronouns It is my practice to refer to "the person" or "the subject" when commenting on articles. See here in my nomination statement and here in this rationale for how I customarily refer to people in discussions. Both 4meter4 and Theleekycauldron have not assumed good faith in violation of WP:5P4. Many people collegially discussed the issues with the nomination and got it back on track - but only two editors leveled a PA against me: 4meter4 and Theleekycauldron. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by 4meter4[edit]For my own part, I was doing my best to shepherd a contentious DYK hook through the nomination process. This meant summarizing and reading through both conversations at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Jane Baker and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Sarah Jane Baker and Nomination at Prep 2 and attempting to arrive at a consensus opinion. Lightburst made formal requests in both places to not promote this topic to the main page based on moral grounds, and it seemed impossible to promote a hook without addressing that request per our policies at WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED and the DYK hook approval process. This inevitably required addressing some of the problematic comments made by Lightburst which were identified by theleekycauldron as transphobic. It would be impossible to address a censorship request without looking at the POV of the person making the request. It's unfortunate that Lightburst took these comments as personal attacks, but I don't really see how these conversations could have happened differently given Lightburst's behavior, his choice of language, and his goal of trying to impose censorship within a DYK review.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Edward-Woodrow[edit](Non-administrator comment) Editors can have whatever convictions they choose. But they should be careful of sharing their beliefs, especially if such comments could be harmful or offensive. Such belligerent behaviour should have some consequences. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Result concerning Lightburst[edit]
|
Leyo
[edit]| Referred to Arbcom. No prejudice against reopening if the case is declined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 14 October 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 Leyo[edit]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Contentious_topic_designation Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions
After the last AE, I was advised to come back here if Leyo kept hounding editors and sniping on article talk pages and recent discussion here. More diffs/background on Leyo are at that AE link; the short summary is that I've dealt for years with WP:ASPERSIONS from Leyo (see the GMO principle for how disruptive editors frequently used those tactics to poison the well). They escalated the harassment this August where despite multiple cautions that they were WP:INVOLVED related to me, they used their admin tools to block me. This was pretty resoundingly found as both an involved and bad block on substance at XRV as well as some comments about Leyo clearly following my edits to articles they haven't edited. The first time I came to AE, it was to get help with the behavior problems independent of the admin tool abuse. Not addressing Leyo's behavior at AE seems to have emboldened them where they are now sniping at other editors on talk pages engaging in poisoning the well at perceived opponents in a very clear WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. After the AE, I recently did have to remind Leyo I was trying to avoid them as much as possible and asked them to do the same after some sniping about me using the term "we" when referring to multiple editors who had been working on improving an article. That one incident was so low-level I was just trying to ignore it, but they're clearly not going to leave me alone it seems. The first diff has Leyo showing up at an AfD for an article they never edited (potential WP:HOUNDING), but even if the article was on their watchlist, that would still be no excuse for continued sniping. This escalated to Leyo going after SmartSE in that diff and then JzG in the next diff despite being warned so many times, especially after the last caution by Bradv. This pursuit is why I asked for an interaction ban originally since Leyo basically just said they'd step back from admin duties, but repeatedly remained silent on the underlying behavior. Since Leyo is now targeting other editors though, I don't know if an interaction ban towards me alone would solve the issues, but I'm opening this because multiple editors and admins have also requested it. KoA (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Admin replies
Discussion concerning Leyo[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 Leyo[edit]I mostly disagree with the statements/interpretations above, e.g.:
--Leyo 21:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Smartse[edit]Given the short interval since the admin action review and the arbitration enforcement, it was surprising to see Leyo arrive at the AFD which KoA had already !voted in considering that they have never edited the article nor the talk page despite several recent discussions. At least to me, it appears as if they have continued to follow KoA around in what seems to be a clear case of WP:HOUNDING. It was even more surprising given the recent admonishments they were given about their behaviour that they have chosen to make snide remarks questioning the motives of myself, KoA and JzG. The previous AE discussion was moving towards an IBAN between KoA and Leyo, but given that they are now targeting multiple editors who oppose them, I suggest that a topic ban is now necessary. SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish[edit]KoA and Smartse have already provided pretty much all the relevant documentation, but I do want to add this diff: [6], from the recent WT:MEDRS discussion that also included the exchange about the supposed "royal we". Taken with the multiple diffs already provided above, especially those from the current AfD, one can see a very repetitious and ongoing pattern of Leyo going after other editors (KoA, Smartse, JzG, maybe others) who have different views about GMO/chemical content than Leyo has, and making unsubstantiated assertions that those editors' views should not be taken as valid. What really stands out to me is that, following the recent AE, the premise was that if Leyo backed off from the hostile interactions with KoA and others, no further action would be needed. Unfortunately, what is abundantly clear here is that, instead, Leyo has done the opposite. Although not using admin tools, Leyo has nonetheless continued the battleground conduct directed at his perceived adversaries, unabated. Clearly, the advice of the previous AE didn't work. Sanctions are needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by JzG[edit]Well, this explains the instant WP:ABF here [7], anyway - Leyo obviously remembers me, though I don't remember them. The best solution to the issue at hand would be to find reliable independent secondary sources that give WP:SIGCOV. Needless to say, if such existed, we would not be here. I personally feel that Leyo has crossed the line from documenting the subject to advocating for them. As a speaker of three languages and resident in CH, I guess maybe Leyo is not aware of how aggressive their statements sound? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Gtoffoletto[edit]I saw someone mention AE in the AfD discussion and imagined something like this must be happening... Leyo has been obviously following the developments of many of the pages currently being edited by KoA and others. Definitely not hounding. Just following the topic. There has been a lot of edit warring involved on those pages such as the current attempt at deleting the Pesticide Action Network page while removing most of its basic and non controversial content without any consideration. The same is being done to other NGO pages such as Environmental Working Group where editors (despite overwhelming lack of consensus) are attempting to remove any basic addition from the page forcing the community to discuss trivial topics for months. This is the second attempt by the same editor at removing Leyo from the conversation in the last few months. Especially since Leyo is clearly not participating in the discussions as an admin, this seems flimsy at best. I think WP:CPP is a relevant essay here. We are collectively wasting a lot of time trying to maintain the encyclopaedia, but I'll let others decide (Caveat Emptor: User talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive 3#July 2023). {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 21:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Darkfrog24[edit]Not involved in the recent conflict. I've interacted with JzG and Trypto before but I don't remember when or where off the top of my head. First diff: Leyo repeats someone's userpage self-description and claims someone was edit warring. Second: Snippy but not exactly casting aspersions. Third: "Please read the comments and course-correct as necessary." I don't see anything wrong. Other: "Your actions here remind me of [this negative thing]" is relatively mild phrasing. I don't think any of these are aspersions or even unWP:CIVIL. Manners-wise, I don't see Leyo doing anything that's even unusual in the diffs offered in the complaint. I mean, I've had someone literally call my contribs feces and it didn't trigger WP:CIVIL (not his exact words). The issue that Leyo is following KOA around is more concerning and seems to have more meat on it, given that KOA has explicitly asked them for space and that there was at least one confirmed improper act on Leyo's part. If someone's asked you to leave them alone, it is usually best to respect their wishes whenever reasonably practical. I've done it, and it wasn't even an inconvenience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Lightoil[edit]I think that WP:AE is the wrong place for this complaint against Leyo. I suggest instead filing an ARBCOM case request to settle this issue once and for all as Leyo is an admin. The reason being AE cannot remove admin status. Lightoil (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Leyo[edit]
|
Arminden
[edit]| Arminden blocked 48 hours. Hopefully no further action necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:15, 15 October 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 Arminden[edit]
These two edits, besides the name calling and death threat also violates the 1 revert rule.
Was notified at his talkpage: [9]
Discussion concerning Arminden[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 Arminden[edit]Comment by Boing![edit]This is clearly an emotional response to the horrendous events in Israel, and I can understand deeply-felt and angry reactions from anyone remotely close to what's happened. A 48h block seems appropriate to deal with the immediate need for prevention. And I'm disappointed to see people calling for stronger sanctions without offering evidence of any longer-term issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Iskandar323[edit]Regardless of the emotions circulating at this time, telling other editors to "Drop dead" is not acceptable, and I am extremely surprised to see such comments coming from Arminden, who has always come across as an exceptionally level-headed editor. However, no one is compelled to edit Wikipedia while in an emotional state, and those that are in such a state that they cannot edit without lashing out are better off recusing themselves temporarily from it, since such comments are clearly not fit for the project. @HJ_Mitchell: I would say the same principles apply in all contexts, regardless of external events and speculations on emotions. Isn't the room for manoeuvre facilitated in all cases by admission that perspective was lost? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]Arminden is an excellent editor and these comments are unacceptable. Both things are true. The ideal scenario is Arminden recognizes that, apologizes, and commits to separating his emotions from his editing. Many people have strong feelings here, but we're supposed to be on Wikipedia, not in the field of battle so to speak. nableezy - 21:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Arminden[edit]
|
The Great Mule of Eupatoria
[edit]| The Great Mule of Eupatoria pblocked for a fortnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:54, 17 October 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 The Great Mule of Eupatoria[edit]
At Jabalia camp market airstrike
Multiple violations of both WP:1RR and WP:3RR. On the 8th, I notified them of contentious topics being applied to this area and informed them of the WP:1RR limit, asking them to be more careful in the future. On the 9th, I asked them to self-revert after breaching both 1RR and 3RR; they reverted some, but not all, of what they could self-revert in this edit. See this related article talk page discussion. Following this, they made an additional revert on October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict and two reverts on Jabalia camp market airstrike; see also the discussion on their talk page about the second revert. There may have been additional reverts that I missed.
Discussion concerning The Great Mule of Eupatoria[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Great Mule of Eupatoria[edit]Today’s wasn’t a revert as far as I know, but instead a justified removal of a topic that already violated Wikipedia policy and it was eventually fully removed. I did mention in all of today’s edits that were reverted that I will not revert reverted edits (shown in the discussion page). Being informed on the “revert edit limit” I did try to go back and undo my own reverts, including one which messed up the page. I didn’t edit the page much today, since I was preoccupied with illustrating lesser crested, greater crested, and caspian terns (I was also illustrating common terns yesterday). Most of my activities today were in the talk page or rewords, as for the reverts of the market massacres, they were different page than the war conflict page so I don’t believe it falls under edit warring as I did not revert the reverted edits. Lots of “reverts” in that last paragraph so slay.
Statement by Selfstudier[edit]Hum, overenthusiastic editing in a very active article (they are not the only one). I believe a warning is the usual thing for a newish editor and first offense. Should lay off the slang, most won't even know what it means, me included. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning The Great Mule of Eupatoria[edit]
|
Colin
[edit]| No action is required. LokiTheLiar is advised to follow WP:DR which probably means an WP:RFC although this August 2022 RfC might be sufficient. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Colin[edit]
I've known Colin for a while as a good contributor to the GENSEX topic area. However, recently, he's been making some very odd and concerning arguments on Talk:TERF_(acronym) and Talk:Gender-critical_feminism. Many of them, as in the diffs above, are for excluding academic sources based purely on WP:OR reasons such as believing the topic to be outside the ability of academia to decide, or an apparent personal belief that "TERF" is a slur. And several are even worse than that, up to and including arguing for exclusion of a certain source because the author of the source is trans, and doubling down on this assertion when challenged. This is surprising to me because, again, I usually think of Colin as a pretty good contributor to the topic area. I'm not sure what sanctions I'm actually supporting here but I would at least like an official warning. Loki (talk) @Johnuniq The assertion here is a) that Colin is POV-pushing by denying the reliability of academic sources, b) that he's also doing a whole bunch of WP:NOTFORUM soapboxing on the topic in the process, c) the main reason I decided to make this report, that he's trying to deny a source is valid based on the identity of the author. I don't think anyone would have trouble seeing the issue if an editor was for excluding an academic source because the author was black, or Jewish, or a woman. @Tamzin Noted, but I do think that what I'm calling WP:OR problems above are also WP:NOTFORUM problems. The point is that he's making a lot of arguments that aren't consistent with policy. Loki (talk) @ScottishFinnishRadish / @Colin Now that Colin's struck the worst comment and admitted it was inappropriate, I'm okay with withdrawing this. Loki (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Colin[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 Colin[edit]I have struck reference to McKinnon's transgender status. I agree that was not appropriate to mention and is quite irrelevant to my argument. They are an activist who casually uses the word "TERF" to describe "people who hate trans people" or "bigots" or "assholes" as she describes them. I have not once asked for any sources to be "excluded", as Loki repeatedly asserts above, or doubted their "reliability" (though the quality of "reliability" depends quite on what information one is drawing from the source and claiming). I am certainly not asking for "an academic source" to be "excluded" because of an identity aspect of the author. Wikipedia accepts biased sources. I think Loki has confused my claim that McKinnon is biased on the matter of whether TERF is a slur with thinking I view their work as "unreliable" or that it should be "excluded". I also think Loki has confused the academic nature of their work into thinking that makes opinions in it "facts" that can be asserted in Wikipedia voice or used to determine if a slur-redirect is just fine and dandy. McKinnon has their opinions and the article notes them. Activists on the other side (e.g. Suzanne Moore writing in the Telegraph) have their opinions. Neither of these people are neutral impartial voices, they are biased, and both opinions may be noted in attributed form on Wikipedia in accordance with due weight. What we lack, in this domain, however, are reliable secondary sources saying things like "most academics think" or "is generally considered to be / not to be ..." and so on. We just have a bunch of primary sources on people's personal opinions. That opinions on whether this word is a slur fall align exactly with "depends who you ask" is a problem for Wikipedia and frustrating. I think that has a bearing on the validity of a recent move that turned TERF into a redirect to gender-critical feminism. Previously it had the content that is now at TERF (acronym) which notes, among other things, that it is disputed whether or not TERF is a slur and whether it is, today, being used as a label about radical feminists or even feminists. I think during the discussion Loki has learned about WP:RS/AC and accepted their article content previously overstated that there was any consensus on this. I've also learned during the discussion, what philosophy of language is. I think McKinnon's paper and youtube arguments are sloppy and have picked them apart much as I might pick apart a sloppy work making medical claims. I also think I have written way too much and should accept that editors in the discussion have dug their heels in and there is no consensus or likely to be one. -- Colin°Talk 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC) I ask Loki strikes his above link to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. For the avoidance of doubt for anyone joining this who don't know me, I'm very much not on the "TERF" side. My argument in this debate is that TERF, today, is a hate word, and Loki should read Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive to find out what it says about people who fling about slurs. I don't think either side hating each other is productive, respectful or a good way to be a human being. -- Colin°Talk 08:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved editor Bon courage[edit]Happened to notice this because this page is lingering on my watch list, and a report on Colin seemed surprising. I went straight to the most grave accusation "Directly says that the author of said paper is not reliable because she is transgender" sourced to this[10]. But looking at the diff that is not what is said, "directly" or otherwise. The point being made is that a source written by an activist is likely to be biased on the topic of that activism, which seems totally reasonable to discuss, especially on an article Talk page! The fact that the filing party then tried to push back against this by invoking WP:NPA seems utterly bizarre.[11] Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved editor Graham Beards[edit]This is just a lively discussion on the reliability of sources, which is precisely what Talk Pages are for! Our policy on original research clearly says "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Colin is the author of WP:MEDRS and thus has proven expertise on judging the quality of sources; it would be wiser to listen to him rather than protesting here. Graham Beards (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Colin[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Makeandtoss
[edit]| Appeal is declined both on procedural grounds, as the sanction had expired, and for lacking a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 22 October 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 and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Makeandtoss[edit]Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard.
Statement by HJ Mitchell[edit]Appellant started an ANI thread to complain about another editor (since also blocked) in a manner suggestive of weaponising processes to remove an opponent. The complaint was that the other editor had removed an RfC the appellant started and had then archived the appellant's message on their own talk page. There are obvious issues with holding a formal RfC on a six-day-old article that is in a state of constant flux. Removing the RfC altogether was the wrong approach and the editor in question was the wrong person to do anything with it, but going straight to a noticeboard instead of just restoring it was about the most dramatic course of action possible. The ANI thread (predictably) descended into interpersonal bickering, in which the appellant played a large part. During the ANI discussion, the appellant's use of edit summaries was raised, specifically this one. The edit removed the text the de facto government of Palestine in Gaza, which is how Hamas was introduced in the article, with the edit summary Hamas is a non-state actor, no reliable sources have used this phrasing to describe the group. Issues with phrasing should be resolved by editing or discussion, not wholesale removal, and claiming that sources don't support the claim that Hamas is the de facto government in Gaza is absurd; the removal leaves the opening sentence without an explanation of who or what Hamas is. There was also evidence presented of 1RR violations. The reason for a block does not need to be one of the "common block rationales". Warnings are not a requirement, but the standards of conduct expected in the topic area are clear and well-advertised and the threshold for sanctions is lower than in other areas. This was a mild sanction; the other party at ANI got a two-week site ban for similar conduct, mostly because they had a longer block log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Merlinsorca[edit]I was invited to join this discussion by the appealing user. I don’t see a reason for Makeandtoss to remain blocked. As already mentioned, we were able to amicably resolve edit disagreements via talk pages. In terms of edit warring, most editors on the article in question have engaged in similar, if not even more questionable, behavior. I don’t think these editors should be blocked either; this is just the nature of a contentious and heavily edited article. Actually, I’ve found Makeandtoss to be far more open and receptive to dialogue and discussing conflicts than other editors. Merlinsorca 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Makeandtoss[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 Iskandar323[edit]As Merlinsorca has noted, Makeandtoss is exceptionally open to dialogue and I'm not sure the laconic edit summary mentioned above, if this was indeed part of the reason to block, was particularly onerous. The phrasing removed is indeed marginal at best, and the details were not mentioned in the body of the page in any case, so it was technically accurate that there was nothing supporting this phrasing on the page in question here, even though it is supported on the referenced topic's own dedicated page . However, one could just have easily argued for the removal on the basis of it being off-topic, excessive detail in the lead, etc. (we expressly link terms to more detailed pages for this very reason, per WP:SUMMARY), so the removal was not unsound, and indeed, the removal appears to be affirmed by its lack of restoration on the page as it stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich[edit]Haven't looked into the rest, but I'm going to opine that the disingenuous edit summary is actually a miscommunication. The text removed was "de facto government of Palestinians in Gaza," and the edit summary says no RS uses that phrasing. My guess is that neither Makeandtoss (nor Iskandar, nor anyone else) would deny that Hamas is the de facto government in Gaza. The confusion probably stems from the words "of Palestinians," because "government of Palestinians in Gaza" could be interpreted to mean that Hamas is the government, located in Gaza, of all Palestinians (including those outside of Gaza, e.g. the West Bank) (which is not true and no RS makes this claim) vs. Hamas is the government of only those Palestinians in Gaza (which is true and supported by RS). I think Makeandtoss interpreted the phrasing to mean the former (though I interpret the phrasing to mean the latter). Levivich (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Makeandtoss[edit]
|
LoomCreek
[edit]| LoomCreek partially blocked from Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion for two weeks by Tamzin. Seems they're better aware of the rules around 1RR now, and hopefully this behavior does not recur. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning LoomCreek[edit]
Edit warring over whether and how to mention Hananya Naftali:
Edit warring over description of Channel 4's assessment of the voice intercept: (Content originally added by LoomCreek, diff not linked) Edit warring over whether to attribute a casualty estimate to the "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry", or just the "Gaza Health Ministry": Edit warring over whether to mention the initial Guardian impression:
Edit warring over whether to say that Al Jazeera attributed the explosion to Israel:
Edit warring over whether to use "claim" in reference to Israeli statements about the explosion: Edit warring over whether sources were sufficient for a claim: (Content originally added by LoomCreek, diff not linked)
I requested that they self-revert whichever of these reverts that they could and while they said they would This request does not include every problematic edit; I would need approximately 30 more diffs and 200 words to present them all. Note also that some of these diffs are consecutive, and thus do not count as separate reverts; however, no diffs in the same section are consecutive with each other. This case potentially extends into AP2; while investigating these reverts I noticed they had previously been warned twice about edit warring at Red scare; investigating further I found that they had engaged in edit wars at other articles that I believe are covered by contentious topics, including Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán (3RR breach) and Killing of Rayshard Brooks. 07:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LoomCreek[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 LoomCreek[edit]As for the claim of misuse at other articles, Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán and Killing of Rayshard Brooks the 3R was never broken. And they tried to claim a revert that I did removing hate speech was falsely labeled Hate speech, someone putting "(was/were)" under a gender nonconforming person whose been killed classifies as such. Red Scare was also someone singlehandedly attempting to change the lead intro after several editors told them to stop and that they were not acting in good faith. If I could back I would've done more to handle it better, the 3R rule was never broken however. Now to address on the current topic. For Naftali I did more then I should, before I was fully aware of the different ruleset. After I learned of it I stopped.
The first one was simply an additional quotation from the politifact article and clean up of the intro sentence to make it easier to read, something I said in my summary (this edit is the only one that came after billedmammal had informed me).The second one was just a simple removal of original research, there wasn't any reliable sources cited to it, had nothing to do with the content. The other edits I definitely made a mistake on and I'm sorry about that. All earlier edits were made in good faith, it was just before I was fully aware of the ruleset around the article. I would also like to mention most of the topics here were heavily discussed in the talk page. I'll drop editing this topic for a while, and if you like to implement a topic ban for a while that's fine. But I want to make it clear I was not acting in bad faith. LoomCreek (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Jeppiz[edit]This would be seem to be an unusually clear case of repeated disruptive behaviour. Some of the diffs provided show flagrant violations of the 1RR in place on these articles, and should have led to blocks if reported. The fact that we see so many disruptions from LoomCreek in such a short time, and on so sensitive articles, indicate that they should not edit the ARBPIA area. The occasional overstep is one thing, but systematic violations is not acceptable. Jeppiz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning LoomCreek[edit]
|
BilledMammal
[edit]| Brandmeister, the OP, is banned from 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh and its associated sub-pages. There is consensus that no action is required against BilledMammal. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 23 October 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 BilledMammal[edit]
BilledMammal appears to still show unhelpful behavior by trying to override third-party opinion and without opening a threaded discussion. Earlier they were blocked once and received at least three warnings.
November 2022 edit-warring warning
Rlendog, Vanamonde93, I'm seeing a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption of dispute resolution process here, where an uninvolved opinion has been a central pillar. With that in mind, attempts to seek further dispute resolution become frustrating and time-consuming. Brandmeistertalk 18:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Bishonen, Vanamonde93: With regards to being circumspect after logged warning, I decided on this report because in my view BM's behavior was unhelpful. But I understand that whether a particular behavior is sanctionable or not depends on admin interpretation. In the same way, opinions of non-admin users may differ, just like mine. I recognize admins' dissent, but do not think that WP:Boomerang is an issue here - I do not have the habit to submit frivolous reports or abuse ANI in some way. I think much of it comes from the aforementioned difference in interpretation of sanctionable behavior. I've read admins' arguments about further dispute resolution and acknowledge them. Brandmeistertalk 20:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BilledMammal[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 BilledMammal[edit]To provide the full edit summaries for the first and second diffs:
Next, I'm not sure why the warnings are relevant, particularly the 2022 ones, but since they are included I feel I should explain them:
As for the actual topic of this report, this is a content issue; there isn't a consensus at BLPN to include it. This is perhaps getting a little too far into content for AE, but I believe that it shouldn't be included because it is WP:UNDUE, and because it is possibly a BLP violation. The former is because it has received almost no coverage in reliable and independent sources. The latter because we deem it a "controversy", but reliable and independent sources have not done so. Further, we give weight to the claim that he left out information that undermined his conclusions, despite no reliable and independent source doing so. It also fails to mention that the report was commissioned by Azerbaijan, even though the comment from the uninvolved editor that Brandmeister justifies their edit with says This ANI discussion from last week may also be relevant, as in it I accused Brandmeister of misrepresenting three sources in this topic area. 10:42, 13 October 2023
Statement by uninvolved editor Bon courage[edit]Meh. While the idea of 'a six-day stable version ' of an article is an intriguing one, this just looks like robust-ish editing from BilledMammal very similar to the kind that the complainant has been doing on the same page. So: a content dispute in an area where consensus is indeed unclear, with nothing rising (yet) to the level of disruption where admins need to step in. Both editors would be advised to dial things back and try for a wider consensus before resuming the back-and-forth reverting to the point where it does become a problem, in my humble view. Bon courage (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Grandmaster[edit]I only recently started editing the article in question, but immediately noticed problematic editing by BilledMammal. In particular, here he completely removed the important finding by the UN mission to Nagorno-Karabakh region, claiming that it was WP:UNDUE. In reality, the finding reported by the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric [29] has a direct relevance to the topic of the article, and the opinion of the number one international organization that actually sent a mission to the conflict location cannot be undue. If there are sources that question the UN finding, we can only present them along with what the UN says, but not remove the important part of the UN report. It looks to me like a tendentious editing by BilledMammal. Grandmaster 13:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Kevo327[edit]A report based on diffs related to the BLPN discussion which has no consensus for OP's recent edit, not to mention WP:ONUS - but that didn't stop OP from restoring their edits repeatedly and reverting users [30]. The UN detail edit's discussion that was opened yesterday has no consensus either, in fact, several editors have disagreed to add undue barely present in RS detail to an already undue report that was heavily criticized [31], [32] by RS. This AE case is subpar and perhaps raises concerns about OP's competence and witch hunting opposing them editors, they were recently warned by @El C: for opening another content dispute AE case [33]. - Kevo327 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by HistoryofIran[edit]I've been keeping a watchful eye on Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and its talk page. This looks an attempt to get rid of a opposing editor. An investigation should made regarding Brandmeister's edits and conducts, who seems to be doing his best to justify and minimize the actions of Azerbaijan against the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians per the ANI report and his other comments/edits in that thread. Grandmaster, who supports Brandmeister here and in that article has also just filed an SPI against one of the other opposing users, what a coincidence [34]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by KhndzorUtogh[edit]I felt I should make a statement, given that Brandmeister made an AE request against me as well last week. That request, also, was considered to have been over nothing sanctionable, and Brandmeister was given a WP:FORUMSHOP warning because that AE thread was made right after I had made an ANI discussion about Brandmeister. If Brandmeister is already making a new AE report for someone they are disagreeing with so soon after the last one and it is again for conduct that is non-sanctionable, should a WP:BOOMERANG apply to this excessive reporting? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by DFlhb[edit]Not seeing anything sanctionable in the original request. I also don't see any problems with the diff User:Grandmaster highlighted as problematic editing. However, Grandmaster's comments in the talk page discussion are puzzling, for example stating that notability is the "main criterion" for inclusion in articles, that to remove information is to "censor" it, or that it is original research to discuss a source's relevance on the basis of statements made in other reliable published sources. Not that I'm saying those are sanctionable either, but an experienced editor making those comments is concerning, especially in a CTOP. For the record I've never edited that page, nor, to my knowledge, that topic area. DFlhb (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Result concerning BilledMammal[edit]
|
Cukrakalnis
[edit]| Cukrakalnis given a logged, final warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 28 October 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 Cukrakalnis[edit]
In my opinion edits undertaken by Cukrakalnis, are incompatible with the spirit of Wikipedia and calculated to hide inconvenient historical facts that he does not favor. And due to the fact that I am one of the few editors who monitors this area, I am concerned that they may go unnoticed. I have had disputes with C in the past on various topics, and while I have not always found his edits to be the best, I consider his edits on the topic of collaboration with Nazi Germany to be particularly alarming, as the misrepresentations made on this topic is in my opinion especially harmful. Still, I think C is capable of giving a lot in other areas.
Discussion concerning Cukrakalnis[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 Cukrakalnis[edit]Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. --Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Marcelus already wrongly reported me a year ago - on 8 July 2022. Marcelus' WP:GRUDGE has not ceased over the past two years. Last year, to stop any problems caused by the problematic interactions with Marcelus, I asked for an IBAN, which was not granted. Almost a full year later, other users already noticed that the interpersonal dynamic is problematic: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Cukrakalnis and Marcelus' history of incivility/bickering towards each other (submitted by a user now renamed User:Prodraxis). Just a month before this, User:Ostalgia said I see nothing wrong in me following Wikipedia's rules and removing WP:PARENTCATs in articles where they were superfluous. Category:Generalbezirk Litauen is already a subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. Thus, it follows that I should remove the parent cat in favour of the more specific category. It is absolutely unfair to characterize me as trying to deny Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, because I myself created Category:Lithuanian Security Police officers which I clearly tagged Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany. Furthermore, this was just a part of my broader effort to help in the work on collaboration with the Axis Powers in World War II - I was cleaning up the category tree to make sure that categories would be as precise as possible and to remove cases where there were superfluous parent categories. Here are a few cases out of the many many edits that I did: [62], [63], [64], etc. Please note: I received a barnstar User:Cukrakalnis#For intelligent discussion and content creation in the area of Collaboration with the Axis Powers, so clearly my contributions are according to Wikipedia's rules and it is only Marcelus that mistakenly finds fault where there is none. The cases that Marcelus tries to use as proof against me only show that I was following Wikipedia's rules. E.g. with Święciany massacre [65] - I had created the Category:Massacres in Lithuania during World War II and that is why I had to remove a few categories that were the parent cat of the newly-created one I had just created. Upon seeing that the article already had Category:Generalbezirk Litauen, which was the subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, why would it make sense to keep a superfluous category ? It doesn't, so that's why I removed it. Regarding the Nazi Germany thing in the allegiance of those battalions - Marcelus omits that the allegiance tag is supposed to be used if the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign country. Instead, the units we were dealing with were all auxiliary police units, thus not part of the Wehrmacht - Nazi Germany's armed forces. Overall, Marcelus just wants to ban me because we disagree. Either way, Marcelus' actions and report go directly against the spirit of the conditions on which his block was lifted not even 2 weeks before today (Marcelus' block log here). Marcelus went against the strong recommendations of administrators like User:Z1720: Apologies for the infrequent editing the past few days (which will continue into the future), because I am busy with matters in my life.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by 137.22.90.18[edit]Searching on WP:EDR, WP:AEL and in the AE archives doesn't give any topic ban for Cukrakalnis. While I'm going to assume that there is one, could you provide a diff of the sanction for other users to review Marcelus? Otherwise, if there isn't a link to an alleged TBAN, I think that this could still be handled at AE (Eastern Europe is a contentious topic), but discussing admins should note the lack of evidence for the TBAN. The linked unblock discussion also does not appear to be specifically about the alleged TBAN topic. 137.22.90.18 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Darkfrog24[edit]Hi. Not involved in the conflict, never met these editors before. Just checking the diffs: 1) [68]Yes, this user removed the category "Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany." 2) Added cat "Massacres in Lithuania during World War II" in a context that does involve Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. To save space, I'll say that I checked every diff, and I believe any reasonable person would conclude that all of them are indeed related to Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany in some way. Some are categoires, some are content, one is a talk page post, and some are change descriptions, but every diff is related to that concept. So even if this topic ban has a carve-out that allows C to change article categories, say, there would still be enough here to be worth considering. The issue is, as anon137 says, whether there is a topic ban in force. Could it have been one set years ago that's since expired? Has C's username changed since it was placed? I do not believe that the diff on line 15 rises to the point of a personal attack. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Piotrus[edit]Sigh. I'd offer mediation again but I don't think I have the time, will, or sufficient neutrality for it to work (since I am Polish as well). Ping User:Elinruby for their thoughts (sorry for dragging you into this... but hey, there is a tiny chance they may want to offer to mediate more themselves - they have done so recently more than me at Talk:Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force). Other than that, I am at a loss whether edits by those two users are problematic enough to warrant a topic or interaction ban (newsflash: I don't like sanctioning folks if there is a chance to work things out peacefully per WP:HERE). Is the content improving? If so, then this is more smoke then flame. But are both parties improving things equally? This would require a more in-depth review than we seem to want to do, leaving us with the choice of doing nothing, or doing something, both of which could .be wrong. If nothing jumps out, well, there's time-sanctioned concept of more WP:ROPE I guess. PS. Regarding content improvement, I will note that there is a copyvio issue that came to my attention recently. See here for my analysis. How widespread is the problem I have no idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Elinruby[edit]I just suggested to Marcelus last night a search for other sources not in either Polish or Lithuanian, and proposed some definitions of collaboration, which is not as obvious as it apparently seems to some. It is largely unsourced OR overall in the many many European WW2 articles, from what I have seen. Marcelus, if you were polishing diffs while I was explaining Stanley Hoffman vs Bertram Gordon vs Fabrice Grenard... dude, miss me with the time-wasting stuff next time you've already decided to do something like this. I don't need help finding stuff to do, at all, I despise drama, and this was not a good idea. You should withdraw this complaint if they let you.
TL;DR probably worth the effort but man...totally counterproductive dramah...Elinruby (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Ostalgia[edit]We were here a month ago with these two in what I described as the nth case involving them. I guess this is n +1. Both are active users, both can contribute to the encyclopedia, but they stand on completely opposite positions and edit in an area that is not only conflictive in general, but also work on and around topics on which there's significant overlap (Polish and Lithuanian history are deeply intertwined). Their antipathy towards one another is evident and intractable. Last month I suggested a 2-way IBAN and I still believe that, whatever else is decided here, the IBAN rises to the level of a necessity at this point. Ostalgia (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cukrakalnis[edit]
|
Hedikupa Parepvigi
[edit]| Hedikupa Parepvigi indef'd by Tamzin as a community sanction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 28 October 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 Hedikupa Parepvigi[edit]
Between the continued edits to AA-topics following a CTOPs notice as an account with 50 edits, the parroting of the "FETÖ" conspiracy theory line to attempt to dismiss criticisms of Turkish state sources, and the SPA-focus on Turkish-Armenian politics and related topics, I think a topic ban or NOTHERE block is warranted. I would action it myself, but I am involved in the RSN discussion about Anadolu Agency. signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hedikupa Parepvigi[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 Hedikupa Parepvigi[edit]I have not edited any Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Firstly, I edited Turkish journalist Fatih Altaylı's biography. This article did not have any warnings on its talk page that it was covered by AA. Secondly, Gülenist terror network (FETÖ) is a criminal organization that has been outlawed by Turkey, Pakistan, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Gulf Cooperation Council and Organization of Islamic Cooperation. It is responsible for the 2016 Turkish coup attempt and the killing of 250 Turkish citizens. In June 2022, Western democracies like Sweden and Finland officially pledged to curb activities of this illegal organization.[1] This topic is not covered by AA either just like Fatih Altaylı's biography.--Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Statement by Ostalgia[edit]I am completely uninvolved in this topic, but since I participated in an unrelated discussion that is yet to be closed I'm checking AE every once in a while. I have to say the reply Hedikupa Parepvigi just gave Theleekycauldron does not fill me with confidence, in fact, quite the opposite.
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Hedikupa Parepvigi[edit]
|
Lilijuros
[edit]| Lilijuros indef-AEblocked for continuing WP:ARBECR violations and battleground conduct. Two tangential disputes—one between Nableezy and לילך5 (Lilach5) and one among several users including Nableezy and Neutrality—were also considered. Both are deferred without prejudice against a separate filing; in the latter case, I acknowledge both parties' intent to back away from the dispute, and Nableezy's acknowledgment of an overly harsh tone. (This is neither a finding of fault nor blamelessness on either party's part, and should not be cited as such in future disputes.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 12:16, 26 October 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 Lilijuros[edit]
This was modified to
N/A
Either the original or the modified comment are unacceptable personal attacks. I will aim to drop my snark level. It be helpful if the canvassing and bad faith reading of my comments ended though. nableezy - 23:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Tamzin and anybody else, I have no interest in furthering any dispute with Neutrality here, and being honest with myself some of the things I have read and seen over the past few days have left me overly emotional and likely overly confrontational. Im definitely not saying Im wrong, but I did go harder than strictly necessary. nableezy - 17:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Lilijuros[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 Lilijuros[edit]Statement by Jeppiz[edit]Not involved and happened to see this as I follow AE. Could I point out there are two possible interpretations here. "Intelligence" can mean both "information" (access to intelligence) or "mental capacity (being intelligent). It would seem the user meant the first usage, suggesting that ordinary wiki-users don't have access to intelligence. They did also use "stupid", which is not ok, but I'm less sure the intelligence part was meant to insult. Jeppiz (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by לילך5[edit]@ScottishFinnishRadish: could you take a look at Special:Diff/1180879557 by Nableezy? He wrote that a fellow editor made a "dishonest claim" and also made an ethnic characterization with "and no it is not just those dishonest Arabs reporting about it". This is worse than Lilijuros' comment. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Alcibiades979[edit]I've been on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion page and have witnessed a torrent of abuse by Nableezy. In response to a moderator requesting WP:ONUS in regard to the inclusion of a source he swore repeatedly at the moderator here, casting aspersions in edit summary here, abusive comments here, more abusive comments to a moderator here, more here. And this is only in the past 24 hours and related to one page. I've been editting wiki for years and haven't seen behaviour like this before. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by AndyTheGrump[edit]Since I've been mentioned here, I should probably note that (a) I stand by my 'bullshit' characterisation of Neutrality's post at WP:FTN, and (b) that whatever Neutrality was doing at FTN, it most assuredly wasn't anything a 'moderator' worthy of that name would be doing, even if Wikipedia had them. I have largely stayed away from discussions concerning recent events in the Middle East, mostly on the basis that I've given up any hope of Wikipedia being able to produce anything even approximating to encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. I do however reserve the right to point out that canvassing is going on, and when someone (anyone, admin or not) then writes Result concerning Lilijuros[edit]
|
Nishidani
[edit]| Andrevan and Nishidani have both agreed to disagree and voluntarily withdraw from the article for a while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 27 October 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 Nishidani[edit]
What I want to show in the diffs here is that Nishidani accuses good faith editors attempting to make improvements as having a destructive motive, editors of incompetence, that any dispute is a waste of time, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, has been repeatedly warned and previously banned and blocked, continues to be unkind to various editors such as BobFromBrockley, myself, Tryptofish, and others. He is very abrasive, and he has a strong POV. I tried a few times to warn him, to reach out to him and tell him what he is doing is a problem as did other editors.
I invited Nishidani to amend or strike these incivil messages. My prior discussions with Nishidani
A little puzzled by the comment by Johnuniq, I didn't claim Nishidani used the verbatim word "destruct," the exact quote was, Nishidani has responded on his own talk page with an utter lack of self-awareness, remorse or concern, no apology or intent to strike or change their uncivil behavior.[78][79] Comment by Selfstudier fails to address, and rather excuses, civility issues and instead substitutes their own opinion on a content dispute. Presently, the RM has more support than opposition, and it is not just 2 editors carrying on, despite the continued false claims by Nishidani and others that editors are simply repeating themselves. That's a falsehood. Please note I did not participate in the AFD of the article, so that's another red herring. Nishidani continues to respond on their own talk page with absolutely 0 collegiality or any awareness whatsoever of the civility lines breached. I find Jeppiz's comment also quite puzzling, since there's nothing frivolous whatsoever about this report, and I appreciate Ealdgyth's message. Nishidani is a valuable contributor, that was never in dispute, but I am asking for adherence to the civility policy. It is forbidden to speculate on other editors' motivations. Do I need to explain this to experienced users? The pound of flesh thing was an unfortunate turn of phrase by someone I know to not have meant that. I hope and AGF. Regarding Tryptofish's comment. But I also want to ask the admins to understand there is a chilling effect of the antisemitic-adjacent bullying in this topic area that must be addressed. Which is that antisemitism is a big issue in this topic. Groups and individuals in this topic often bring up. It's common to paint with a broad brush. It's common to stereotype. By the actors in the content area. Not accusing any individual. But we need civility, and we need respect, good faith, and collegiality. Nishidani, in my final attempt to offer an attempt for him to soften his tone, retract his personal attacks, etc., has doubled down once again[80] Regarding Levivich's arguments, if Levivich shows me that I have overstated or misunderstood or misapprehended something, then I told him that he is right. I stand by where my arguments ended up - if I made errors, I try to listen and correct them. How is that tendentious? El Haj, is a supporter of BDS, a movement that some people have claimed is antisemitic. I did not say she is. But she's a pro-Palestinian nationalist actor who has been met with controversy. The bottom line is, I'm willing to change my mind in content disputes. Nishidani is not and shows extensive WP:OWNership behavior. Nobody has provided any diffs that show the same on my end. Like I want to be clear here. Saying that a source doesn't say something, and then having someone cite that it does, is a GOOD THING. That's discussion. It's not tendentious, people make mistakes. There are hundreds and hundreds and pages cited. Nobody has an encyclopedic memory of everything or every page. It's not "misrepresentation" and it's not "debunking." It's discussion. I don't claim to be perfect. Again, all I'm asking is civility. I want to say it's deeply unfair and disturbing if I come here asking for civility and some people think that I need a warning for tendentious editing. I've never said an uncivil word to the opponents in the dispute. I attacked a professor for her positions as not being unbiased. That is based on reliable sources.[81][82][83] etc I've engaged in good faith discussion along with other editors and I am not the only one. I am repeatedly attacked in ways that are not permitted by civility policy. And the response from some admins and other users is "well, he's frustrated, so that's OK"? Incivility is NOT OK. Tamzin, it's perfectly problematic to insinuate that El Haj is antisemitic, something that I attempted not to do. I said that El Haj was controversial and that she's a leader of BDS, a Palestinian nationalist movement that some people consider antisemitic (I didn't say I consider it antisemitic), though I made clear not to accuse any individual, and she shouldn't be given equal billing to a Jewish geneticist. Nishidani's statements on Ostrer and Behar and others were equally dismissive (I can provide these diffs, if anyone finds this useful). I didn't claim that's because they are Jewish. That's not why. It's content. I'm assuming I'm over word count so I can't respond anymore, but I'll respond one more time. Please look at any diffs of mine or edits of mine closely. I will defend that I have always sought to understand. I would challenge the interpretation that I am refusing to change or repeating myself; that is a lie. It's also a lie that I have misrepresented or sought to misrepresent sources. I urge admins and other users not to accept, at face value, the falsehood that I have been singlehandedly disrupting this page or creating noise that is tendentious on the talk page and misrepresenting material. That is a blatant lie. One more comment. I came here complaining about a bright line civility violation. Now we're playing a BOOMERANG game. Is Andrevan a tendentious editor, did Andrevan violate BLP, did Andrevan misrepresent sources. I promise I did not. But open a separate thread about me. This is about Nishidani's civility. Or, is it OK for some editors to be incivil to others as long as those editors were tendentious? Not what I thought. I assume I am not supposed to comment here anymore, but I will be taking a nice long break from the article regardless. Levivich should review the accepted definition and metrics for WP:BLUDGEON, as it in no way described responding politely to a thread and asking for clarification or discussing questions. And please let me know if I need to strike or remove these comments due to the word count. I've actually rarely been to AE before and certainly never warned or sanctioned here that I can recall. There was a kerfluffle in 2018 when I was an admin; ask me about it if you want to know. But Nishidani has been repeatedly warned and topic-banned, so despite his gracious message below and other times that he has been gracious and we've gotten along, I do think he should at the very least, agree to a mutual break on the article in question. I will certainly be taking a long break from that article and from this dispute and any interactions adjacent to that, HJ Mitchell, so that is agreeable to me if it is agreeable to Nishidani.
Discussion concerning Nishidani[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 Nishidani[edit]I thought it best (in terms of not wasting even more time) not to comment here. I do so now because it has been suggested that the situation is so 'toxic' on that page that all editors should be banned from it. That would be deeply unfair, especially to Levivich. I have clashed with Levivich, quite strongly (on my talk page in the distance past) over I/P issues. But, even while doing so, I have had occasion to admire and express deep appreciation for his mastery of wiki protocols, and exceptional ability in cutting to the chase to make a neutral, balanced assessment of conflicting views in lengthy disputes, on any number of other topics that, when I have noted them, arise on various administrative pages. On the page in question, in the early deletion process, there was something very peculiar someone like myself had to handle: objecting editors refusing to accept what strong sources clearly stated. To my surprise, Levivich stepped in, and comprehensively demolished these early objections, succinctly, with analytical cogency, on the basis of source mastery. He'd done his homework thoroughly and came out in favour of its retention. Given our past clashes, I couldn't but admire the way he suspended all ideological or personal readings, and simply hewed to the documentary facts, which happened to suggest that the title, and its content were a reasonable summary of the state of scholarship on a little known and neglected topic. It was proof of exceptional integrity, shorn of any suspicion of bias, partisanship, or politics, in a very sensitive topic area where we have, elsewhere, often found ourselves at opposite ends of the spectrum. On my page, without mentioning his name, I cited several passages from his early comments, that more or less corroborated the fact that I was not alone in my frustrations. For using that material I apologize to Levivich. I should not have dragged him into this. He certainly should not suffer from any general sanction, because his neutrality is above suspicion, and his judgment has been throughout informed by mastery of the topic sources, which few other editors appear to have troubled themselves to read. His intervention for me exemplified how an ideal administrator would behave in managing conflict. I'd have no objection to being banned from the page, if the closer also looks at the behaviour of the plaintiff in this case and takes some similar measure in their regard. It's been three months, the dispute is driven by just two people among a score of editors, and it's time to bury it. Take out one from each side for balance to respect the cause-and-effect aspect of this continual disruption and this sorry episode can finally rest.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier (involved)[edit]Filer has proposed an RM to change the current article title from "Zionism, race and genetics" to "Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism" which on the face of it has little to do with the existing title. Said RM is not at present garnering a consensus and has devolved into increasingly bald assertions with little foundation such as "The point is that the article scope is synthetic and stitched together" an argument repeated ad nauseum and which failed at AfD. Imo Nishidani is with some justification irritated (as am I, tbh) at the continued efforts of a subset of involved editors persistently advocating for a change of title and complaining about the article content for months in succession following an AfD which did not achieve the desired outcome from their POV. The longer the talk page gets the more likely it is this sort of thing is going to occur, the RM should be allowed to conclude without further disruption (from anyone). Statement by Jeppiz[edit]I must say I find this complaint somewhat frivolous. I have disagreed with Nishidani on content matters many, many times but hold Nishidani to be a valuable contributor. Looking at the diffs provided here, I see - at most - some small frustration but nothing that would rise to the level of any action.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish[edit]The way I feel about it is summed up here: [85]. The last time this came to AE, when I was the filing editor, I was told that I had overreacted, and was described elsewhere as having sought "a pound of flesh". So I've chosen not to come back to AE about what has been happening, but I thank Andrevan for making the effort. If AE admins think that saying that Andrevan and I are not motivated by anything constructive in proposing RMs is made OK by following it with the claim that "I am not attacking the motives of the two editors...", if AE admins think that saying that "I am challenging their competence..." is nothing more than a heated discussion of content because it is followed by "I can see little evidence of a mastery of the sources", and if AE admins can brush all of that off as just some nifty elegance of phrasing, then I guess that after 16 years of editing here, I have not only failed to understand how to read sources, but I also don't understand what editors are expected to behave like when there are CTs. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich[edit]I share Self's irritation, because
This isn't everything; Andre's signature appears 67 times on the article talk page and another 60 times in the most-recent archive page (which BTW isn't the highest, there are editors who have posted more). Levivich (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Forgive me, I know I said I'd shut up, but this is something new, but related. Please look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers reliable?. I don't know about everyone else, but I see the literally the same pattern of gish gallop-WP:BLUDGEONing in the discussion as I saw in the Zionism/race/genetics talk page. IMO this is an ongoing problem that should stop. It's overwhelming and thus disruptive. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]Ill also add that Andrevan's edits to enforce his entirely off-base idea that El-Hajj may not be used because she has views he does not like or because of MEDRS (????????), seen in this diff (includes a pair of minor changes by another editor) is likewise tendentious. We have editors attempting to enforce an ideological purity test on sources. Participation in BDS, a wholly nonviolent protest against a state, is used as an attempt to disqualify a freaking tenured Columbia University professor, who by the way is a natural born American citizen, making a Palestinian anthropologist or not just a Palestinian, but a pro-Palestinian political actor or a Palestinian nationalist with an anti-Israel POV purely about ethnicity and not nationality, cited in a book published by Stanford University Press or in the Journal of the History of Biology. This is the same type of thing that happens in AP2, editors are seeking to enforce some ideological purity test on sources. The problem they have here however is that the views they dislike are mainstream, academic, superbly qualified, and by any objective reading of our policies should be included in our articles. Ive told Nishidani in the past, several times I think, that he should stfu about the intellectual rigor in the arguments advanced against his position on talk pages. But I have yet to encounter a single instance in which he was not right, in which the person he was arguing against was bringing specious and otiose arguments devoid of sourcing or logic. You have an editor making claims that a person's ethnicity or political views disqualifies their usage as a reliable source, when that person meets every single criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You have an editor editing to that effect in the mainspace. And you have an editor annoyed with it and said so. Yes, he shouldnt say so, we should all continue to pretend that we are the best of pals and everybody is advancing honest arguments, but maybe pretend the problem isnt the annoyance, thats just a symptom of the actual problem. nableezy - 14:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, yall should lift this bonkers restriction prohibiting a user from using the DR process when necessary. nableezy - 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by North8000[edit]I dropped in at that article as an additional set of eyes. IMHO it's a weird situation, with the ostensible core question far more easy to fix than it appears. IMHO the 30,000 foot view on the biggest question appears to be:
So it appears that Nishidani has already "won" the main thing that they really want but is unwilling or unable to recognize that and instead keeps throwing out heat and accusations. I don't understand that, but perhaps a rest from the article (which they seem to have agreed to) would help that get sorted out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nishidani[edit]
|
Stephan rostie
[edit]| Stephan rostie blocked for a fortnight for multiple 1RR violations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:24, 24 October 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 Stephan rostie[edit]
Stephan rostie has been engaged in edit warring and 1RR violations at two articles within the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area At Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion
They self reverted 20:23, 19 October 2023 at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion after I approached them, but when I approached then about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war violations they ignored me; since then they have made further reverts, including further 1RR violations. They were warned for 3RR violations in March, and then blocked twice for edit warring in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area in July (linked below). The second time they were blocked it was requested that they do not edit in the topic area until they are extended-confirmed; they agreed to this. Immediately after they made a few hundred edits, mostly consisting of adding just a wikilink, (for a representative example, this edit at Jody Sperling; they made 27 almost-identical edits within the span of 11 minutes at the same article) many of which were later reverted. They stopped making these edits when they reached ECP.
Discussion concerning Stephan rostie[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 Stephan rostie[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Stephan rostie[edit]
|
UA0Volodymyr
[edit]| Indeffed by HJ Mitchell as a normal admin action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:14, 27 October 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 UA0Volodymyr[edit]
Discussion concerning UA0Volodymyr[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 UA0Volodymyr[edit]Result concerning UA0Volodymyr[edit]
|