Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive349
AE updates (two party limit, balanced editing restriction, and thanks from ArbCom)
[edit]
Ecpiandy
[edit]| A misunderstanding about the implementation of TBANs has been resolved. Ecpiandy is given a logged warning for topic ban violations, and should understand that future violations are likely to result in a lengthy or indefinite block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:45, 18 February 2025 (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 Ecpiandy[edit]
Discussion concerning Ecpiandy[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 Ecpiandy[edit]Yes I have been updating the content to reflect the new article title I have not been doing anything controversial. If you want to ban me then fine, I've been an editor for a long time all I want to do is improve the encyclopedia. Ecpiandy (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Is there anything else I can do to help my case here? I did not know a thing about topic bans prior to this aside from me not being able to add certain corrections on Arab/Palestine-Israeli articles and I thought I would have had a block on the articles, I fully understand how difficult it would've been to do a personal block on so many articles now and I won't make the mistake again I'm just not familiar with such bans because I've never needed to be subject to such measures majority of my time on here. Anything I need to do going forward just let me know. I'm not mainly on this encyclopedia to just edit Palestine articles I'm on here to help grow all of Wikipedia to an academic level for a large range of topics so I'm willing to comply on whatever is necessary. If you look at most of my history on Wikipedia it isn't mostly related to this conflict Ecpiandy (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Ecpiandy[edit]
|
SpunkyGeek
[edit]| Blocked indefinitely, as a regular admin action, as part of the Moksha88 meatpuppetry ring. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:28, 17 February 2025 (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 SpunkyGeek[edit]
@Cullen328: The problems with SpunkyGeek are not new. It is unwise to insert PROD tag once it was reverted, but SpunkyGeek still did that. On the talk page he falsely claimed that only "2 sources" were provided from the First presidency of Donald Trump despite the article version at that time had at least 6 sources from that period. Before all this, on Ram Mandir, he falsely claimed that " Hindutva-based POV pushing by this user is going on for a long time. His response to this report is evasive at best. Some action is clearly necessary now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SpunkyGeek[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 SpunkyGeek[edit]- Respected admins, Firstly, I have neither violated 3RR nor engaged in edit warring. Secondly - complying with Wikipedia's policies I had already started talk page discussions - 1 - for points 4,5,6,7 and 2 for points 1,2,3. Thirdly, editor @Abhishek0831996 - has not even participated in the above talk page discussions let alone making significant contributions. I have been civil in my arguments as well as not shown bad faith. I have faith in Wikipedia's admins and who will adjudicate in the interest of the platform and editors who follow guidelines.
@Liz - this is my first nomination of deletion for an article - and I clearly misunderstood it. I apologize for my misunderstanding. Thank you for understanding my case. - Reply to admin-Cullen328 @Cullen328 - Exactly my point - I have no objections to removing the content if it is established that the book from Vikram Sampath is an unreliable source. I even started a talk page discussion regarding that but I did not get a response back, hence reinstated it. Appreciate the understanding respected admin. - Reply to admin-Rosguill @Rosguill if you see my edits - I was clearly not able to understand the guideline regarding PROD and coupled with that - I even executed it wrong - therefore I created a talk page discussion. (This is my first time nominating an article for deletion) I sincerely apologize for understanding it wrong - and executing it wrong. Thanks! SpunkyGeek (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde[edit]Some action is needed here: SpunkyGeek has a history of removing content with spurious explanations (e.g., [9], [10]) and adding content that isn't entirely verifiable or is a violation of NPOV, often by presenting as fact something that RS report as a statement (e.g., [11], [12], [13], [14]). Not to mention the concerns about POV-pushing/PROMO related to BAPS and its affiliates, which were discussed at SPI, including the addition of a slew of images with bad licensing [15]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Result concerning SpunkyGeek[edit]
|
Toa Nidhiki05
[edit]| Toa Nidhiki05 topic-banned from WP:CT/AP, Warrenmck formally warned for casting aspersions signed, Rosguill talk 14:14, 18 February 2025 (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 Toa Nidhiki05[edit]
Toa is continuing the same behaviour that got them TBANned from American politics in 2022, with the exact same MO in what appears to be a WP:CPUSH. I'm about to be accused of venue shopping since the admins let the ANI go stale, but there was still a general consensus this should have been an AE posting and Toa seems to be continuing the behaviour as if nothing happened. A link to that discussion can be found here. I highly recommend reading the whole thing for anyone who is patient enough, because Toa repeats the exact behaviour he's accused of in the ANI. I'm not going to respond to any direct accusations from Toa, but please consider verifying any claims they make about other editors. That was a bit of an issue at the ANI.
This is exhausting. Toa has been guarding against the inclusion of "far right" on Republican Party (United States) page for fourteen years (diff). Practically every uninvolved editor in the ANI saw the issue, so I'm just going to repeat the most pertinent line from the last WP:AE sanction:
Toa appears to use a refusal to engage as a shield against edits they don't like. They shortcut the BRD process to hold the article in a status quo regardless of sourcing, consensus, or talk page discussions. Beyond just not engaging, Toa often starts parallel discussions which are related but exclude their behaviour, then point to that as evidence that they are attempting to engage in good faith (addendum: an exact behaviour they have repeated below).
Discussion concerning Toa Nidhiki05[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 Toa Nidhiki05[edit]There’s nothing I can say here that wasn’t already said in the AN/I thread, and I’m flying home today anyway, so I don’t have the time to. As in the AN/I, Warrenmck is simply lying, or giving half-truths - specifically, no, my topic ban was for embarrassing, disruptive behavior, which I have apologized for and haven’t repeated. You can clearly see what it was at the old AE - the behavior is not identical, and Wareenmck is not being honest about that. What Wareenmck is upset about is a content dispute, which they are creatively dubbing a content push. I profusely apologize that editors are going to have to read the AN/I thread, which was a phenomenal waste of time for everyone involved. Fundamentally, Warrenmck is not being honest. Many uninvolved editors (see here and here) in the thread were confused or bewildered by the report, and numerous other editors (see here, here, here) said it is a clear content dispute that should be closed and resolved on the page. There was no consensus for an AE report - although Warrenmck repeatedly floated the idea, the thread expired due to inactivity. Warrenmck is lying about the page consensus; the talk page, and numerous other editors, have confirmed it to them. Warrenmck is lying about the source verification - you can literally go to the talk page right now and find discussions I’m engaging in about the sources, including replacement sources to back up the claims in question. Towards the end of the AN/I report, Warrenmck was even accusing other editors (specifically Springee) of being part of a vast conspiracy to keep the content Warrenmck wants off the page. Meanwhile, Warrenmck’s own, proposed edits seem unlikely to be added: the RfC (which Warrenmck set up) for adding “far-right”, in particular, appears set to fail, with a 2:1 margin opposing it with at least two dozen participants so far. Previous comments redacted due to word count limit
Statement by Simonm223[edit]First off this is not forum shopping. The reason the AN/I filing was closed is because most of the parties to that discussion felt it was more appropriate to address complex behavioural issues such as CPUSH at AE. Second, as an example of CPUSH, Toa Nidhiki05 has been quite persistent in insisting that academic sources should be provided for including far-right in the list of Republican political ideologies. With that in mind I spent considerable time in Wikipedia Library finding academic sources that did just that. Unless I somehow missed it, to this day, Toa Nidhiki05 has never even acknowledged that those sources were found, let alone conceded the presence of multiple WP:BESTSOURCES would support some inclusion of the term far-right. In other words it appears they set the standard assuming nobody would go through the effort and, when I did go through the effort, they decided to just ignore those sources. This is exceptionally frustrating. Reading academic papers about the Republican Party isn't exactly my idea of fun and to have that effort just ignored when it was asked for is frankly insulting. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]Repeatedly saying somebody is lying and being dishonest, here of all places, requires some sort of evidence or a block/ban for "casting aspersions". If somebody is accusing somebody else of lying they need to prove that, and in that case the liar should be given a block/ban or some sort, or be blocked/banned for the attack. nableezy - 21:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by Springee[edit]This is a place holder statement as I am drafting a longer reply with links. This is an attempt to use the ANI/ARE process to win a content dispute. Warren and a few other editor's own behaviors have contributed to this issue. Ultimately the problem here is a combination of Warren PUSHing for changes that simply don't have consensus (see the current status of the far-right RfC on the page) as well as some rapid fire, sometimes questionable edits made by Warren and others around the time the ANI was opened. Additionally, the long lists of claimed references that "prove" something only to fall short when examined in detail, also have raised frustration levels. Warren and a few others are certain they have been correct but have failed on several fronts. Warren never reached out to TN to discuss any issues off line (an obvious first step to dealing with perceived editor behavior issues). Warren and others engaged in a pattern of edit first then get frustrated when things were reverted (with a bit of tag teaming mixed in) rather than take the more cautious approach of proposing changes first. When Warren and others were unable to convince TN (and a few others, myself included) the answer was ANI rather than using things like RfCs to answer their other topic disputes. Even in the case where Warren did open a RfC they replied 36 times to many editors in their own RfC. If TN's actions suggest they are frustrated, I don't blame them. This is a case of a few like minded editors PUSHing some changes without taking it slow and ensuring there is a clear talk page consensus first. Having failed on the talk page Warren took things to ANI. Having failed at ANI they are coming here. Springee (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
For the closing admins, can I once again suggest an alternative that doesn't result in editors "winning" a content dispute via getting an opposing editor kicked off the island. This isn't a civility issue, only one of responding too fast, too much. I suggest a 1RR Ap2 limit combined with a daily talk page reply limit of say 3 replies (raising a wholly unrelated talk point is not a reply, but otherwise replies include direct replies as well as comments in a discussion). This would slow the rapid fire replies yet would still allow TN to do good work like review the shotgunning of sources that we saw in the discussions in question (many of those sources, while RS, failed V for the specific claim in question). This should be the smallest negative impact in order to achieve the goal here. Springee (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by GoodDay[edit]Perhaps, it would be best to wait for the result of that related-RFC? GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC) I've requested closure of the aforementioned RFC at the US Republican Party article. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by Jessintime[edit]From my observations, it appears Toa has a much looser definition of what counts as a reliable source when it comes to topics that might make the left wing look bad. For example, he reinserted text attributed to Napolitan.org at Killing of Brian Thompson that an editor had removed for being biased [22]. If you're unfamiliar with Napolitan.org like I was, their about us page states their "mission is to magnify and amplify the true voice of the American people. A project of the Napolitan Institute, Napolitan News Service focuses on releasing daily data focused on the thoughts and desires of everyday Americans. Through our groundbreaking Counterpolling, we're asking questions that no one else is asking, and giving leaders and organizations the data they need to break free from the misleading messaging of out of touch Elites." He doubled down on the source being reliable in a subsequent RFC [23] [24] at one point telling someone else to "Please do some research" [25]. At the same time this was going on, Tao removed statements from the same article sourced to the likes of the BBC and Newsweek [26] and Wired and The Hill [27]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC) For the record, I am not attempting to re-litigate a content dispute as I have never edited that article in question or its talk page. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by Darkfrog24[edit]I skimmed the Republican Party talk page. Upon that cursory examination, this does look like a content matter, not a conduct matter. I will add that it also seems like Toa and Warren have different thresholds for what counts as a good source and what counts as a sufficiently neutrally worded RfC, which isn't misconduct on either editor's part. If Toa really is wrong or not sufficiently sourced, then there are RfCs and other longstanding protocols that can be used to overrule them. This does feel like it could be an attempt to use the disciplinary system to control content in that way, specifically that the complaint is not about disruption caused by a formerly topic banned editor failing to follow the rules but rather about bad feelings because that editor has not changed their mind or pretended to change their mind about content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by JayBeeEll[edit]The behavior described by Simonm223 is very reminiscent of behavior from Toa Nidhiki05 that was common pre-topic ban (as well as the casual aspersions noted by Nableezy). But the only relevant evidence I would have to present is stuff from several years ago (2019--2022, say), before the topic ban. Admins, is that a thing that would be helpful here? (I feel like one issue discussed at WP:ARBPIA5, although perhaps not in the final decision, was that it's bad when you can tell that editors apply different standards depending on whether a source says something they agree with or not; that was an issue with TN05 in my experience, but again that's several years ago, so I don't know if anyone wants to see it. I haven't observed any of TN05's more recent editing.) [I am not watching this page, please ping.] --JBL (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Toa Nidhiki05[edit]
|
Request page restrictions for Genocide & Talk:Genocide
[edit]| Increased page protection declined. SilverLocust 💬 12:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I recently came across the Genocide article and noticed that users were discussing content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict on the talk page (see Talk:Genocide#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_26_October_2024). At this point, the article Genocide does relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the same active arbitration remedies that apply to List of genocides (which does have the active arbitration remedies warning on its talk page) should also apply to the Genocide article. For that reason, I am requesting that the Genocide and Talk:Genocide pages be restricted per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Definition_of_the_"area_of_conflict". User involvement disclosure: I am an extendedconfirmed editor that has been involved in editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically Gaza genocide. I also participated with an edit to the Talk:Genocide page. JasonMacker (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
|
Randomstaplers
[edit]| Randomstaplers blocked indefinitely from Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and its talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:04, 23 February 2025 (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 Randomstaplers[edit]
Edit warring at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic
This is a long-term pattern of WP:BLUDGEONing of Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#NIOSH's 1992 method for determining the effectiveness of resporators as a "public health exposure control method", edit warring against three or four other editors, and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK dating back to at least September. I've only included the most recent flare up in the diffs above, but you can see the history for more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randomstaplers&diff=prev&oldid=1276249790
Discussion concerning Randomstaplers[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 Randomstaplers[edit]I don't know why I've ended up here right away.
Recent readings, namely this NIOSH document made me feel the need to start a discussion. I've also read [30]. I don't know why this content dispute is being brought forth here this quickly. On my talk page, my confusion wasn't thoroughly explained, so I thought there would be no objections to my comments. Additional comments on Bon Courage's talk page - "I don't think it was inflammatory" (sic) Also, you objected. I get it. I've followed Roberts DRN guidelines while it was up.——Randomstapler's alt 20:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]I am not entirely sure why I was pinged by User:Randomstaplers concerning the dispute that I tried to mediate three months ago. I did not take part in any discussion or dispute about face masks after I closed the dispute at DRN three months ago, and so do not have an opinion at this time about the edits in question. If they are asking me to say that they cooperated at DRN, I won't exactly do that for two reasons. First, their conduct three and four months ago is not the same as their conduct in the more recent past. Second, more seriously, I found them to be a difficult editor to try to work with. I spent most of the exchanges asking them to specify exactly what they wanted to change in the article that another editor wanted to leave the same, or what they wanted to leave the same that another editor wanted to change, and then asking them whether they were questioning the reliability of a source. I found them to be a long-winded editor who was not concise. I wish the uninvolved administrators here well in analyzing the issues here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Bon courage[edit]This editor has been editing Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic for several months, lately using two similarly named accounts to do so and edit warring over tags. There was a lengthy and ultimately abortive DRN process at the end of last year. Insofar as it's possible to divine this editor's intent, it seems they want to insert their own private thoughts and/or WP:SYNTH to undercut the published science on this topic, which they believe is wrong, and will not be deterred by consensus against them. A topic ban or page block would bring some relief from the timesink this has evidently become. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Randomstaplers[edit]
|
Aganon77
[edit]| Aganon77 is topic-banned from paranormal phenomena, broadly construed, and page-blocked from Ganzfeld experiment and its talkpage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:39, 26 February 2025 (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 Aganon77[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
Notice of Pseudoscience DS given at 20:42, 10 February 2025
It's clear that Aganon77 thinks that because he perceives himself to be right, he can edit war against other editors in violation of the apparent consensus at the talk page against him, and that he is unable to drop the stick and walk away from the issue. I therefore think some kind of sanction is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Aganon77[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 Aganon77[edit]The editors are bulk reverting contributions that expand on existing citations of the article. For example, a critique that found statistically significant results but concluded against their results only included the conclusion. A false statement regarding people who conduct these experiments and metaanalysis as parapsychologists when several experiments and meta analysis had been conducted by skeptics. An omission of the history of development of the method by skeptics. All the edits references above used existing references in the article, yet they were reverted. Finally I added the results of a recent registered report, a scientific publication that is conducted in two phases and is peer-reviewed and it is also deleted. I also added a note for disputed citation regarding a lack of replication of an experiment that has been conducted 78 times, mostly with similar results. See edits here Statement by MrOllie[edit]Noting here that I was opening a Edit warring report at the same time this was being opened, more edit warring diffs can be found here. I support Hemiauchenia's comments. To be clear, the issue here are edits at Ganzfeld experiment which seek to suggest that such experiments are replicable and have demonstrated the existence of ESP. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganzfeld_experiment&diff=1277603675&oldid=1277182787's response to talk page discussion has been to dismiss anyone who will not conduct WP:OR/WP:NOTFORUMish debates about 'methodological rigor', calling opposition 'gatekeeping' ([33]). They seem to reject the idea that we would consider the publisher, as expected by WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Statement by LuckyLouie[edit]User edit warring at Ganzfeld experiment with massive citation bombing [34] seeking to have Wikipedia state that experiments have demonstrated the existence of ESP. Talk page discussions include multiple experienced editors advising the user that WP:FRINGE parapsychology journals are not considered independent sources that can be used to overturn the scientific consensus regarding the existence of ESP, Psi, the paranormal, etc. however edit warring continues, hence the need for an administrative solution to mitigate the disruption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by jps[edit]I note that the user after having been blocked for a week has gone right back to the criticized behavior. [35], [36] After being reverted, the user complained to the reverting editor on their user talkpage rather than engaging on the article talkpage. There has been some coaching attempted by Rosguill, but it seems to be unappreciated. [37] A topic ban may be necessary. jps (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Aganon77[edit]
|
Edax Mendacium
[edit]| By rough consensus of admins, Edax Mendacium is topic-banned from American politics post-1992, and is given a logged warning to comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This supplements an individual admin action by Seraphimblade partially blocking them from Sundar Pichai; there was no discussion about what to do about that, so it's up to Seraphimblade to decide whether to lift that as redundant or leave it in place. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:12, 28 February 2025 (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 Edax Mendacium[edit]
Discussion concerning Edax Mendacium[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 Edax Mendacium[edit]As you can see I am not a power user like you are. I can see that you're ignoring the things I am writing and attempting to bully me and bury me in jargon and maneuvers which I don't understand.
I made an edit, which was removed without sufficient information. In good faith I engaged on the talk page, which this admin chose to ignore, instead engaging in an edit war by repeatedly removing my edit. The edits are notable and easy to justify as they are well-sourced, notable, and relevant. Removing them is not, nor has any coherent argument been made to the contrary. Consensus should be required in the other direction (removing up to date information about pinchai), as everything in the edit is well-sourced and notable. Aside from conforming to the formats of many similar pages of prominent businesspeople who engage in politics. Result concerning Edax Mendacium[edit]
|
Adamantine123
[edit]| I've blocked Adamantine indefinitely as a regular admin action. There was no interest in any AE action in addition to that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:57, 1 March 2025 (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 Adamantine123[edit]
I filed the report here because that ANI thread is all set to close without any action as already demanded by one admin.[40] Rosguill has also commented on this message from Admantine123.[41] Adamantine123 was already warned for this battleground attitude,[42] and he himself acknowledged it[43], however, he still recklessly jumped to abide by the same disruptive attitude that got him into trouble last time. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Adamantine123[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 Adamantine123[edit]Statement by Vanamonde[edit]I was pinged in the diff above but was too busy to respond. In isolation it may not warrant sanctions, but it shows an battleground attitude of astonishing proportions. The thread had nothing to do with caste-related POV-pushing, and even the proposed block was on the grounds that Ratnahastin was under duress, not for misconduct as such. Noting for the record that I have previously had sharp disagreements with both Adamantine and Ratnahastin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by Rosguill[edit]Not 100% sure whether I should comment here or in the result section...I stand by my comment in response to Adamantine123's initial pinging of me and other admins (which Capitals00 notes in their report). Anecdotally Adamantine123's comment at ANI is a contender for most brazen, opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND statement I've yet seen from an editor with more than 1,000 edits. The only mitigating factor that I can see is that at least this happened at ANI, and not at an article talk page where it would interfere with consensus formation. Now that this has been brought to AE, I think a logged warning for battleground attitude is appropriate at minimum. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Adamantine123[edit]
|
Iamnotanorange~enwiki
[edit]| A productive conversation was had. Iamnotanorange~enwiki was informally warned not to edit-war and to be mindful of the sensitivity of this highly contentious topic area. They accepted the advice they were given, and I hope they will heed it going forward. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:46, 1 March 2025 (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 Iamnotanorange~enwiki[edit]
1RR
Casting aspersions, considered a personal attack
In attempting to justify their POV, Iamnotanorange~enwiki has made bizarre statements, such as:
(Note: Iamnotanorange~enwiki's signatures appear as "DuckOfOrange"—it is not another editor. I indicated to Iamnotanorange~enwiki that this could be confusing to other editors and suggested changing the signature as a courtesy to them, but Iamnotanorange~enwiki has not done so.)
Discussion concerning Iamnotanorange~enwiki[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 Iamnotanorange~enwiki[edit]I'm actually glad this has been brought up. I've been trying to balance some serious concerns with this page, while navigating some pretty strong reactions from إيان that seemed to focus on the idea that I was attacking him personally, rather than the content of the article. Because my primary goal was to de-escalate this situation, I originally decided to be polite (but persistent), rather than escalate the dispute to arbitration. I'm happy to have the chance to explain my side of the story; it would be great to get another POV here.
Below comments moved from admin section signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Iamnotanorange~enwiki[edit]
|
Big fan of the Mughals
[edit]| User indeffed as NOTHERE by Abecedare as an individual admin action. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2025 (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 Big fan of the Mughals[edit]
Clearly WP:NOTHERE with their battleground and POV creep pattern, which is obviously influencing their editing behaviour. I also doubt if this editor is a newbie, given their track record, they might come from the background from a blocked WP:SOCK user trying to evade their previous block. The editor should be restricted by getting involved in this TA, they are barely here to involve themselves with any meaningful discussion. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Big fan of the Mughals[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 Big fan of the Mughals[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Big fan of the Mughals[edit]
|
Ymerazu
[edit]| Ymerazu hasn’t edited since this was raised, please bring a new request should they problematically return to editing. Spartaz Humbug! 13:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Ymerazu[edit]
The editors statistics indicate that at the time of this filling they had 39 edits, 38 of their edits were at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory and one of their edits were in their sandbox. After their comment to me on 14 February I quickly messaged them to give them the opportunity to follow the behavioural best practice which is expected in CTOPS and strike their comment. At present they have not done so and have taken to arguing that consensus is something other than what it clearly is. The editor is clearly a WP:SPA and this should be nipped in the bud before further disruption occurs.
Discussion concerning Ymerazu[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 Ymerazu[edit]Hello! Mea culpa for the snarkiness and characterizing people who disagreed as throwing a tantrum in that comment, I'll be mindful in the future. When I started editing I was doing a better job at keeping civility and I slipped up somewhere along the way. In my reply to Bon Courage I could have built up my point better. They are expressing a view that is (as I argued in the comment) not the consensus of other editors when this went to RFC (see the first item in the consensus box at the top of the page). That is, they are saying the lab leak is purely a conspiracy theory when they say "Legitimate views about SCV2 origin are at Origin of SARS-CoV-2, not here". This implies that other views are illegitimate. My reply was that "editor consensus does not agree" which if you read the RFC is the case (the RFC concluded that there is no consensus that the broad lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory vs a minority scientific view). It's not useful to engage further so I think honestly my best path to peace here is to focus on positive changes. I will not be arguing with users or doing back-and-forths and I know these don't tend to lead to positive changes to the article. As far as being a single purpose account, I don't think I'm in a great position to defend against this and it was a concern of mine when I started participating in the talk page. To my credit, I did read the WP:SPA policy shortly after joining and have tried to comply with it by not being overly partisan. I am not editing with the purpose of supporting the lab leak theory. My legitimate hope is that the article follows the spirit of Wikipedia and best practices. While this topic did get me interested in editing, I am not intending to only participate on this topic, but it is the one I am motivated to participate in at present. Ymerazu (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by Bon courage[edit]Wikipedia is really not aided by this kind of WP:SPA lab leak trutherism (or maybe, WP:SOCK?). A page block or topic ban would provide some relief. Bon courage (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ymerazu[edit]
This isn't really the right area for a new editor with a pov to learn how to edit according to our consensus driven and npov approach. @Ymerazu: you really need to practise before you will have the skills to work collegiately on this article. Without those skills your contributions will be disruptive and won't grip on the article. Do you have the disciple to do that yourself or would you be assisted by a pageban? Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC) |
RevolutionaryPatriot
[edit]| Indeffed from article space as an individual admin action for refusal to communicate. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2025 (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 RevolutionaryPatriot[edit]
Initially, I thought of warning him but found that even after having been blocked 2 times in the last year,[57] including a month-long block from mainspace articles, he hasn't learned. His edits outside this area are also problematic as we can see here where he is imposing the use of "Islamic laws" to suppress the image on Eve. He was told to rectify this mistake on his talk page,[58] however, he made no response. Capitals00 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC) @Tamzin: The lack of response from RevoutionaryPatriot to this report does show that he "has been ignoring concerns about content issues". He is actively editing but ignoring these reports. The edits I cited do speak of long-term issues, and these are the same types of edits for which he was blocked in recent times from Bishonen and Doug Weller. @Liz: Yes I know that, and that is why I said "he is imposing the use", I did not say he was the first. Capitals00 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning RevolutionaryPatriot[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 RevolutionaryPatriot[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning RevolutionaryPatriot[edit]
|
Callmehelper
[edit]| Callmehelper has been indefinitely partially blocked from B. R. Ambedkar and its talk page by Valereee. No uninvolved admin has expressed seeing a need for further action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:09, 10 March 2025 (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 Callmehelper[edit]
While this editor is currently blocked from both the article and the talk page of B. R. Ambedkar, I believe his conduct should be broadly discussed because he admits here that his English speaking skills are not good enough. Even his RfC was AI generated. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Callmehelper[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 Callmehelper[edit]1. Both are different matter completely. Old (November 24) discussion about the wording (grammatically) when i was not extended user. and recently i add a line that "Ambedkar is regarded as the chief architect of constitution of India with three academic sources and this led a another discussion. (Mixing both discussion and claiming that it has already been concensus, would be unfair.) 2. Please read my whole context of that line (some upper and lower line) I don't think it's a PA on someone. It is an observation when someone deciding that Ambedkar can't be architect of constitution because he didn't draft constitution from scratch. 3. It was different user.
Full paragraph; 4. Full paragraph; 5. That was one of my honest reply. Pls read full paragraph for deciding whether it's a provoking line or not. (i won't paste here full paragraph, reason – TL:DR) 6. This is the mixing of two reply which led misunderstanding.
Valereee replied for the first time in discussion - Comment on Additional Accusations;
Statement by Fowler&fowler[edit]@Callmehelper:, I just saw this. I wondered why you had not responded to the comments at the RfC. I think admin Valereee has made a fair decision to keep you away from the Ambedkar page and its talk page. Let me explain why, and please consider my comments to be made in the spirit of friendly advice, not paternalistic advice. I think of Wikipedia as something akin to a swimming pool, or a giant complex with many swimming pools, one for each discipline, and then some. There are many in which we are like children learning to swim, and it behooves us to start at the shallow end. When we write, for example, fiction or non-fiction, we have to have a decent grasp of language and know the conventions, techniques, styles, and historical precedents. There are exceptions, of course. In the fiction pool, for example, somone precocious like Carson McCullers, Charlotte Bronte, Rudyard Kipling or T. S. Elliot (sort of like Michael Phelps in a real pool) may be able to skip a step or two of learning. But most of us can't. We have to work our way toward the deep end. When I arrived on Wikipedia more than 18 years ago, I often floundered in the deep end. Eventually, I began to work on small, disregarded, and even undiscovered topics or people. It differs for different people. I had gone to a library and in the stacks happened upon the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. There, I stumbled into naturalists of British India. Many did not have Wikipedia pages. I found some obituaries. It was a pool, metaphorically speaking, far away from my own, but I was in the shallow end and the only one in the pool. I took a camera and my laptop, found a desk in the stacks and found pictures old enough not to be snagged with copyrights. Before long, Stanley Henry Prater, Herbert Musgrave Phipson, Walter Samuel Millard, Ethelbert Blatter, and Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society began to take shape. Other editors, seeing the new pages, helped out. I became more confident. B. R. Ambedkar is a deep pool. It doesn't have any shallow end. For nearly a hundred years, he has been notable but also controversial. Historians, political scientists, anthropologists, sociologists, and legal experts have written about him. I think you have found yourself in the wrong pool. You can quickly learn whatever you require to supplement your preexisting skills. But you need to find your "naturalists," i.e. havens of peace where you can learn. Otherwise, I fear, you will keep floundering and eventually leave Wikipedia, which I certainly do not want you to do. This is my two cents. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Callmehelper[edit]
|