Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive350
JazzBandDrummer
[edit]| JazzBandDrummer (talk · contribs) is warned to abide by Wikipedia's civility policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 15 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 JazzBandDrummer[edit]
This AE is being filed purely based on the user's behavior with regard to civility and transphobic comments. The underlying dispute here is a controversial page move (reverted and then followed by a series of out-of-process page moves) for Fort Moore, reflecting the spilling over of the current U.S. political culture war over Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's renaming of military bases formerly named after Confederate soldiers that had been renamed under the Biden administration. I'm not seeking to litigate that page move here in this AE request, though I'm happy to provide background on it if necessary. But the context here is relevant, as it reflects broader potential motivation behind this behavior that's relevant not just to the post-92 AP CTOPS but also the GENSEX one as well given. I believe the behavior concerns stand on their own as unacceptable regardless of the context. Nobody has the right to put words into my mouth and imply that I've deadnamed someone; certainly not someone who is comparing trans people to inanimate objects. I warned them that I'd take this to AE if they continued; they doubled-down on it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JazzBandDrummer[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 JazzBandDrummer[edit]All these accusations are false or misinterpreted. For number 3, I didn't say "but if I was..." that is a false quote already. I'm comparing the policy of if something (like a base) or someone (like a celebrity) says their name is something, then it should be followed. SwatJester's constant misinterpretations are causing false accusations as well as a back and forth editing frenzy on Fort Benning's page. There is nothing transphobic about mentioning another wiki case of renaming (especially since I said that Elliot is Elliot, and NOT Ellen). SwatJester is twisting this so they can get back at someone who doesn't agree with their editing on a page. Statement to SJ's additional comment: I didn't double down, I clarified what I previously said because SwatJester was putting words into my mouth, saying I'm transphobic when I'm not. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning JazzBandDrummer[edit]
|
3rdspace
[edit]| 3rdspace is topic-banned from acupuncture, broadly construed. This ban will expire automatically when their account becomes extendedconfirmed. They are reminded of the importance of avoiding inflammatory statements in a contentious topic area.
Tgeorgescu is made subject to a bespoke restriction on arguing, the exact details of which are described below and in the AE log. It is stressed that this sanction's carve-out for "discussing specific improvements" is "narrowly construed". If Tgeorgescu does not feel that he can be a good judge of whether a comment discusses specific improvements or argues the topic more generally, he is welcome to voluntarily adhere to a narrower sanction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning 3rdspace[edit]
Discussion concerning 3rdspace[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 3rdspace[edit]I don't think that this process was initiated in good faith, but I appreciate the eyes of admins here, as I have had a very strange experience on acupuncture. I have a full time tech job, two kids under 9, and a chronic illness. The acupuncture lead is actively harmful and I promise you is hurting people whose voices will never be heard here for reasons described in Wikipedia:systemic_bias.
Statement by FeydHuxtable[edit]On first glance this filing had gentle boomerang written all over it, but now hoping this gets closed as 'no action'. 3rdspace entered the discussion with a post that's Statement by JoelleJay[edit]I'm in agreement with BlackKite's comments here. While TG's conduct on the acupuncture talk page has been inappropriately personalized in several places, he has otherwise been quite restrained, considering how utterly exhausting it is to explain medical consensus to true believers of a pseudoscience over and over and over again. Especially when comments citing anecdata and low-quality sources are punctuated by repeated insinuations of racism, e.g. Statement by Tryptofish[edit]I recently posted this on the article talk page, in hopes of quieting things down: [11]. I hope that it's self-explanatory. But today, 3rdspace posted this: [12]. I see it as a kind-of thanks-no-thanks to what I tried to say, and a doubling down on the WP:RGW that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are racist. For me, that's the last straw. Maybe the promise to withdraw now is sincere, or maybe not, but in either case this editor needs to be removed from the topic area (and if they will really withdraw, then a TBAN would not be much of a loss from their perspective). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 3rdspace[edit]
|
The Mountain of Eden
[edit]| The Mountain of Eden is topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This is primarily for lack of response, so there is no prejudice against a speedy appeal, and an appeal that addresses the concerns raised here will be given serious consideration as basis to lift this sanction or downgrade it to a lesser sanction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:56, 18 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 The Mountain of Eden[edit]
The reported editor countered my WP:APPNOTE in the form of my pinging a single and only other previous participant in a discussion concerning the image (whereas the current branch of the discussion concerns solely the caption), by an WP:INAPPNOTE in the form of their pinging four editors in relation to whom, seen as a group, it can be reasonably assumed that, they, the reported editor, (I am not accusing the pinged editors of anything) believed would bring him an advantage in continuing to enforce their preferred version of the caption. These editors are not especially prominent contributors to the article and had not participated in a related discussion. The same editor had introduced that caption; I do not find the caption problematic on any "deeper" level. I was opposing it solely on mundane grounds of style and conventions on captions as captions. I like short captions I guess? Being accused of having ulterior motives with respect to this topic is emotionally upsetting to me and makes it difficult or maybe even impossible for me to engage seriously with this editor on that article's talk page. The reported editor is probably unaware that I have made approx. 70% edits and have a 60% added text contribution and have brought the article to GA. That is because my motives are to ensure that the article on this particular topic is in good shape. Throughout this time, since 2023, no one has accused me of "motives". I would have responded to their previous comment in the thread, but after the accusation of having "motives" and the inappropriate notification, I am asking for corrective action before I continue discussing the (ultimately unimportant) caption.
Discussion concerning The Mountain of Eden[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 Mountain of Eden[edit]I hope this complaint gets closed as a superfluous report. If I am reading the complaint correctly, the basis for this report is that the reporting editor is unhappy by my choice of editors that I pinged. They are free to ping additional editors. I should add that the reporting editor is behaving in a manner consistent with unstated motives by deleting the caption based on misuse of WP policies only after I added the words "award winning" and "Hamas", along with replacing the words "their return" with "abducting", in the caption. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by starship.paint[edit]At 12+ days, this is now the longest break between edits for The Mountain of Eden dating back to June 2024, when their account was only eight edits old. They started editing about the Gaza War in July 2024, after 510 edits, within a day of qualifying for extended confirmed. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning The Mountain of Eden[edit]
|
Johnadams11
[edit]| Per admin consensus in this thread and below, Johnadams11 is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, appealable to WP:ARCA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:32, 20 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 Johnadams11[edit]
Johnadams11 received a couple of CTOP notices in September (link) and was subsequently warned for failing WP:ECR again (link). He kept editing in pages within the PIA topic, opening discussions that were not edit requests, mostly in Talk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip well before reaching ECR in February 7 (link). Almost 25% of the total edits made there are from him, the majority before being EC. As a result, he was temporarily blocked in January 27 for a week (link). But at that point he had more than 400 edits so he reached EC shortly afterwards. The focus has been almost solely on PIA articles or about the topic after getting to 500 edits. Johnadams11 has been repeatedly trying to push for a redefinition of children related to Palestinian victims of the Gaza war. He created 4 discussions in Talk:Casualties of the Gaza war, 1 of which was removed because he wasn’t EC at the time; the other 3 were posted in a period of 4 days (Jan 27, Feb 7, Feb 8, Feb 11). He also accused one of the participants of the discussion of bad faith both in the discussion itself (link) and on their talk page (link) for pointing out that there were numerous discussions about the same topic, the RfC was malformed, and that behaviour seemed like WP:BLUDGEONING. In my opinion, this kind of behaviour on multiple pages looks like WP:FORUMSHOP. Additionally, on Denial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, he removed sourced content, and when reverted, removed it again, arguing that because a discussion initiated previously on the talk page failed to attract editors for a couple of days, that meant consensus was void. The WP:ONUS falls on the person removing content if it has been there for a time, and the status quo should be maintained while a discussion is in place. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how consensus works. On the same page he refused to comply with the 1RR sanctions in place in the topic area (link) though this was later reverted by another editor. He has also engaged in WP:VOTESTACKING here, seemingly alluding to me specifically, since I interacted with this user in the discussion mentioned there. I don't see how asserting that I am testing his limits cannot be interpreted as a personal attack and casting WP:ASPERSIONS.
Re: was the 1rr a removal or a revert: There were only 21 edits between the first version of that section being added in October and John's removal. 14 were specifically editing that section. The edit prior to John's removal also involved updating that section. If you add content and then the next edit is removing a big chunk including your addition, that seems like a revert to me. Especially while the section is actively being discussed. I can add the individual diffs if an admin will give me the okay to exceed the diff limit. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC) @Seraphimblade: I'm not sure I understand your comment – are you agreeing that this particular behaviour constitutes a revert? I share the sentiment that removing content added a long time ago shouldn't count as a revert. However, that doesn't apply here: the section that was removed was actively being worked on and had new content added right before John removed it. To me, that falls under the definition of reversion in Wikipedia:Reverting#What_is_a_reversion?. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC) It's probably worth documenting here that John has more or less admitted (more on this here) that he planned to file - and then did file - a retaliatory AE topic about me.
Diff of notification on user talk page. Discussion concerning Johnadams11[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 Johnadams11[edit]The discussion about my pre-EC editing history is largely accurate but doesn’t emphasize what I believe to be an important dimension of that history. The accusation that I “kept editing in pages within the PIA topic” masks the fact that 100% of these were Talk comments, and that all were related to my not comprehending that the absence of platform locks was not a signal that I was free to participate in Talk. I wrote a (too long) comment] on this dynamic in my appeal of my block. More importantly though, I also sought to prevent other editors from falling into the same misunderstanding that I did, by recommending an improvement to the way templated warnings on Talk pages are presented -- and I’m more than a little proud that my recommendation was later adopted, and is presently in place. On Casualties of The Gaza War, I do indeed believe that the article’s clarity would be meaningfully improved with a single sentence of definition. (The word “children” is used 57 times at my last count.) This is by no means a "redefinition" as the article contains no definition at all. My error in discussing this on Talk (I have never edited the Article) appears to be that in seeking to drive discussion on this question, I added new topics in Talk instead of creating new sections within the initial topic. Here I thank an editor for teaching me this. Ultimately, I chose to start an RfC, which indeed was a very specific wish for “comments” more than a wish to frame the discussion with a formatted list of choices. I do see now that I properly should not have inserted my own opinion here, but any read of what I wrote shows no agenda other than consensus seeking. Later, after some furious replies about how the RfC was “malformed,” and after seeking advice from an admin on the matter, I, in an abundance of caution (and of cowardice) chose to remove the RfC. The accusation that I accused another editor of bad faith is not in my opinion coherent. I made a comment on the tone and style of a reply to my RfC, and then quickly removed that comment, because as I said in the edit comment, it really didn’t further the discussion. I also went to an editor’s talk page to ask for their comments on the merits. IMO, one would have to do a fair amount of construction to find some sort of accusation of bad faith in either of these. On the Denial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, 1RR accusations, this began with a discussion on Talk describing the edit I wished to make. In a week of seeking discussion and consensus, no one had commented, so I made the edit. This edit was reverted, and I reverted back. I have now been coached (see below) that instead of my last revert, I should have gone back to Talk. Lesson learned. I hope it’s clear though the time sequence and the discussion that I was indeed seeking consensus and that the last revert, is in part, a function of not having gotten any participation. That said, if one finds that my initial edit was a “revert” then I am surely guilty of a 1RR violation. It was exactly because the content I had edited was inserted last October, and because I retained the basic thought for the content I'd removed, that I did not see it as a revert. I was fully conscious of 1RR at the time I made the revert of smallangryplanet's edit and believed it lawful because I did not see the initial edit as a “revert.” On aspersion casting, Even if my comment is understood to apply to some specific editor (who was not named), I specifically said that I WAS assuming good faith. I merely added that certain behaviors were “testing my limits.” Bad faith obviously exists in our world, and I can't imagine I am being asked to ban that possibility entirely from my consciousness. I’m not sure what the “1339” discussion of the Israeli Bombing of the Gaza Strip article means exactly, but I think it’s important to note that by my count, I have made fewer than ten (generally single sentence) edits to the Article itself. I really do try to be polite and kind with everyone I talk to on WP, and I welcome anyone who takes the time to read the body of what I’ve tried to contribute here. Going forward I recommit myself to hyper sensitivity to CTOP, constructive collaboration, consensus building and strict adherence to policy. Johnadams11 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning Johnadams11[edit]
|
Dancasun
[edit]| Origin of SARS-CoV-2 upgraded to ECP --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:36, 20 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 Dancasun[edit]
@Johnuniq ECP is probably a good idea. Almost every time there is some minor reporting concerning the lab leak there's an influx of editors (often with very low edit counts) that come along to WP:RGW at related articles. TarnishedPathtalk 01:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Dancasun[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 Dancasun[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Dancasun[edit]
|
RememberOrwell
[edit]| No consensus to impose any penalties beyond the informal warning of RememberOrwell by Seraphimblade about personal attacks --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:32, 20 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 RememberOrwell[edit]
User is repeatedly adding excerpts for a disinformation web site to the article lede (such sites are described in the article[16]).
CTOP notice.[17]
Discussion concerning RememberOrwell[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 RememberOrwell[edit]
To be clear, #1, "I moved the image down," means there was no intent on my part to revert the reporter's edit. I wouldn't have mentioned the lying, if it wasn't the case that I've noted the reporter's talk page (and edit history are) full of evidence of them frequently stating outright falsehoods, some in the form of personal attacks, and fair constructive criticism for "wasting other people's time and energy for them, and gaming the system, which is obstructing the improvement and development of articles." Also, why shouldn't I be adding images to an article on misinformation, such as Covid-19 misinformation in the first place? That's appropriate, no? I would argue my edit is intentionally mischaracterized as adding "links" "for a disinformation web site to the article lede". Isn't there a clear policy strongly encouraging adding appropriate images to an article almost entirely bereft of them? It's essential to a good or featured article, no? And did I not caption the image appropriately? To be clear, I clicked an edit button at Covid-19 misinformation to add this to that page:  It didn't work right. So I edited the page to move the image down, so that this second attempt to add this to the to Covid-19 misinformation page would work. I wonder why it didn't work and how I'd get it to work - if there's support for putting it back in the article. Statement from TarnishedPath[edit]Please refer to Special:Diff/1280722344, a comment made during a discussion at WP:ANI. In his comment the subject made insinuations that there are WP:PAID in a discussion Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory without providing a skerrick of evidence. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Statement from Aquillion[edit]I feel their ANI and talk page comments are a more serious problem than their article edits. Just from the diff above:
These show a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, WP:ASPERSIONs, and are generally not the sort of behavior that such a tense topic area needs right now. And their other comments are no better: (These generally fall under WP:ARBPS instead)
Generally just WP:AGF failures, WP:ASPERSIONs, and incivility. --Aquillion (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning RememberOrwell[edit]
|
Mgfdhsrhe
[edit]| Blocked by Girth Summit as a sock. Valereee (talk) 16:29, 20 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 Mgfdhsrhe[edit]
This editor achieved 30/500 largely by a sequence of trivial edits.
Within a few edits after this, the editor reached 500 (or close to it) and made their first ARBPIA edit.
CTOP notice on talk page. Note that the notice was delivered after the above sequence of trivial edits. However, I suggest that the very fact of making all those trivial edits just when they were needed to reach 500 is sufficient evidence that they were aware of the 30/500 restriction.
Discussion concerning Mgfdhsrhe[edit]Statement by Mgfdhsrhe[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mgfdhsrhe[edit]
|
Hu741f4
[edit]| Hu741f4, AlvaKedak and Koshuri Sultan are advised that it's best to gain proficiency in WP:policies and guidelines before editing in WP:contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 12:33, 28 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 Hu741f4[edit]
@Rosguill, @Valereee see if that will do:
Discussion concerning Hu741f4[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 Hu741f4[edit]Article edits: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1278215040 This piece of info isn't my addition. Someone else added that. The edit which this user is citing is reversion of my previous edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1278214650 where I had removed that info. Many of the edits which this user is citing (as edit number 8) was reverted by me just moments after I realized my mistake for example here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169207 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277168808 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169019 2)This edit is supported by multiple sources, all of them use the term "historical inaccuracies" 3)All the three edits by this user were vandalism. In one of those edits, the user changed the name of vice chancellor to Himanta Biswa Sarma who is the CM of Assam. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Science_and_Technology,_Meghalaya&diff=prev&oldid=1277721484 5)I gave the reason in the edit summary (please check) To put this tag, the sources should fit under description of insufficiently reliable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources 7)The previous wording was this: On 22 February 2025, Israel refused to release 620 Palestinian prisoners as stipulated,because repeated violations of the deal by Hamas, instead instituting an indefinite delay despite Hamas releasing six living hostages". Because it consisted typo like missing "of" and the wording wasn't neutral as it implied that Hamas was indeed violating the deal, I added the word "accused" and fixed some grammatical mistakes. Another thing to note here is that this entire edit which I modified failed to mention that it is a quote. The user who made this edit later sent thank on my edit. I did nothing wrong here 8) I reverted that just moments after I realized my mistake for example here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169207 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277168808 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambhaji&diff=prev&oldid=1277169019 There isn't even a minute delay in reversion 10)This is the only legit accusation. I was indeed wrong here. I mistakenly searched page 168 of "Snedden, Kashmir: The Unwritten History, 2013" instead of Snedden, Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, 2015". Thankfully this edit was reverted. Talk page edits: 4)I cited the source— The satyagarah Magazine. 6)Just an opinion Overall I didn't break any Wikipedia guidelines or rule except in one case (mistakenly).
23:26, 5 February 2025: The wording of the article implied that Genocide was comitted "especially" against the Hindus, but this isn't true since majority of Bengalis who were targeted were not Hindus. Even if you look at citation, you'll find that this isn't exactly what the source is saying. "Including" would have been a better word choice. Nevertheless, I accepted the revert when someone reverted my edit saying that this was added after consensus and I stopped editing that article. 01:50, 4 February 2025: The book is an English translation of Tafsir ibn Kathir. This isn't the only refrence that is cited to support that info. There are other citations too which are reliable. The aim of the edit was to show the translation of Tafsir ibn Kathir. I understand that I should have provided a better and reliable translation of Tafsir ibn Kathir as source. 00:08, 2 February 2025: Unnecessary because it was duplicate. This info was mentioned twice in the article— at the beginning and also at the bottom of the same section. Another thing to note is that the source cited in the footnotes after this, doesn't mention this info. 18:17, 31 January 2025: The link redirected me to a website which was full of adverts. So I removed it as I thought it was unreliable (I was careless but there was no dishonesty or hidden agenda from my side), but now since you pointed that edit, I revisited the link and realized that despite all those adverts, it contains a speech by Ved Bhasin. I'll be taking extra care from now. 19:55, 24 January 2025: Indiatimes.com pieces composed by people who have no expertise in history of food can't be used as citations especially when academic sources are saying otherwise. There is a policy that sources should be reliable in context see WP:SECONDARY and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. We need a source like K. T. Achaya 17:45, 23 January 2025: Yes! The cited source doesn't mention "in accordance with ceasefire term" https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-troops-kill-gaza-terror-operative-who-posed-a-threat-amid-ceasefire/ 23:39, 30 December 2024: Yes! The cited source doesn't say anything like this regarding the "Binomial coefficients". You can check it out yourself. 04:45, 30 October 2024: Yes! The cited source doesn't mention use of "Sine rule" by Brahmagupta and I discussed that with other editors in the Talk page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_of_sines&diff=prev&oldid=1254263327 They had similar concern regarding this piece of info. The content has been modified. This is the problem with many articles that are related to India. You'll find several contents that have citations, but on checking you'll find that what the cited source says, is very different from what the article says. 12:16, 30 December 2024: Indeed my mistake. I accept it, as I wasn't familiar with WP:GSNR back then https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1279466825 [114]isn't that simple. Check my replies and also check other sections including this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system#Recent_edit_by_Jacobolus and the later three sections. Other editors like M bitton agreed with my edit.
Statement by Koshuri Sultan[edit]My analysis:
That said, I believe the OP deserves a WP:BOOMERANG here. With only 400 edits his talk page is also full of warnings.[37][38][39] Koshuri (グ) 14:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00[edit]I don't know why I was pinged above at all. I don't see a merit in this report. Upon seeing the recent history here I would like to see some discussion over this comment by AlvaKedak; " Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Hu741f4[edit]
|
BePrepared1907
[edit]| BePrepared1907 is made subject to an indefinite balanced editing restriction (BER). To the extent that the BER includes a topic ban outside of the main, talk, draft, and draft talk namespaces, an exception is made to this topic ban for content that 1) relates to youth movements and 2) doesn't relate to the Gaza war (2023–present). This restriction may be appealed only to WP:ARCA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:25, 31 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 BePrepared1907[edit]
BePrepared1907 created their account in 2015, making 50 edits that year. They edited occasionally from 2015–2022. By October 2023, they had under 100 edits. In November and December 2023, they added 454 edits, becoming ECR:
Most of their edits involve adding/updating descriptions, adding the same source across articles, or wikilinking, suggesting possible gaming. After some inactivity, they resumed regular edits in August 2024, becoming a SPA. Many of their contributions focus on deleting content, often citing POV or SYNTH issues, though many edits lack descriptions.
Recently the user Boksi was blocked for being a sock of Galamore. I noticed some similarities between Boksi and BePrepared that might warrant a closer look. I am not familiar with Galamore so there might be some behavioural clues that I am missing. Since November 2024 – when the Boksi account switched to being a SPA in PIA – there have been some instances where the edits are similar or outright identical, for example:
I have also noticed they are usually never online the same days or, for the few days when both accounts are active, never at the same time. Both have long periods without editing. The day after Boksi was blocked, BePrepared was active again, after 10 days of inactivity. Might be worth looking into.
Note that this is not a request for an SPI, I included that information for context, but that investigation is already happening over on that corner of the site. This is for AE regarding ARBPIA/EC/GAMING, and a separate issue. I could open a new SPI as well/in lieu if that's what you recommend? (cc @Liz) Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BePrepared1907[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 BePrepared1907[edit]Thank you for reopening this thread. I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns regarding my topic ban related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I want to acknowledge the issues that have been raised about my editing behavior and the allegations of potential sockpuppetry. I understand that my recent activity may have raised some flags, and I take these concerns seriously. To provide some context, I created my account in 2015 and initially focused on topics related to global scouting. My shift to the Arab-Israeli conflict was motivated by a desire to contribute to discussions I find important, but I realize now that my approach may not have aligned with community expectations. I recognize that my editing patterns, particularly the volume of edits, may have suggested gaming the system, which was not my intention. Regarding the sockpuppetry allegations, I want to clarify that I am not involved with any other accounts. Any similarities in editing patterns with other users are coincidental, and I am committed to editing independently. I apologize if my previous message seemed overly formal or not reflective of my own voice. I assure you that I am committed to engaging in this discussion authentically and constructively. I am open to feedback on how I can improve my contributions moving forward. If there are specific areas where you believe I can adjust my approach or guidelines I should pay closer attention to, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to your feedback. Best regards, BePrepared1907 (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]"never at the same time." is not quite right. Both accounts edit in short bursts of a few edits (ban evading actors operating multiple accounts sometimes display this pattern), and sometimes the bursts are close to each other. Not often though. Examples include 2024-11-10 and 2025-01-15. You can see the pattern here. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS[edit]This is a very likely sock account of Galamore based on overlapping editing with Boksi and Shoogiboogi. But whether or not this user is confirmed as a sock, their behaviour regarding POV-pushing should be taken seriously here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC) I don't see the point of BER. If a user's editing in a topic area is unacceptable then they should be topic banned; and if their editing is acceptable then they should be allowed to edit as much as they want. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning BePrepared1907[edit]
|
Genabab
[edit]| Genabab is informally warned to keep their arguments focused on policy, especially on highly contentious pages. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Genabab[edit]
Not applicable for this specific editor. However, three other editors were sanctioned by ArbCom for disruptive editing cited to FOARP's evidence about dubious reasoning on the term "massacre" in requested moves.[40][41][42]
The comment thread should be hatted (I can't myself, because I'm WP:INVOLVED) and a warning given not to use independent reasoning/original research to determine whether an event is a massacre, because it clearly contradicts article titling policy and sparks WP:NOTFORUM violation over editors' subjective perceptions on whether the event was a mass murder targeting civilians or a legitimate military operation. Specifically, the policy is WP:NCENPOV which says that articles should, in order of preference, be titled with a WP:COMMONNAME, a "generally accepted descriptor, even if controversial", and finally a neutral descriptive word. The word "massacre" is given as a specific example of a word of "questionable neutrality". Arguments at requested moves to include the word "massacre" should, by any reasonable interpretation of policy, use reliable sources to demonstrate that the word "massacre" is a common name or a generally accepted descriptor. This is an issue for Arbitration Enforcement because WP:ARBPIA5 resulted in multiple bans as a result of evidence presented by FOARP with regards to editors selectively interpreting article titling policy related to the term "massacre".[43] The topic area would benefit if AE admins intervened early to remind editors that they should try to follow content guidelines.
Discussion concerning Genabab[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 Genabab[edit]I don't think there's a lot to seriously respond to here. All I'll say is anyone who checks that talk page will see that I do also highlight how RS describe the events there as a massacre, alongside previous RFC's consensus on the issue, which has been ignored by the complainant.
@Valereee, I'm not sure I understand what the functional difference between "Oppose, I think enough highest-quality RS are calling this a massacre,[1][2][3]" and " this opinion of yours is backed up by X, Y, Z" is supposed to be. Ultimately, RS's are being cited. Isn't that the point? For example, in the message beginning "Partisan doesn't mean not Reliable." I go on to list a few sources that call it a massacre (UN, Guardian, etc..) and in the messages after that I repeat the fact that RS' say that the majority who died were civillians. What's the difference between that and what you don't take issue with? Statement by The Kip[edit]It may be worth noting that Genabab does have a semi-recent logged warning for conduct in the ARBPIA/A-I area; that said, as stated below I’m not sure if this singular diff can truly be considered sanctionable. The Kip (contribs) 05:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC) Statement by VR[edit]Whether a title should include "massacre" is a frequent debate in this area. I think Genabab's comment is reasonable (but one I disagree with). There are two issues here:
Whether or not "massacre" is always a POV title seems to be disputed. For example, in this RM, the first closer (who later vacated) said:
The second closer, an admin, said:
I tried a community discussion on this very issue, but there was no conclusion. No one should be sanctioned for an opinion the community itself is so confused about.VR (Please ping on reply) 11:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Genabab[edit]
|