Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Statement by 14Jenna7Caesura: reply to Muhlaysia Booker deletions with references Tag: Reverted |
|||
Line 295: | Line 295: | ||
*I am against personal attacks. At the same time, I am against weaponizing the no personal attacks rule to violate neutral editing. I am also against using the no personal attacks rule to attack me and target me.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 20:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC) |
*I am against personal attacks. At the same time, I am against weaponizing the no personal attacks rule to violate neutral editing. I am also against using the no personal attacks rule to attack me and target me.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 20:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
* Removing [[Muhlaysia Booker]] from the article is an example of discrimination against a dead t girl. I am learning that on this platform if I as an editor write a complaint, then the said complaint is equated with a personal attack. Thus, of course, I am against personal attacks. Nevertheless, because of the way that a good rule of "no personal attacks" is exploited improperly, it suits me best to self-censor and disengage mostly.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 19:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
* Removing [[Muhlaysia Booker]] from the article is an example of discrimination against a dead t girl. I am learning that on this platform if I as an editor write a complaint, then the said complaint is equated with a personal attack. Thus, of course, I am against personal attacks. Nevertheless, because of the way that a good rule of "no personal attacks" is exploited improperly, it suits me best to self-censor and disengage mostly.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 19:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*Muhlaysia Booker was all over the news. She spoke out against trans hate saying on CBS, "his time I can stand before you; whereas in other scenarios, we are at a memorial." https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/transgender-woman-badly-beaten-dallas-viral-video-speaks-out/ It was prophetic. Now, it is literally her memorial. Was she lying when she warned the public about hate now that the public stands at her memorial. You can just go to YouTube and see hundreds of sources from ABC News, CBS, and so on. Her being silence by murder and now I don't even dare to touch her article or the corresponding [[List of people killed for being transgender]] article. This is a bad editing climate for Wikipedia.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 22:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Crossroads==== |
====Statement by Crossroads==== |
Revision as of 22:01, 14 April 2022
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Shirshore
Shirshore is indefinitely topic-banned from Horn of Africa, broadly construed. The topic ban can be lifted on appeal, which is possible after six months.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Shirshore
Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Horn of Africa space, particularly within Somaliland/Somalia articles. Their edit summaries indicate they are only interested in pushing a specific viewpoint and are more than willing to erase sourced content they dont like using "derogatory" as justification (e.g. from 2019: They do not seem to care all that much for edit-warring warnings as they have gone back to edit warring within minutes of the notice [[5]], [6].They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a WP:NOTHERE ban, failing that I think a permanent topic ban from Horn-related articles is the minimum necessary sanction. Kind regards -- Kzl55 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
[[7]]
Discussion concerning ShirshoreStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ShirshoreThe content removed is derogatory and inflammatory towards the group concerned. I don’t believe such content should be on Wikipedia, it can be deemed abusive should be removed off the platform. However, if other editors believe it to be constructive I will cease editing. Regards
Statement by FreetrashboxI don't disagree with TBAN because I have several problems with Shirshore's edits, especially this one. However, the same goes for Kzl55 and Jacob300 for joining in the editing battle. It is clear from the BBC and VOA articles that these areas are disputed areas. Kzl55 and Jacob300 are clearly violating WP:POV and there is no doubt that their edits are frustrating their opponents. I have had several dialogues with Jacob300, but they simply repeat their arguments with the latest version fixed to their preferred edit (and their logic is that "as long as no consensus has been formed, the current version should be adopted,") and I rarely feel that a consensus can be formed in a dialogue with them. It would induce hasty and emotional editing. If their editorial attitude is not changed, it seems likely that similar examples will follow. I have been a long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia, but the situation in this topic on the English Wikipedia is extraordinary.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Additional comment @El C: I re-read my post above, and I apologize for the content that could be taken to suggest that the English Wikipedia is inferior to the Japanese version. I mainly translate English Wikipedia articles into Japanese version, and I browse in a wide range of fields, including science, culture, geography, and history. Compared to those, there are many editorial battles in this field to rewrite A into B (and B into A), and the articles are not being enriched in spite of this. Editorial battles are generally caused by both sides. I think it is good idea that both be mentioned jointly, but it seems to me that this is being rejected by both sides participating in this field in the Somaliland/Somalia(Puntland) capacity.--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Shirshore
|
Veverve
There's been a lot of ideas as to solutions, and we all agree on the problem. At the end of the day, I think the best solution is to institute an indefinite topic ban for all topics relating to "Russia", broadly construed, for Veverve. This includes talk pages or discussions anywhere on the Wiki, subject to the usual exceptions (appeals). The scope was kind of tricky, as we aren't trying to overshoot the mark, yet it's unfair to have the scope too narrow or confusing as to invite more AE discussions as to what is and isn't a violation. I think there is a clear consensus that Russia in general is the primary problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Veverve
With regard to categories (diff #3), my typical response would be that Black Hundreds, for example, should be included to the category based on their description in book Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements or in another book, but this is beyond the point. The point is the confrontational approach by Veverve to resolving content disputes: the refusal to discuss the essence of disagreements and demanding to self-revert immediately on all pages or "I will report you to ANI". The report to ANI would result only in wasting time by contributors in this case.
Discussion concerning VeverveStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Veverve
Veverve (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Dhawangupta@Dennis Brown: I think you should take WP:ATD into consideration. There is no need of another AfD to overturn a previous AfD. The discussion on talk page happened for weeks and it was concluded that Wikipedia is better off without this article. The clear consensus was also noted by arbitrator+admin Xeno on WP:AN.[20] Since this report largely depend on that particular point that has been already resolved, I don't consider this report as anything more than WP:FORUMSHOPPING to find another resolution instead of describing on talk page that why this POV cruft is needed or if there is any academic coverage about it. Dhawangupta (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichJust want to note Veverve's recent editing in this topic area, including a group of RfDs, plus their retirement message, plus more editing afterwards. Sorry I'm on mobile and don't have time for diffs, but it's all in their contribs from today. I would suggest the scope of the tban include fascism and EE, not just "Russian fascism" as that's too narrow IMO. Levivich 17:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Veverve
|
Goliath74
Article ECP protected by El_C --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Goliath74
n/a
Given the ongoing propaganda war surrounding the actual war, the last thing relevant articles needs is editors who persist in restoring information by a blog deemend unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#defence-blog.com. FDW777 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Goliath74Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Goliath74Statement by (username)Result concerning Goliath74
|
14Jenna7Caesura
14Jenna7Caesura is indefinitely topic banned from any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 14Jenna7Caesura
User has a number of DS alerts in other areas as well, but my reason for filing is the number of page moves without discussion on pages subject to gender and sexuality sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 14Jenna7CaesuraStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 14Jenna7Caesura
Statement by CrossroadsSee this about BLP-violating gender-related content being added to an article after getting the gender DS, and the attacks in the reply here to another editor. 14Jenna7Caesura made this edit to Equality Act (United States), which added a source but also subsumed sex and sexual orientation as part of gender even though none of the sources support that, not even the one she added. After being reverted, she edit warred by restoring the same edit with a non sequitur edit summary about sex and gender being related (true, but they are distinct, as is sexual orientation). The discussion she points to in the comment here contains personal attacks against Funcrunch, found in this diff. Odd to point to it. Whether someone is right or not, editors must be collaborative and civil. Crossroads -talk- 05:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by Donald Albury@14Jenna7Caesura: The community enforces the no personal attacks and other policies in an attempt to create a welcoming environment in which editors may work collaboratively to produce a quality on-line encyclopedia. If those policies restrict your ability to express yourself, maybe you would be more comfortable editing on some other platform. - Donald Albury 19:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 14Jenna7Caesura
|
RfC at Azov Battalion
Declined malformed. Elinruby, this is inadequate and malformed. It doesn't look like you've put that much effort into this report, like much of a summary, the users involved, key diffs, and so on. I've given you a logged warning due to spillover from this dispute just yesterday, and I'm sorry to say, but this does not inspire confidence. Worse still, when the careless (not just inexperience) nature of this report was brought up, your responses had been just confounding (diff). And also just plain wrong, because not only is Redrose64 an admin, but her knowledge of these editorial procedures is unrivalled. Please do better because a WP:TBAN is pretty much imminent for anything else. Newcomers can only be given allowances to a point. Competence is required, most especially for WP:ACDS matters. El_C 23:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning RfC at Azov Battalion
RfC close as no consensus
Section as it stands: [23]
. Not seeking sanctions, just closure
Not seeking sanctions at the moment but there has been a revert war on an RfC as people were voting on it. This may be due to a previous refusal to discuss but the bigger point right now is that everyone involved seems to agree.that the RfC needs to be closed and started over.
Not seeking sanctions, just closure Discussion concerning RfC at Azov BattalionStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by RfC at Azov BattalionStatement by AquillionExplanation (sort of) here. I don't think AE lets administrators close RFCs as an arbcom enforcement action, so it's unclear what is being requested here. See the list of things you can request via AE at the top of the page. If you're requesting action against a user you need to specify the user and why. I would assume that this page falls under the Eastern Europe DS, though. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning RfC at Azov Battalion
|
EnlightenmentNow1792
EnlightenmentNow1792 is topic banned from Eastern Europe --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning EnlightenmentNow1792
This is just a snapshot of this editor's disruptive behaviour over the past few days at the Azov Battalion page encompassing more than 100 edits on the talk page since 30 March.
Discussion concerning EnlightenmentNow1792Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by EnlightenmentNow1792My contributions to the attempt to improve the article: 1. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion#Is_Azov_still_neo-nazi? (over a dozen of the most eminently RSs) 2. Many hours spent trying to help finish the malformed RfC (I didn't want to), only for the initiator to then take back control of the RfC, which I acquiesed to: 3. For the RfC, an "Alternative Draft #2:" The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the Azov Battalion in Kyiv in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and neo-Nazi political activists under the political leadership of Andriy Biletsky.[1] "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1).[2] Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence,[3] relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism,[4] and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers.[5] However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]</ref>[13][14] EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
How is it that you are accusing me of exhibiting unhelpful, battleground behavior/editing, when your edit count[39] shows that you have made 28 edits to the Azov Battalion article proper, at least 6 of which are outright reverts: 1 - [40] 2 - [41] 3 - [42] 4 - [43] 5 - [44] - (including this deliberately deceptive edit calling the op-ed author published a highly WP:PARTISAN and outdated source, American memoirist Lev Golinkin, as a "Ukrainian affairs writer" and a Ukrainian!?! The piece is clearly not fact-checked of course, being published in 2019 yet calling Biletsky Azov's leader, attributing to him a long-discredited quote, claiming he's a member of the Rada... all untrue as of 2016, when he was was booted out of Azov and founded his own political party which was precisely zero parliamentary representation, himself included) 6 - [45] - (and this telling edit summary: "(They are neo-Nazis, IDK how that is "overkill per their articles" when we call the orgs neo-Nazi in their articles)" as nonsensical as it is disrespectful to all the scholarship and respective news orgs who have said otherwise) ...and including at least one edit[46] edit, which simply amplifies Kremlin disinfo. (without qualification, by explicating Moscow's use of the existence of the Azov unit, an outfit of 1,500 max nationwide, as justification for it's Siege of Mariupol', a city of half a million largely Russian-speaking people, nearly half of which identify as ethnic Russians). Incidentally, the Avoz unit itself is comprised of a majority of Russian-speakers, but, again, as with so much other sourced information in the article that doesn't suit the simplistic Kremlin narrative, a mere 2min look at the recent edit history of the article will uncover the slow-motion tag-team edit-warring that keeps this kinda info out of the article. I'm referring of course to not justBSMRD, but Vladimir.copic (Russian),[47](removal of multiple RS) GizzyCatBella,[48] Mhorg (Russian),[49] and Aquillion[50] not only managing to keep the "neo-Nazi" label intact by appealing to sources such as YouTube, The Telegraph (2014), Al Jazeera, RT (Kremlin-run), and RBC (Kremlin-run) - but they've even managed to delete any evidence that there is actually on ongoing dispute over the NPOV of the article, by repeatedly deleting even the NPOV-Disputed tag![51], [52], [53], and countless more diffs. You have contributed no sources, nor engaged in any meaningful discussion on Talk, and yet somehow you have well over 30 edits on Wikipedia's Admin and Arbitration requests regarding this very article! If that is not an indication of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I don't know what is.... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC) References
Statement by BSMRDIn addition to what has been provided above, EnlightenmentNow1792 seems to be reverting any messages regarding their behavior off their talk page as "personal attacks" (that's just a small sample, more can be seen here). Now, by itself there is nothing wrong with that however, in addition, they have shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia's administrative processes and ruling, shown both in the above posting, this comment and their response to this warning. They clearly have no desire to change their behavior or regard any other editors or administrators encouragement to do so. In fact, they don't seem to have changed their behavior at all since the last time they were blocked, and I doubt anything short of a broader/longer block or TBAN will do anything. BSMRD (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBellaI always advocate against sanctioning editors unless it's absolutely necessary and justified but this case requires administrative intervention, unfortunately. Edit warring [54], [55], [56], [57] and WP:BLUDGEON on the Azov Battalion talk page including "hijacking" RFCs [58] (modifying other people's text to their liking [59] see the complaint that followed -->[60]), the repeated removal of other people's comments [61], [62], [63] are just samples that are outside criteria that must be followed. (I could go on with more examples of disruptive behaviour but I believe these already presented are enough) - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The WP:BLUDGEON at the Azov talk page continues (as I write this). Here is just a recent sample of it:
It's very challenging to navigate through that talk page as it is. We don't need to hear repeated argumentation, over and over and over. Sadly, I'll have to support a topic ban at least from that talk page, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC) On top of the bizarre accusation of misconduct against our finest administrators [67] and here too [68] I believe it's worth noting the strange remark posted here [69] that has been copy-pasted from talk page of ToBeFree [70] where EnlightenmentNow1792 went on a block shopping journey just a day earlier. The editor exhibits clear battleground behaviour. I'm not sure 🤔 but perhaps they require also a break to recognize it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC) And now this [71] .. contesting another fine admin. Oh Lord.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC) I also share the view of Firefangledfeathers -->[72] EnlightenmentNow1792 has the potential to be a positive acquisition to our project if they only understood how to act accordingly to our standards. The only issue is their conduct which might be happening because of a lack of experience. I hope they learn from this incident and revise their behaviour. I really hope so and I would welcome rather soft sanctions. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersI'll likely have more to say later, but I'd like to call attention to prior conduct issues raised at ANI in December and February. Both involved disruptive conduct in other topic areas. WP:TEXTWALL is a recurring issue with this editor. EnlightenmentNow1792, are you aware that there is a 500 word limit here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishesThe battleground attitude of this user is obvious,
Statement by (username)Result concerning EnlightenmentNow1792
|
Anonimu
Indef TBAN from ARBEE. Thanks, My very best wishes for the summary. Volunteer Marek, triage, please! El_C 01:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Anonimu
User:Anonimu has both been extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS in their edits to articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war, and extremely uncivil, uncooperative and insulting as well. For the record, Anonimu is still under a 1RR restriction, a civility parole and an admonition to "behave impeccably" [73]; although this restriction was imposed quite some time ago as a condition of removal of their indefinite ban from Wikipedia, it was never lifted and still applies. Anonimu acknowledges that it still applies in this edit summary although they claim that these restriction only apply to "Balkans" and not "Russia". There is no indication anywhere that this is the case. The original restrictions apply to ALL of their editing. Anonimu has violated all three of these restrictions, and even if one regards these restrictions as "stale" on account of their vintage, their behavior is still sanction worthy. Indeed, this seems to be a reversion to exactly the same kind of behavior (both in terms of civility and POV/WP:TEND) that led them to get indefinitely blocked back then. The most vexatious issue is Anonimu repeatedly referring to my edits as vandalism:
And here we are. I've been about as patient as it is humanely possible here with Anonimu. Ten warnings, from myself and other users. Each one seems to only embolden him. Anonimu's edits to article space have likewise been problematic. On War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine their edits generally try to deny, whitewash or minimize Russian war crimes reported on in reliable sources:
Note that's there's likely a dozen or so 1RR violations in the above, in addition to WP:TEND and WP:NPA violations. There's even more at Kramatorsk railway station attack
Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, both of these are very old. But these were the reasons he was placed under 1RR restriction and civility parole as conditions of removing the indef ban [119]. The restrictions were never removed. As mentioned above Anonimu recognizes the restrictions are still in place but likes to pretend they only apply to the Balkans. This is not true. And in fact, their original indef ban was over edits to the topic area of Balkans AND Russia. Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Like I said above, I'm out of patience here. Four different editors have tried to explain to him why their behavior is problematic. The response is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and escalation in incivility and battleground. And that's NOT EVEN considering the WP:TEND content of their edits. While I don't think their indefinite ban should be restored (although it's exactly the same problem that led to it) a topic ban from anything Eastern Europe and especially Russia related is a minimum here.
Discussion concerning AnonimuStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AnonimuStatement by My very best wishesI also noticed that recent editing by Anonimu in this subject area was very problematic. Some diffs:
Statement by (username)Result concerning Anonimu
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu
There is a consensus to reject the appeal and endorse the topic ban --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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 AnonimuI did not have the occasion to make a statement on the original AE request, since it was closed in just 2 hours. Since enforcing admin said the ban was applied for supposed "tendentious editing", I'll just go through the "offending" diffs and show that they were just strict application of WP:5P2 (more specifically WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:ATT). Do note that this is a current topic, thus should be judged according to data available at the time of edit, not info which appeared later:
I fail to see how adding info from sources such as BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, Euronews, CBS News, and the UN High Commissioner for Human rights and reporting the original attribution (explicit in these RSs) instead of presenting Ukrainian claims in WP:WIKIVOICE can be considered WP:Tendentious editing.Anonimu (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Additional statement by AnonimuI am able to provide "clear evidence" of "malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" by Volunteer Marek. Therefore, per WP:SPADE and WP:GOODFAITH, I think adequately describing his actions does not qualify as incivility. I will only list diffs if requested to do by administrators (just collecting the ones from last month will take three or four times as much as my original statement).Anonimu (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement regarding diffs provided by MVBWMVBW's statement is actually a list of personal attacks, at it attributes to me beliefs I do not hold. Do note that per WP:V and WP:NOTTRUTH, one editor's personal beliefs are irrelevant as long as he edits according to WP:NPOV. So here we go:
Request to remove grave personal attacks by involved editorI kindly request that MVBW's statement that I am "trying to whitewash crimes" be removed as a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVILAnonimu (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by El CLet's be clear, VM's report was terrible. So long, needlessly so. Which then unsurprisingly reflects in this appeal. And the weird thing is that VM actually knows better. He has argued multiple times, on this very noticeboard, about how a responding party needs more space than the complaining one. And yet here we are. I looked at a couple of other examples from VM's lengthy complaint that were questionable. Like, claims of 1RR vios for pages not subject to 1RR. Also, RE: Euronews source, I'm not sure what happened there, but "terror" is mentioned in the aforementioned titled "Ukraine war: Distress and destruction as Russia continues its assault," which can be found here. Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that the evidence submitted by MVBW was what prompted me to act so decisively. Otherwise, the report from VM seemed pretty TLDR-impenetrable. So I would advise the appellant to focus on those diffs rather than on those submitted by VM. Personally, I believe that that evidence is rather damning, but if the general feel is that this was too hard too fast on my part, I'll definitely take note. El_C 15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer MarekEl_C imposed the topic ban on Anonimu for tendentious editing (well deserved, even if not ALL of Anonimu's edits were problematic). I'm guessing from El_C's statement (replying to MVBW) that the tendentious editing by itself was enough to merit a topic ban. My initial AE report in good deal also focused on persistent incivility by Anonimu, refusal to tone down attacks, and general WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. Anonimu is also still under 1RR restriction (which they've broken numerous times) and a civility parole (see original report). Here are the diffs which show Anonimu making repeated and escalating personal attacks and refusing to stop calling my good faithed edits 'vandalism' despite being asked/instructed to do so by several editors:
I've been extremely patient, but dealing with someone who does this over and over again is simply impossible. Volunteer Marek 15:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesI did not even read any diffs and comments by VM in his request. However, I provided 5 diffs which clearly demonstrate that Anonimu should not be editing in this subject area. And yes, that diff (see comments by RandomCanadian) shows exactly the same. It does not matter why exactly Anonimu does it. Hence, I would definitely endorse the topic ban by El_C. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) I copy paste these diffs with my comments for convenience:
Based on these and this diffs, I think Anonimu is trying to whitewash war crimes committed by Russian military. Diffs #1, #2 and #5. The large-scale bombings of civilians, including pregnant women and hospitls are a war crime essentially as a matter of fact. Removing such info with such justification by Anonimu is a textbook example of POV-pushing I believe. Diffs #3 and #4. I leave it to admins to decide if it was a manipulation and misinterpretation of sources by Anonumu, but I think it clearly was. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC) One can easily find more diffs. For example, [181] (edit summary: rm fake sourcing, which IS vandalism (none of the RS include or talk about this photo)). What? The sources (such as [182]) do include very graphic photos and video of civilians killed in Bucha. Perhaps these sources include not exactly same photo, but something shot from a different angle, but does it matter? Calling this "fake sourcing" and vandalism... My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by tgeorgescuWhile some of their edits have merit (especially when confronting extreme Romanian nationalists), their POV is too much pro-Putin in order to be allowed to edit in ARBEE topics. Also, they might be right about some dubious use of sources, but according to WP:PRESERVE fact-based content should be preserved and if better sources are needed, they should ask nicely and wait till those get provided. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 3)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AnonimuStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by RandomCanadianSome of the edits mentioned above are clear instances of WP:FALSEBALANCE, and, unfortunately for the OP who does not seem to agree with the wider community, it is indeed tendentious to insist otherwise (for example [185]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by AdrianHObradorsI just saw this, and I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, is my first time on a discussion about an appeal. Also don't know how uninvolved I am as I have been keeping an eye over the subject and have been seeing the edits made by both Anonimu and Volunteer Marek, and sometimes trying to reach a compromise between them. I think they are both a bit biased, but they did find a bit of an equilibrium between each other. And I don't think Anonimu deserves the block (in regards of his edits of the article). The articles involving Ukraine are very hard to keep NPOV, and his contributions actually help balance it a little bit. Sometimes it is balanced a bit too much, but still helps. I want to go over the statements made by My very best wishes:
I do think Anonimu should stop claiming vandalism everywhere, but I do understand it is a very sensible thread and many get a bit heated up over it. In short, I think removing Anonimu from editing would actually be more negative than positive and make it harder to keep those articles with a neutral point of view. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by BiruitorulAnonimu's involvement here, where he recently filibustered and distorted a non-controversial DYK for weeks on end, merely because it made the Romanian Communist regime appear in a negative light, is further proof that whatever productive contributions he may make, these are far outweighed by his tendentious battleground mentality. His new hobbyhorse, seeking to cast the Kremlin's latest aggression in a positive light, further cements this assertion. He wastes the time of productive editors, injects pro-Communist, pro-Putinist bias into articles, and is generally a nuisance. Thus, the wide-ranging topic ban is fully in order. -- Biruitorul Talk 12:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by TurgidsonI strongly endorse the broad topic ban (including all areas of EE) imposed on Anonimu. He displays the same pattern of "vandal" accusations against established editors [191][192], tendentious and at times disruptive editing [193][194], etc, etc when editing articles about Romania and its relations with neighboring countries. In my experience of having to endure this painful pattern of behavior for many years, I would say at most 10% of his edits are constructive, no matter what the EE-related subject is. Turgidson (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by Super DromaeosaurusEvidence of what Anonimu was attempting is clear, and they shouldn't be allowed to edit pages of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The attitude that they had had has also been clearly excessive, I find it ridiculous to have to argue what constitutes vandalism to be able to call established editors vandals instead of... just not calling them vandals and have a more kind collaboration. So the topic ban regarding the invasion is appropriate. I'm a bit less convinced that the ban should apply to all of Eastern Europe, but from my part, I've also had inexplicably disruptive cases with Anonimu. In the article Obște, I was continuously reverted by this user for my edits being "unsourced" and to "restore status quo" when it was either maintenance and good uncontroversial edits or the removal of an exonym for the Romanians that had been added for no apparent reason (nor sources) [195]. More on the history of the page [196]. I attempted discussion with this issue while this supposed dispute was still ongoing but I was ignored [197], as if this was some kind of test or lazy attempt by them to get their point through by making me give up or something. Another example of their strange modus operandi, in the page Bender, Moldova (which is a Moldovan city under unrecognized Transnistrian occupation), I had a conflict with this user while trying to add the official name that the Moldovan government gives to the city (Tighina) to the lead [198]. They cited policies [199] that contradicted their stances [200] (some explanation needed: that policy they cited allows names to be kept if they are used in 10% of English-language sources, and I searched the names of both cities in Google and Google Scholar to prove this was the case). After this, they dropped citing policies and started mindless reverts [201] [202] (their claim here is wrong, the official Moldovan name is Tighina, see this random document from the Moldovan government [203]), but they eventually gave up. A third example, in Unification of Romania and Moldova, I added two polls on this issue [204] within a table in the article. One was actually not from the organization the table was for, and it also made a different question than the one this organization made for the poll. So, they decided to revert me, also removing the second poll which had no problem (???) [205]. I hadn't understood yet what was I wrong in so I reverted back [206], they did the same this time explaining it more precisely [207], so I re-added the second poll that had no problems at all [208]. This user cared enough to go and check the source of the first poll (and if they did that, it's obvious they also did for the second one) and noticed the error, but instead of fixing it themselves or at least noticing me in a nicer way, Anonimu reverted me also removing the second poll which I suspect they checked and saw had no problem. Once again, lazily trying to get their point through. Anonimu has recurrently been, to put it simply, annoying, and that's clearly a strategy of them, a bad-faithed one. I'm still not entirely convinced that the topic ban should be this broad, because yes they have made some good edits, but cases like the ones I've cited abound with Anonimu, and I'm sure it would be a relief in general for Romania-related editors if these petty conflicts with them were over. Super Ψ Dro 09:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Anonimu
|
MbIam9416
Wrong forum. WP:GS/Crypto is not covered by WP:ACDS. WP:GS vios should be submitted to WP:AN. El_C 11:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning MbIam9416
Discussion concerning MbIam9416Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MbIam9416Statement by (username)Result concerning MbIam9416
|