Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 756: | Line 756: | ||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint: |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint: |
||
This editor has recently begun to disregard its AP2 topic ban. This comes on top of six months of disruptive editing in areas related to politics, gender, and BLP. I apologize for posting several links to long threads, but I think this is the clearest way to demonstrate the problem. This account is [[WP:NOTHERE]] and regularly fails or does not care to understand policies and guidelines it cites to justify tendentious editing. In addition to the sanctions linked above, there were others by {{ping|Wugapodes}} and {{ping|Seraphimblade}} that were undone on appeal. I have not listed diffs for the additional instances of incivility, AGF fails, and aspersions in the three subject areas.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
This editor has recently begun to disregard its AP2 topic ban. This comes on top of six months of disruptive editing in areas related to politics, gender, and BLP. I apologize for posting several links to long threads, but I think this is the clearest way to demonstrate the problem. This account is [[WP:NOTHERE]] and regularly fails or does not care to understand policies and guidelines it cites to justify tendentious editing. In addition to the sanctions linked above, there were others by {{ping|Wugapodes}} and {{ping|Seraphimblade}} that were undone on appeal. I have not listed diffs for the additional instances of incivility, AGF fails, and aspersions in the three subject areas.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
The following interaction with Wugapodes on his talk page may be illustrative of the sealioning and misappropriation of various policies and guidelines.<br> |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_12#Interaction_ban 1) Regarding KB's one-way interaction ban with SPECIFICO],<br>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_12#Evidence 2) KB accusations about SPECIFICO], and<br> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_12#WP:INVOLVED 3) KB mansplaining Wugapodes regarding his Admin actions].<br>[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 21:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
Revision as of 21:48, 8 September 2020
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}}.
|
Thomas Meng
Thomas Meng is warned that his edits are on the borderline of what would trigger a topic ban. He needs to take more note of others who view his additions as WP:UNDUE, and be more ready to accept contrary opinions. Failure to improve is likely to result in a more aggressive sanction, probably a topic ban. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Thomas Meng
Thomas Meng has not been discussed in previous arbitration requests. He registered his username in April 2020. He was blocked by Daniel Case on July 23 because of a discretionary sanctions violation, tendentious editing at Li Hongzhi, an article in the Falun Gong area. In all of his edits and arguments in the Falun Gong area, Thomas Meng has sought to promote a positive image of Falun Gong, arguing against a very well-researched NBC News report because they failed to describe enough of Falun Gong's positive attributes.[2] Thomas Meng has argued against the validity of scholars Heather Kavan and James R. Lewis who have published negative findings about the Falun Gong. Such arguments are further instances of tendentious editing, the part about disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. Thomas Meng has tried to retain or insert promotional material into the Persecution of Falun Gong, including an attractive photo of people meditating,[3] and the three moral principles which cast the group in a good light. These are completely inappropriate for an article about persecution. In this topic area, Thomas Meng is behaving exactly like an activist for Falun Gong, and as such he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Thomas MengStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Thomas MengBelow are some points in response to Binksternet's accusations:
@JzG:Additional comments by Thomas Meng in response to admin JzG's misunderstandingsNot promotional material It is unclear what exactly is the information I've included that you consider "promotional". Assuming that you are referring to my addition of the central tenets of Falun Gong, "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance", I would disagree.Reliable sources overwhemingly agree that "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance" are FLG's core principles. In my statement above,I have illustrated 7 of them, and there are more. Note that FLG's core tenets had been in the lead section since 2011 [18], and it was Binksternet who removed this RS material without consensus in July 2020 [19], and stopped me from adding it back.
It is not difficult to see that my edits consistently appeal to reason and RS content (e.g. [20][21]), while Binksternet's edits consistently appeal to his own opinion (e.g. [22][23]). My discussions are civil, while Binksternet's are dismissive. Below are a few typical comments made by Binksternet and me, and you can contrast them: My comments concerning thedispute, moral principles relevance dispute anddispute Binksrernet's comments concerning the image dispute,dispute (Binksternet did not comment on FLG's principles' relevance to the persecution) If you do not disagree with my reasons and my usage of the sources (you appear to at least concede that there are "merits" to the content), then there is no room for the assertion that my edits are tendentious. If you agree with the simple fact that civil and rational discussion is preferred over personal opinions and derision, then there is no reason why you should be ignoring Binksternet's behaviour in its entirety.
The type of image of FLG practitioeners that Binksternet considered "promotional" is in fact an accurate portrayal of FLG based on scholarly findings on demographics. Please see all the RS references I made in that talk page discussion. Please also note that this kind of image had been on the page since 2015 [24], and it was Binksternet who deleted it without consensus [25] in June 2020, and stopped me from adding it back. Ultimately, there are two questions to be asked. First, if an editor's edits are supported by reliable sources that are accurately portrayed, should the editor be sanctioned just because another editor disagrees with the content of those edits or the sources? Second, if an article has contained certain well-cited information for years, and editor B comes in to remove that information without notice or discussion. Editor A undid that removal and explained his actions, but editor B disagrees. There is certainly a lack of consensus. But is Editor A the one who edited without consensus, rather than Editor B?
This article is completely backed by reliable source coverage. In fact, those RS media focus primarily, if not entirely, in reporting Ni's arrests and imprisonment. Please see a more detailed explanation here. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Horse Eye JackOn the 30th I warned Thomas Meng for edit warring on Li Hongzhi. Their response was to immediately accuse me of talk page harassment (this was my first ever time posting on their talk page) and to claim they were only carrying over a settled consensus from another page. That consensus was apparently from the discussion in question here, I could not verify that a consensus had ever been reached and I believe their statement to be untruthful. The discussion can be found at User talk:Thomas Meng#Edit warring at Li Hongzhi and adds strong support to the case for WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Ian.thomsonI've been dealing with Meng at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong over the moral principles bit. Other users and I have explained how it's simply undue for a tangent article to be going into their core teachings and how the sources don't really demonstrate that FLG is being specifically being targeted for claiming those principles (another pro-FLG editor could say they only "sort of" fit). He displays serious WP:IDHT issues whenever it comes to objections to his edits, reading any message to the contrary as affirmation of his desires (when he doesn't straight up ignore them). That doesn't work in a consensus based project. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by TheBlueCanoeI don't recall ever dealing directly with this editor, but Ian.thomson referenced a comment I made above, so I'll make a quick note. As a content question, there is actually good reason to cite Falun Gong's moral teachings in Persecution of Falun Gong, because several scholarly journal articles and chapters draw a direct connection between these things (e.g. some academic commentators believe that the persecution was precipitated, in part, by a clash of visions between the theistic Falun Gong and the materialist Communist Party. The Communist Party itself said that Falun Gong needed to be suppressed because its moral tenets of truth, compassion, and tolerant, were incompatible with Marxist ideas). I cited some examples on the relevant talk page,[26] and there are more than that. Inclusion of relevant content on the page is fully justified. I'm frankly more concerned by the OP's repeated removal of this content and his apparent misrepresentation of sources on the same topic.[27][28][29][30][31] Anyway, content disagreement shouldn't be solved at AE. There are behavioural issues on these pages, but they implicate editors on both sides of this dispute, and should probably be referred to ArbCom.TheBlueCanoe 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Daniel CaseThis is what I would have said if he had opened an appeal (which as he noted he couldn't have) when I told him I couldn't erase the block from his record: As I had explained to him, I did not intend to get involved, when Binksternet reported him to AIV. I really wish people would not make reports citing arbitration enforcement to AIV. It is not the place for it. But whatever one might wish, it was reported that night, and I decided I owed it a look. As I told Thomas, indeed there was something there. Two weeks after Thomas's removal of some content he considered dubiously sourced led to a contentious discussion where two other editors strongly opposed the edit (and one briefly popped in to support him), he had retutned and restored it. This to me was clearly editing against consensus. I would have let it pass because as Thomas does point out, the warning and report came after his last edit. And vandals get to walk in that situation. But there are discretionary sanctions on that article, and even though I looked at the sanctions log, where no new enforcement has been recorded for over a decade, it is still in force. So I decided to block him. It's not often that I have the kind of cordial discussion with someone I've blocked that I did with Thomas, and I was certainly open then to the possibility I might have overreacted. However, seeing what has happened since, I'm not surprised it has ended up here. Since only now have I been able to read his long explanation to me, I must say that he isn't doing himself any favors. In his position, I would have tried to explain that there was consensus for his edit, regardless of how it seems otherwise. But, instead, he basically says, well, he upset me so much that I had no choice:
Even in an area not under DS, that attitude is asking for a block. I agree Binksternet's tone could have been less confrontational, that he could have entertained the idea that Thomas had a legitimate criticism of the NBC article and worked from there rather than a blanket assertion that everything NBC reports is beyond question (Not necessarily). But ... that's not something you resolve by completely disregarding the other person and going and doing what you want, especially after leaving a templated warning on their talk page. You don't do that and then wonder why you've forfeited a lot of good faith all of a sudden. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonateMy recent involvement is noticing disruption on Falun Gong related articles and occasionally having a look. I confirm that I've seen at least one instance of editing against consensus with a moment of silence after an objection on the talk page taken to mean consensus existed. This is a running-in-circles situation as other editors would have to revert and repeat over and over the same policy and source based arguments. At a recent ANI report I expressed my intention to eventually file AE reports, but considering the limited time I can put in Wikipedia and that a 0R sanction was already applied to some editors, it didn't seem as urgent. While admins are to take the decision, I would propose trying 0R first before applying a complete topic ban in the area. I wasn't personally familiar with this type of sanction until recently (vs 1RR, topic, partial or full blocks). It might allow discussion while also hopefully preventing reinstating edits when repeated arguments are eventually ignored by other editors, possibly breaking the loop. For context: this is a difficult topic where good and bad exists on both sides of a complex debate that also involves human rights. China has a bad record of human rights violations; Falun Gong also accumulates a bad public record in relation to propaganda and exaggerated claims. A persecution complex exists and is used to promote and validate beliefs, while at the same time the group faces true challenges. An effort is done to select reliable independent sources that report about these. One of the comments suggests this is a content dispute that should be solved at ARBCOM, but that's not the proper venue for that, we'd still be on the talk page or at mediation if AE wasn't necessary (and ARBCOM is also to address behavioral and policy violation issues and apply technical solutions). It seems that socking of long-term-abuse editors historically occurred on both sides as demonstrated recently at ANI (SPI). Lastly, the argument was still presented here that the reason for persecution are tenets like truth, when it is clear that it is more perceived extremism allowing members to deny authority and feel above the law. It is of course debatable where the line can be drawn under a difficult regime and I think that most editors are sympathetic to this. In this case, the mention of those religious and philosophical tenets have their place at the main article rather than presented in the persecution article as being the cause of their ills, especially when scholars point out that they can be used as justifications. Unfortunately, the situation has also been exploited by other opportunistic groups with a political intent to foment public anti-Chinese sentiment and promote various conspiracy theories. My word count is already near 500... —PaleoNeonate – 11:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesThomas Meng started editing in April 2020 and made less than 500 edits in the project [32], a lot of them about music and other noncontroversial topics. I do not see his case would be in any way ripe/appropriate for the Arbcom. Quickly looking at his edits in the article in question [33], one can say that his edits are sufficiently well sourced. Speaking about diffs brought to AE by Binksternet (Persecution of Falun Gong), I think the disagreements qualify simply as content disputes. In particular, one can reasonably argue that
Result concerning Thomas Meng
|
Alexiod Palaiologos
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Alexiod Palaiologos
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Alexiod Palaiologos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 13:08, 27 August 2020 Adds text that attempts to downplay the deaths of black people, despite the reference making the opposite point. Detailed explanation below in comments
- 17:36, 27 August 2020 Adds text that has little resemblance to what the references are talking about. Detailed explanation below in comments
- 12:48, 28 August 2020 Adds original research to Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, claiming protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake are part of the George Floyd protests, when obviously they are protesting a different incident entirely
- 13:08, 28 August 2020 Edit warring to repeat diff#3 despite being reverted
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
None.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted here (they have since changed username, don't know if this will affect the automatic logging)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The first diff adds to Black Lives Matter the text Although records are incoherent, it is estimated that 13 unarmed black Americans were shot dead by the Police in 2019, compared with an estimated 25 white Americans shot to death.
The first half of the sentence is referenced by USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. I can't see the latter as I'm not a subscriber, and USA Today isn't particularly important since it's the second half of the sentence that's the problem. The News Northeastern article referencing the second half of the sentence is even titled The Research is Clear: White People Are Not More Likely Than Black People To Be Killed By Police
. And before anyone says I know headlines aren't that useful as references, but the article goes on to point out things like That’s only because there are so many more white people than there are Black people in our country
and Although Black people represented 12 percent of the population in the states we studied, they made up 25 percent of the deaths in police shootings
and perhaps more tellingly Many other studies have shown that Black people are more likely to be killed per capita by law enforcement than are white people in the United States
. In fact the thrust of the entire article is that black people are more likely to be killed by police than white people, so to use that reference to construct a sentence that attempts to portray white people as more likely to be killed by police is clearly not NPOV.
The second diff adds two sentences to Black Lives Matter. The first is At the same time, 89 Police Officers were killed while on duty (2019)
referenced by an FBI press release. Obviously what the relevance of that is to Black Lives Matter is anyone's guess. The second sentence, immediately following the first is This could indicate both a racial bias in Police shootings of unarmed people, or a simple tendency for certain American cities to be extremely violent.
The first reference is a USA Today article from 8 January 2019 that's titled The most dangerous jobs in the US include electricians, firefighters and police officers
. There is no mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related. The second reference is a Forbes Contributor article, which isn't reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes (I'll be reasonable and say that's an innocent mistake). However that article doesn't reference the sentence either, not containing any mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related other than Experts are unsure of what is driving the trend but some opinions cited by Vox have pointed towards the protests in the wake of George Floyd's death as one possible explanation where distrust led to police departments pulling back from communities, causing a spike in violence
, which obviously doesn't reference anything about a racial bias in police shootings of unarmed people. The third reference is the New York Times, which again doesn't contain any mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related other than But this year has been distinct in many ways, because of the pandemic and because of the protests and civil unrest after the death of George Floyd in police custody
. Thus the entire sentence This could indicate both a racial bias in Police shootings of unarmed people, or a simple tendency for certain American cities to be extremely violent
is unreferenced, as is the synthesis of adding it after the sentence about 89 police officers being killed while on duty.
The overall effect of the two diffs is to attempt to downplay the deaths of black people, making them out to be statistically lower than the deaths of white people despite the reference making the exact opposite point. FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Pudeo: You should check page histories before claiming anything is a content dispute. Since I've never edited Black Lives Matter or its talk page, how is it a content dispute? FDW777 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Alexiod Palaiologos
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Alexiod Palaiologos
I used citations from a neutral fact checker, a conservative article (WSJ) and a liberal article. So I'm not sure what you're claiming to say, you're claiming my citations prove me wrong when clearly they do not. They all agree on one statistic, but disagree on the implications of it. Under no circumstance is mentioning the number of people shot dead by the Police (when it is literally mentioned in the same paragraph of the article) some kind of offense. The second part of my edit again, also repeats something from the next paragraph, that more black Americans being shot and killed by the Police does not necessarily indicate racial bias. My citations referred to crime rates, since the other part (not necessarily racial bias) was already addressed in the article in the very next paragraph. The number of Police Officers being killed is very relevant, it provides context as to how violent the job of Policing can be, and large numbers of Police Officers being killed generally reflects higher crime rates, again touched on throughout the section. So it seems you looked at my edit with a confirmation bias of me somehow supporting black people being killed by the Police, and then reached a conclusion out of thin air without any evidence.User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Pudeo
This is a content dispute. You can't really judge what's NPOV at AE. Not much else can be done except to ask everyone to stay calm in these contentious articles.
I also note that FDW777 has been a member only since September 2018 but has already filed seven AE threads[38]. I think that is close to overusing AE to weaponize it in content disputes.--Pudeo (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Alexiod Palaiologos
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The first diff cited in the request shows a clear misrepresentation of a source by Alexiod: he cites a source stating that Blacks are more likely than Whites to be victims of police shootings to imply that the opposite is true. He omits key content and context from the source to imply the opposite of what it actually states. The second diff demonstrates clear inappropriate synthesis; Alexiod cites sources because they list a statistic that he deems important, but no connection to the topic is alluded to anywhere in the actual sources cited. The third diff (and fourth) show him repeatedly including material that is dubious or incorrect (attributing the deaths of two people shot by a right-wing extremist during the Kenosha protests to the death of George Floyd).
I view the first diff as the most serious, since it involves clear misrepresentation of a source. The second diff shows original synthesis, which is against policy but not inherently grounds for sanction. I don't see evidence of previous blocks, warnings, or enforcement requests against Alexiod, so I would propose to close this request with a warning to Alexiod not to misrepresent sources and to avoid original synthesis, with the understanding that further such issues will lead to a block or topic ban.
Regarding Pudeo's concern about the filer, I reviewed FDW777's previous AE filings. In each case, it seems that his requests were felt to be sound and based on valid concerns. I see no evidence of vexatious complaints or misuse of the AE mechanism. We can hardly fault someone for using existing dispute-resolution mechanisms appropriately, and it seems unfair to cast aspersions on FDW777 based solely on the number of requests s/he has filed without regard to their underlying merit. MastCell Talk 22:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Have to agree with MastCell here, a strong warning is in order and any further violations should result in a topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I also checked through the AE requests submitted by FDW777. Of those, 3 resulted in a warning, 1 in an AE block, 1 in a topic ban, and 1 in the editor against whom the complaint was filed being determined to be a block-evading sock and blocked indefinitely. That clearly shows that there is merit in the requests filed by this editor, so simple frequency of them is not a particular cause for concern that FDW777 is filing groundless AE requests for harassment. I would agree with a logged warning that further behavior of this type will lead to sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I will give a warning, if nobody objects --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Guerillero, make it so - I am involved or I would do it. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Dr2Rao
Indefinite topic ban imposed by Bishonen. Salvio 09:37, 6 September 2020 (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 Dr2Rao
No previous sanctions, but warnings aplenty on their talk page.
Notified in May 2020.
Discussion concerning Dr2RaoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dr2RaoAfter being warned, I have always cited sources for my edits (after 24th August, 2020) and I self reverted what I added on the 30th (I had copied a lot of matter from the "Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan" article and did not construct that sentence myself but did not verify what the source said as I believed that the matter was checked by previous editors), so please do not sanction me. Please forgive me for the original research before the warnings. I promise not to repeat any original research. I believe that there is a rule that an editor is given a rope at least once to avoid a sanction, so please give me that rope now (see WP:ROPE)! I am trying to avoid the deletion of an article, the discussion of which is going on here and any sanction now will be counter productive to Wikipedia (I will be unable to defend it and the article will be deleted).—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Toddy1Because of Salvio giuliano's comment, I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by Tayi ArajakateDon't know anything about the user or the issue but just wanted to inform that they have created a copy draft of the mainspace article and then mass pinged a large group of editors (including me) on Draft talk:Religious conversions in Pakistan. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by Girth SummitPlease also take into consideration Draft:Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan, which Dr2Rao has created in case Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan is deleted, and its talk page where Dr2Rao WP:CANVASSed a swathe of editors both to work on the draft, and to leave comments at the AfD discussion. GirthSummit (blether) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by Vice regent[40].VR talk 18:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dr2Rao
|
Antidiskriminator
Antidiskriminator is indefinitely topic banned from the Balkans, broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2020 (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 Antidiskriminator
I file this report with a due sense of exhaustion and dread, and probably should have done it ages ago, but have been encouraged to so by both involved and uninvolved editors because I am one of the few admins that operate in the Balkans WWII space, probably know Antidiskriminator’s editing history better than most, and frankly this just isn’t going to get better. Since his TBAN on “Serbs and Serbia 1900-current” was lifted four years ago, Antidiskriminator has continued their endless tendentious bickering about anything that paints Serbs in a bad light, right across en WP. They have also created (and drafted) dozens of highly POV articles in the area they were previously TBANed from, mainly using Serb historians that are identified with the Serbian nationalist and anti-communist negationist/illegitimate revisionism fostered by state policy in post-1991 Serbia, and eschewing academic sources from outside the former Yugoslavia. See [44] and [45] for examinations of Serbian historiography since 1991 that support my characterisation of it. I can expand with further scholarly examinations of recent Serbian historiography if necessary. This article creation by Antidiskriminator has included numerous fringe POVFORKs using dubious sources and promoting Serbian nationalist conspiracy theories. Even where there is justifiable scope for an article on a given subject, Antidiskriminator has proved to be incapable of writing neutrally about anything to do with Serbs, giving undue weight and avoiding mentioning anything negative about them. In just one example, in September 2019 they created an article on a rare Chetnik attack against the Germans (obviously to try to push the POV that the Chetniks actually fought the Axis rather than extensively collaborating with them, the overwhelming academic consensus about the former is that they did very little resisting after November 1941 – rehabilitation of the Chetniks being a major stream of Serbian historiography and Serbian government policy since 1991), and managed to completely avoid mentioning that the Chetniks immediately proceeded to massacre 2,000 Muslims in the captured town. Despite this being raised on the talk page, they have done nothing to address this issue (or even respond), and that is the pattern with every article they create. They create a terrible POV article, often with a highly POV title as well, and it is left to fester or eventually be AfD’d (which is usually fought tooth and nail by a bunch of fellow travellers), in what is an obvious gaming of our systems. This has meant that many of their articles need to be subjected to TNT for a fresh start, as has happened twice recently. I have provided several recent examples above, and if not for limited space I could provide dozens of examples, and the list of drafts I linked above is just breathtaking in its POV and scope. Antidiskriminator has been [blocked from Serbian WP] since May 2012 for precisely the sort of behaviour they have been demonstrating here for years. This occurred after a series of blocks of increasing duration from 2010 onwards. EdJohnston, who, along with Drmies, is the admin who, in my experience have had most interaction with Antidiskriminator, characterised his rule of thumb as ”Any discussion about Yugoslavia in WWII in which Antidiskriminator participates will never reach a conclusion”. I work mainly in the “Yugoslavia in WWII” space and have found this to be true hundreds if not thousands of times in the last eight years. The need for AE action has been suggested by several uninvolved editors during the two recent AfDs that resulted in deletion/redirect, which has prompted this report. The years of disruption, tendentious bickering on talk pages, lack of clue/competence, extreme bias and inability to edit neutrally, and promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe sources have demonstrated that Antidiskriminator is far from a net positive for the project, and also causes considerable disruption and stress to other editors. Enough is enough, we need to take action against this behaviour. To protect the project from any more of this egregious POV-pushing, it is time to impose an indefinite TBAN on Antidiskriminator editing anything to do with “Serbs and Serbia” (broadly construed), and stick to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AntidiskriminatorStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Antidiskriminator
There is no doubt that edits of Peacemaker67 (and small group of editors who often contradict my edits) promote POV which is different from POV of my edits (and other editors). Wikipedia is based on collaboration. No editor/article - no problem is not and should not be the way Wikipedia works. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
There is basically not a single diff to prove any policy violations or to prove accusations against me. On the other hand I am probably the only wikipedia editor whose neutral editing regarding massacres of Muslims by Serbs can be supported with some secondary source per WP:SECONDARY wikipedia policy. The work authored by professor Richard Rogers and published by MIT Press (Richard Rogers (2013). Digital Methods. MIT Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-262-01883-8.
Statement by Maleschreiber
Statement by (OyMosby)Another article of issue by the editor is up for possible deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia of which pertains to an article Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia that is written in POV style. Really this is just a tip of an iceberg of recent anti-Croat pro-Serbian occurrences on Wikipedia via multiple POV pusher accounts acting as a traveling block, going article to article. Even when an article is brand new and couldn’t possibly be on their radar. Has been going on for over a year now from what I see, older users will know more. OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by Fut.Perf.@Guerillero: I doubt a topic ban just on "post-1900 Serbian history" will be enough. A's long-term activity on pre-1900 history topics has been just as bad. There's been continuous low-level POV warfare over topics such as Skanderbeg, Skanderbeg's rebellion and other pre-modern topics touching on Serb/Albanian history, all motivated by the same ethnic agendas. A narrow topic ban would probably just push his activity back into these domains, where he's been somewhat less active recently but where he's been just as disruptive in the past. I'd strongly recommend a more comprehensive topic ban from all Balkan history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by JoyIt should go without saying that if we see a user persistently gaming the system over a period of many many years in order to write apparent claptrap, that we would be fools not to impose the harshest appropriate sanctions. I haven't had much interaction with Antidiskriminator for a few years now, but I'm posting this in this section because I've had numerous mind-numbing interactions with them in the past (which in itself is cause enough for concern because I don't believe it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to have its editors and admins persistently worn down by stuff like this). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Antidiskriminator
|
I-82-I
I-82-I has been blocked for sockpuppetry due to logged-out editing while under scrutiny. Based on this and the discussion below, I-82-I is further subject to an indefinite topic ban from the subject of infoboxes. This applies to the person using the I-82-I account, and precludes WP:CLEANSTART. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning I-82-I
Discussion concerning I-82-IStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Cassianto
Statement by LepricavarkThis filing is one-sided and incomplete. For instance, it ignores that the collapsed section in dispute, which involves several editors questioning SchroCat's rationale, was originally collapsed by SchroCat, who subsequently edit-warred to enforce their actions [51], [52], [53] and also reverted a more neutral description for the collapsed section [54]. Any admins reviewing this filing need to consider the full context. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by I-82-I@Lepricavark:, your statement is an excellent summary of mine. I will add some more views on this topic here. Please do not view SchroCat as completely innocent in this situation. Honestly, he might have violated the discretionary sanctions himself. SchroCat did not "merely collapse a conversation to save space", this is a gross oversimplification to the point where it loses all meaning. SchroCat named it "Noise reduction" (which was recently changed to Further conversation), and it is clear that the only reason he collapsed it is a disagreement with the editor who commented. Read his reply: Read his statement. M.Clay1 is not bludgeoning. He is merely quoting SchroCat and asking to explain strongly-worded, profane and meaningless arguments If you actually read this statement, it is clear that M.Clay1 isn't bludgeoning. He was making a valid argument, which SchroCat immediately collapses as "Noise reduction". Honestly, I feel like this AE was made because I disagreed with Cassianto once for typing "yawn" as an "argument" here (to which he promptly accused me of bludgeoning. In short, I don't believe that discretionary sanctions are necessary, due to the fact that my edits have been twisted and taken out of context. Also, SchroCat is not an innocent editor who tried to collapse a discussion to save space. Rather, he collapsed a valid discussion as "Noise reduction", and this discussion sharply opposed him. M.Clay1 is not an editor who bludgeoned SchroCat. Rather, he quoted SchroCat's stronngly-worded and profane, (yet meaningless) and refuted them. SchroCat called this bludgeoning and labeled it as noise reduction. For this reason, I ask that you please to do not apply discretionary sanctions to me. Thanks, I-82-I | TALK 15:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC) EDIT: About the templating, which I forgot to mention. I templated SchroCat for improperly collapsing the discussion as noise reduction, and repeatedly edit-warring for it. I politely gave him a notice, and gave him a L1 template. I don't see how that is not appropriate. Statement by HAL333No matter what I, or others, do, Cassianto will assume bad faith and take offense. I recently defended him and other editors (from an admittedly suspect editor) on my talk page, and Cass still found my response lacking. (It's important to note that I have never given a civility warning to anyone in my entire time on Wikipedia.) When I requested that Cassianto strike personal attacks directed towards me, my request was reverted. I could have brought them to ANI, which Cass has already done multiple times, however, I didn't see much good coming from that and I just sat back. All I know, is that I haven't reverted any edits or made any personal attacks towards Cass in this process, however, Cass has said that I am a "troublemaker" who is "the very worst of Wikipedia" and "no good to anyone". Compare that to how I spoke about Cass and other editors. I haven't seen I-82 saying anything like that. Who's really the agitator here? The Sinatra IB discussion doesn't involve any more incivility or responses to votes than other IB discussions that I've witnessed. Ultimately, what we have here, is someone who is upset that the discussion isn't going their way: around two-thirds of editors support the IB being uncollapsed. I really haven't seen any particularly uncivil edits from I-82 - at least not any worse the SchroCat. ~ HAL333 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Cassianto If you assume bad faith and make wild accusations against people, don't act surprised when someone points out how ridiculous your claims are. ~ HAL333 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Cassianto Considering his fitting namesake, he'll be back real soon. ~ HAL333 19:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Upon the request of Barkeep49, here is an extensive history of my interactions with these editors. These are all of the articles where our edits occured within the span of a day or less
I don't have the willpower or time to do this part yet.
Please note that I did not want to bring this up. I like to let sleeping dogs lie. It has already been resolved by a sysop. I apoligzied if it resembled wikihounding and promised not to do similiar things again. Cass and SchoCat issued no such apology, but I'm cool with it. Our interests seemingly overlap, and, consequently, we edit similar articles. I believe most of these were coincidences. We sometimes even agree! I have an awful headache after going through all this... ~ HAL333 18:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by AlmostFrancisThat probation looks like not a great idea for anybody. It restricts users to one comment on any specific inclusion discussion but allows unlimited comments on general info-box policy everywhere else. That is basically an inducement to spread and expand the scope an argument as opposed to contain and de-escalate. Has it ever been succesful? AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by Mclay1There has been a lot of uncivil discussion in that RFC; I can't say that I-82-I is one of the main offenders (or even an offender at all). I made a few good faith attempts at furthering the discussion (I wouldn't at all call it bludgeoning), but once I was alerted to the sanctions, I stopped trying to participate in the discussion. SchroCat hid my replies to his comments, which was clearly a passive-aggressive move, not an attempt at defusing the situation. The fact that numerous editors disagreed with his move but he insisted on ignoring the objections and telling me to "piss off" justify I-82-I's actions. Maybe I-82-I took a step too far. This Arb discussion feels a bit extreme though. The conversation got a bit out of hand, but it seems like it's cooled off now. I don't see that any action is needed. M.Clay1 (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichThis is a ridiculously one sided report. SchroCat not only edit warred over this cot, they also edit warred previously over another thread about which image to have in the infobox. That was taken to ANI and Ritchie I guess everyone should diff: Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3: (I'm not timestamping these, it takes too long, these are Aug 23 - 31)
Now, why the heck is this report against I-82 (who did not edit war or do anything disruptive) and not SchroCat (who is edit warring and showing extreme WP:OWNership of the page, going so far as to claim that he is "entitled" to collapse others' comments, and even edit war over blatantly-rude headers like "Noise reduction"? Lev!vich 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Also, some admin should address Cassianto's section above, which is filled with personal attacks, aspersions, a refusal to diff those aspersions when asked, and followed by the amazingly un-self-aware "How dare you be so downright rude". I miss Sandstein's participation on this board; at least he'd address things like this not just ignore them as if they're normal. Lev!vich 16:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a report brought against I-82 based on a diff in which he reverted SchroCat. It seems everyone agrees that I-82's behavior is not sanctionable; also, I-82 has posted the retired template on his user page. Meanwhile, SchroCat scrambling their password renders all SchroCat behavioral questions moot. We've apparently lost both editors, which is a really unfortunate outcome. But it makes closing this report as no action easy. As to anyone else's conduct: no one has filed a complaint against anyone else, though anyone could have at any point, and still can if any disruption continues. But as of today there is no ongoing disruption relating to Frank Sinantra's infobox and no reason to think it's going to resume given the current circumstances. (Old Blue Eyes can now rest easy.) Lev!vich 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC) @Ealdgyth: Got any diffs to back up Statement by IkjbaglI wanted to comment to corroborate the statement that Cassianto is fast to assume bad faith and bias in this area and to summarize my interactions with SchroCat regarding this subject. After only two comments (really two questions), Cassianto accused me of being "obsessive" over the Sinatra infobox. ([98]) I have never participated in an infobox discussion (that I can remember) before I discovered by chance that the Sinatra infobox was collapsed, so I held up the mirror and it revealed how obsessed with the subject Cassianto is; ([99]) SchroCat then quickly deleted my comment, replacing it with a warning that something uncivil had been in its place. (archive as it shows now, with insinuation that I was uncivil or impolite: [100]) That action was inappropriate and ridiculous; it is ridiculous to think that linking ArbCom pages for context (when someone else wrongfully accuses you of being obsessive) is a personal attack, and it is inappropriate to delete my comment and leave a message that insinuates I was uncivil or impolite. I really can't think of a reason to delete the comment other than to hide exposure of a bias or involvement. SchroCat proceeded to come annoy me on my talk page. ([101]) Schrocat then prematurely archived the entire discussion I had started. ([102]) I wanted to leave a notice that a discussion had been prematurely archived from the location, and both SchroCat and Cassianto came by to leave comments. ([103]) Now in this newer Sinatra episode, SchroCat thought it was appropriate to say in an edit summary on my talk page that I was "on thin ice" for casting "slurs" at people. ([104]) This is after SchroCat threw a (not-so-)underhanded insult in my direction when they told me that I was "struggl[ing] to deal with things [I] can't understand" (referring to a silly infobox discussion). ([105]) When I again held up the mirror and pointed out that Schrocat was actually the one casting "slurs" (at me) and personalizing the discussion ("IB warriors", etc.), I was simply told to "bugger off" (and the edit summary accused ME of "tedious baiting/trolling"). ([106]) While this behavior might not quite rise to Wikipedia's standard for incivility, it is certainly not civil. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDayIP 73.193.59.165 was the only individual who attempted to uncollapse (via edit-warring) the infobox-in-question, during the ongoing Rfc. So, let's get back to concentrating on the Rfc-in-question, which still has about 2.5 weeks to go. Even the South Korean Parliament eventually passes or rejects bills, despite any individual disputes :) GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC) BTW: Why are some of you describing your posts in your edit summaries here, as replying to yourselves? It's rather confusing. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC) May we shut this report down, seeing as I-28-I has been blocked? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Comment by MoxySame people now fighting the next generation of new editors.--Moxy 🍁 11:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Result concerning I-82-I
|
Kolya Butternut
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Kolya Butternut
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
American Politics
Gender-related controversies
- GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions
- Battleground conduct
- BLP denigration
- Single purpose accounts
- Decorum
- Recidivism
Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
- Discretionary Sanctions RE: BLP
- BLP "where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be ... that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached"
- Decorum Decorum, incivility, gaming the system
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Aug. 8, 2020 14 violations of AP2 TBAN regarding Senator Al Franken and his resignation for alleged inappropriate gender-related behavior
- Sept. 7, 2020 AP2 TBAN violation. Discussing DeJoy's alleged illegal Trump campaign contributions.
- Aug. 8, 2020 Battleground/uncivil talk page interaction RE: Gender-related edits relating to the next link, on an article talk page in which KB bludgeons 95 posts editors say appears to COATRACK a contemporary gender agenda into the article.
- August 24, 2020 KB ignoring policy-based objections of many other editors.
- August 27-28, 2020 Apparent gaming of unrelated WP:V disucussion of ONUS to justify BLP-sensitive reverts on gender-related BLP article Aziz Ansari.
- June 1, 2020 IDHT talk page epic to deprecate NY Times finding on allegations concerning Joe Biden. In the course of this, KB had a lengthy BLPN Sealion discussion trying to justify an edit that was rejected at the article pages. See next diff.
- May 10, 2020 BLPN thread attempting to WP:GAME BLP-sensitive information into Biden article.
- May 25, 2020 Another long bludgeon and incivility thread. KB sought to include article content disparaging Trump's mental health apparently to establish a precedent to WP:GAME a similar disparagement into the Biden article, after her initial attempt there was rejected. See following link:
- April 28,2020 Attempt to insert egregious BLP violation into Joe Biden article after KB attempts to amplify gender-related allegations were rejected.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- May 1, 2020 AP2 Arb Enforcement block by @Bradv:
- May 27, 2020 AP2 TBAN by @Abecedare:
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- May 1, 2020 AP2 Block by Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Feb. 14, 2020 Alerted about sanctions in BLP
- August 31, 2020 Alerted about GamerGate/gender issues
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This editor has recently begun to disregard its AP2 topic ban. This comes on top of six months of disruptive editing in areas related to politics, gender, and BLP. I apologize for posting several links to long threads, but I think this is the clearest way to demonstrate the problem. This account is WP:NOTHERE and regularly fails or does not care to understand policies and guidelines it cites to justify tendentious editing. In addition to the sanctions linked above, there were others by @Wugapodes: and @Seraphimblade: that were undone on appeal. I have not listed diffs for the additional instances of incivility, AGF fails, and aspersions in the three subject areas. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The following interaction with Wugapodes on his talk page may be illustrative of the sealioning and misappropriation of various policies and guidelines.
1) Regarding KB's one-way interaction ban with SPECIFICO,
2) KB accusations about SPECIFICO, and
3) KB mansplaining Wugapodes regarding his Admin actions.
SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Kolya Butternut
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Kolya Butternut
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Kolya Butternut
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.