Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→ZScarpia: closing — hopefully, valuable lessons (etc.), again |
No edit summary |
||
Line 365: | Line 365: | ||
*'''Oh, for Heaven's sake.''' I must say that "classic weaponizing of AE," was my first impression. Bish, as always, cuts through to the heart of the matter. To be honest, '''I'd sooner sanction 11Fox11''' for this battleground approach. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 20:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Oh, for Heaven's sake.''' I must say that "classic weaponizing of AE," was my first impression. Bish, as always, cuts through to the heart of the matter. To be honest, '''I'd sooner sanction 11Fox11''' for this battleground approach. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 20:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
==Dabaqabad== |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Dabaqabad=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Apaugasma}} 17:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Dabaqabad}}<p>{{ds/log|Dabaqabad}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Horn of Africa]] (part of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa#New_alternate_motion_(3-month_DS_trial)|ARBHORN]]) |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishaaq_bin_Ahmed&diff=prev&oldid=1040450285 24 August 2021] Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsangali&diff=prev&oldid=1043424367 10 September 2021] Reverting without explaining at the talk page |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Badhan_District&diff=prev&oldid=1047081611 28 September 2021] Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arap&diff=prev&oldid=1049259197 10 October 2021] Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_aristocratic_and_court_titles&diff=prev&oldid=1049261482 10 October 2021] Reverting without explaining at the talk page (removing sourced content) |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dabaqabad&diff=1002718224&oldid=1002633672 25 January 2021] Dabaqabad blocked for 48 hours (disruptive editing in ARBHORN area) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dabaqabad&diff=1010284209&oldid=1022888382 4 March 2021] ARBHORN DS editing restriction imposed |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dabaqabad&diff=1040492832&oldid=1039227824 24 August 2021] Dabaqabad blocked for 1 week (violating ARBHORN DS restriction) |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
After having been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dabaqabad&diff=1002718224&oldid=1002633672 blocked] on 25 January 2021 for disruptive editing in the ARBHORN area, Dabaqabad was placed under a special editing restriction by {{u|El C}} on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021&diff=prev&oldid=1010284471 4 March 2021], reading {{tq|you are to always follow a revert with an article talk page comment explaining it in any and all [[WP:ARBHORN]] topic area pages or edits (whatsoever)}}. They were warned on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dabaqabad&diff=1013803948&oldid=1011564300 23 March 2021] for violating the restriction. On 16 August 2021, they got into an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1039146590#User:Wadamarow_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_) edit war] in an ARBHORN-related article (obviously including reversion without engaging on the talk page). On 24 August 2021, I [[User_talk:El_C/generic_sub-page21#ARBHORN_editing_restriction_still_active?|inquired on El C's talk page]] whether the editing restriction was still active, pointing out repeated violations [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=prev&oldid=1040467629] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishaaq_bin_Ahmed&diff=prev&oldid=1040450285] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bashir_Abdi&diff=prev&oldid=1040157572] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Hashim&diff=prev&oldid=1040001417] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsangali&diff=prev&oldid=1039376600], which lead El C to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dabaqabad&diff=1040492832&oldid=1039227824 block] Dabaqabad for one week. |
|||
Their very first edit after getting unblocked was already a violation of the restriction [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaaq_Sultanate&diff=next&oldid=1041234412]. Like most of Dabaqabad's reverts that stay unexplained at the talk page, this was reverting vandalism/a test edit, so at the time I decided to just leave it be. However, looking at their last 100 edits, it becomes clear that Dabaqabad is violating the editing restriction imposed on them almost casually. It's also not always obvious vandalism, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsangali&diff=prev&oldid=1043424325] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsangali&diff=prev&oldid=1043424367] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dabqaad&diff=prev&oldid=1043759793] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buuhoodle&diff=prev&oldid=1049259672]. However, it becomes really egregious at the point where they are reverting the addition of reliably sourced content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_aristocratic_and_court_titles&diff=prev&oldid=1049261482] (perhaps undue, but per their restriction they should explain this at the talk), and especially when reverting the removal of unreliably sourced (mis)information [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Badhan_District&diff=prev&oldid=1047081611] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arap&diff=prev&oldid=1049259197]. |
|||
Dabaqabad has little understanding of what constitutes a reliable source (for a ''long read'', see [[Talk:Ishaaq_bin_Ahmed#Removals_of_sections_based_on_unreliable_and/or_primary_sources|here]]), and combined with the uncommunicative attitude and the clear disregard for an existing editing restriction, I believe there is enough evidence that they are not compatible with the project of building an encyclopedia. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADabaqabad&type=revision&diff=1049584724&oldid=1043847028] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Dabaqabad=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Dabaqabad==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Dabaqabad=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
* |
Revision as of 17:38, 12 October 2021
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}}.
|
ZScarpia
ZScarpia is warned against using subpar sources, anywhere on the project, to discuss living or recently deceased persons. Nableezy is cautioned to keep to their promise about moderating their tone. Will log. El_C 13:29, 12 October 2021 (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 ZScarpia
I looked into ZScarpia following a blog post by David Collier from 23 September 2021 that was brought to my attention. I disagree with Collier in general, and with much of the specific blog post, however I was concerned by Collier detailing how ZScarpia smeared him on a Wikipedia talk page using extremely dubious sources and I decided to probe deeper into this aspect. I have thoroughly vetted this particular claim by Collier, and uncovered additional and systematic use of this very dubious blog by ZScarpia. ZScarpia's posting of false smears against a living he is in a feud, in regards to Palestine/Israel, requires attention.
ZScarpia indicated on 17:31, 28 August 2021 that Collier "is not a fan" of his. ZScarpia has a long history of using Tony Greenstein as a source on Israel, Jews, and related biographies and organisations :
This list was compiled by searching for "azvsas.blogspot" and tonygreenstein.com in Wikipedia, ZScarpia is the sole user here posting these links recently. ZScarpia use of a blog by a person whom the UK legal system upheld the descriptor 'notorious antisemite' was legitimate viewpoint for posting forumish talk page smears on Jewish persons is unbecoming conduct.--Hippeus (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ZScarpiaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ZScarpiaFirst, I'd like to acknowlege that I'm now aware of this case. A long list of allegations have been made and I'm wondering what word count restriction I face in responding to them?I'm assuming that I won't be allowed the time it would personally take me to work up a decent response in one go. To break things down, I think the best approach would be to address a particular editor's statements in turn, starting, probably, as the statements are presented in list form, with Levivich's. Just prior to raising this request, Hippeus went through a series of talkpages removing large chunks of my comments ([8][9][10][11][12]) in a manner which, I think, doesn't show his or her own editing in a good light. There was no attempt at discussion. A less belligerent editor might have actually have attempted to ask me what the purpose of my comments was before assuming that there was none. The deletions weren't signed, so there is no indication of who did the removals or when. My impression has been that comments should not be removed unless they very clearly break the rules, and even then, only if it serves to reduce disruption rather than increase it, yet the reasons supplied for, at least, the bulk of the removals have a pretty tenuous justification. ← ZScarpia 16:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
(Comments I made about David Collier seem to be of most concern, so, perhaps saving everyone's time and hopefully without trying everybody's patience, I'll address Levivich's first three points on their own. An opportunity to comment before the request is closed would be appreciated.) * Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom: The two talkpage sections involved: [13][14].
← ZScarpia 14:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
← ZScarpia 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC) (Please ask me to stop if this has continued beyond the point of tedium)
As mentioned on the talkpage, contrary to what Inf-in MD claims, the person being referred is dead and so it's a bit dubious that WP:BLP applies. It was being claimed that the writer in question, from a blog of whose material was being inserted in the article, is "an ideal source for her perspective regardless as to whether one is Zionist or anti-Zionist." The quote shows that anti-Zionists would probably disagree. ← ZScarpia 17:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@El C:: "I will stop using low quality sources for BLPs would have sufficed." Above I made an admission that I screwed up by misinterpreting what was supposed to be the reliable source providing verification for the statement about David Collier. The situation wasn't helped by a number of things. Firstly, what was displayed after clicking on the link for that source, a Jewish News webpage, changed. Secondly, the other links I provided were interpreted as having been provided as reliable sources for verification purposes, which was not actually the case. They had, in fact, been supplied to provide further information and back up the Jewish News article. I am aware of the BLP requirement for verifiability and neutrality on any page, including talkpages. In the response to Rosguill's last comment I have been working on, I was going to deal with solutions to the confusion my talkpage comments have clearly produced, such as making clear what the purpose of the links I had provided were. I came very late to the discussion, which had grown quite bulky by the time I arrived. I'm still struggling to get to grips with it. I haven't read everything let alone absorbed it. The last couple of days were spent trying to figure out how best to go about responding and then actually write something. Probably like everybody in my position (and, overall I haven't had much practice at it), you do kind of expect people to wait to hear both sides before coming to conclusions. What pain I might have been saved if only I'd been home earlier or away longer! ← ZScarpia 21:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC) @El C:: "ZScarpia, doesn't feel like you're getting it. When it comes to advancing any sort of BLP assertions of note, those kind of sources are strictly prohibited (and their usage otherwise is strongly discouraged irrespectively)." Thank you. That's clear and understandable. I'm sorry for the disruption and wasted time I caused. ← ZScarpia 00:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC) I've now had more of a chance to fully get to grips with what was being said and to make sense of it. ← ZScarpia 12:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC) @El C:: I hope that striking out and substituting new text resolves any BLP problem. Please just delete the whole comment otherwise. ← ZScarpia 18:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Lest it look rude that I hadn't replied to your last comment, please know that I had been working on a response. One thing I'd like to mention which might help to explain some of the editing pecularities observed is that I have a personal rule not to directly edit the articles of people I don't like. ← ZScarpia 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierI'm a little confused as to how this fits into Arbpia? Is the complaint based on the material related only to the page Israel lobby in the United Kingdom? If so, what is the relevance of all the other material? It seems more like a blp complaint rather than Arbpia? Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000David Collier is a blogger and activist who <redacted>. A typical article title is (admins: I revdelled this as it includes outing). Now ZScarpia quotes some sources that are "negative" (it is claimed) about Collier on a talk page. It should be observed that this case is practically a copy-paste of a portion of that article of Collier. Nearly the whole thing is there. To see the worth of this, Collier claims it is a "smear" to associate him with a twitter account "well-known for exposing antisemites" (Collier's words). Since Collier himself claims to be dedicated to exposing antisemites, exactly why is it a smear? It might be correct or incorrect, but claiming it is a smear is transparently a tendentious way to attack Zscarpia and nothing else. This case should be dismissed. Zerotalk 03:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Geshem Bracha claims "ZScarpia uses a blog post from Greenstein to defend David Irving’s credentials as a historian". Everyone can see that in fact ZScarpia is quoting verbatim from the judgement of the Irving-Lipstadt libel case, which is quite rightly considered a major indictment of Irving. ZScarpia has included all of this section of the judge's remarks as well as the negative caveat in the following section. It doesn't matter a damn where ZScarpia found the link to the trial judgement. Moreover, ZScarpia included more of the judgement than Greenstein quoted, so it is not true that ZScarpia just quoted from Greenstein. ZScarpia is perfectly entitled to choose which part of the trial judgement to quote. Altogether, this is a false charge and Geshen Bracha should withdrawn it. Zerotalk 08:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Also, Geshem Bracha, the fact that Collier tells lies about me does not mean I have to shut up about him. Your "Nazis" comment is a severe and blatant violation of NPA. Zerotalk 07:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Geshem Bracha, I gave a source but I had to rev-del it as it includes outing. Admins here can look at what I rev-delled and see that my charge was eminently justified. Your "hint" that ZScarpia is a holocaust denier for quoting from a judge who concluded that Irving is a holocaust denier was simply outrageous. And the modified version of your "Nazis" attack is no better than the first version. I hope ZScarpia starts a case against you at AN/I to have you blocked. Zerotalk 08:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Just to be clear, all of the diffs provided against ZScarpia are for talk pages. There is no rule against mentioning unreliable sources on talk pages. In particular, in the process of robustly assessing the reliability of sources (as we are all required to do) it is often useful to discuss sources of all kinds. Provided the unreliable sources don't get into articles, this is just normal editing. Zerotalk 09:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC) More detail: Exactly why is it a BLP violation to suggest David Collier is associated with Gnasher Jew? Nobody seems to be addressing that basic point. It could be OR or a RS violation, but that doesn't belong here. By Collier's own description, the Gnasher Jew twitter account is "well-known for exposing antisemites". Collier's description of his own mission is to "expose lies and antisemitism". The two are almost the same. People are writing as if ZScarpia wrote that Collier murdered his mother, not just with being associated with a ideologically compatible activist. Zerotalk 02:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by Geshen BrachaZero0000 and ZScarpia have a COI on Collier and shouldn’t be writing anything about him. ZScarpia systemic use of Tony Greenstein is beyond the pale, this is a person described as a “notorious antisemite” and who was expelled from Labour for mocking the Holocaust term Final Solution. I found ZScarpia using Greenstein in another instance: in this post from September 2020, ZScarpia uses a blog post from Greenstein to defend David Irving’s credentials as a historian. Irving is a well known Holocaust denier.
Statement by GizzyCatBella
Is Geshem Bracha accusing Zero0000 and ZScarpia of being Nazis!? Am I reading that correctly? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by ShrikeThe problem is not using unreliable sources on talk the problem is violation of WP:BLPTALK. We are not allowed to put negative statements without high quality WP:RS. --Shrike (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill: The problem that user use the same rhetoric on talk page too [24],[25]. It doesn't really matter if his accusation are true or not there is a place for such discussion I for example have my reservation too about some users but I keep it to myself. This area is already toxic such rhetoric doesn't help build Wikipedia. --Shrike (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Statement by LevivichWP:BLPTALK says At Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom:
At Talk:David Miller (sociologist):
From 2018: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#NOTFORUM at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism, which is about ZScarpia violating NOTAFORUM by linking to unreliable sources in forum-y talk page posts. Two examples:
So, this has been going on for some time now, and I think we need some assurance from ZScarpia that it won't happen again. WP:BLPTALK also says: Zero wrote above: Zero wrote above: Zero wrote:
@Rosguill: quite disheartening to hear you say
Statement by HemiaucheniaDavid Collier is a hyperpartisan pro-Israel blogger who has levelled numerous absurd hyperbolic accusations against Wikipedia, including that it is "At war with the Jews" [41], and is "the most active spreader of antisemitism on the planet" [42]. I don't think that any of their claims can be taken seriously. That said, BLP restrictions do apply, and I have no view on whether ZScarpia has violatem them with regards to David Collier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by NableezyThe idea that because some living person is upset with the coverage of them on Wikipedia means that they get to disparage our editors and in so doing so veto who may discuss them is asinine. That a living person makes things up about an editor does not make it so that editor has a conflict of interest, and no Zero nor ZScarpia do not need to stop discussing said person. Yes they should use reliable sources when doing so, but somebody making bullshit claims on their blog about an editor does not make it so that this editor has a COI. That is beyond stupid and would allow any person to disqualify any editor they choose from editing their biography. The lockstep support for such an absurd report is also a bit concerning imo. nableezy - 15:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The regularity in which editors on one side of a POV divide are coming here pushing such straight up garbage accusations is really more concerning than any part of this complaint. And the socks of banned users who regularly return to spare with their former adversaries. nableezy - 16:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@El C:, sure, will cite diffs next time. But since you said you arent looking for them now, will just go back to working on that SPI. But I assure you, it is not a fire and forget accusation. I will be filing an SPI hopefully within the week. I think you mistook my "Jesus, that escalated quickly." That was a remark about how the sanctions on unrelated pages had escalated by ArbCom, not by you. I was surprised at the ruling that made ECP preferred for unrelated articles. That was the escalation (the clarification by ArbCom, not by you) I referred to. nableezy - 01:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC) El C, I apologize for using "garbage accusations" about a user saying that it is an OUTING violation to connect somebody, not a Wikipedia editor, with a twitter account, again not a Wikipedia account. I will figure out another way of characterizing what I think fails even the most basic reading of the first sentence of WP:OUTING (where it says another editor's personal information). As far as the socking accusation, it was in reference to Inf-in MD, and I still promise that SPI is coming this week. nableezy - 14:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I will not again refer to Inf-in MD as a NoCal100 sock until an SPI is filed. nableezy - 15:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Statement by 11Fox11The use of Tony Greenstein's blog, whose blog posts were deemed offensive enough to result in a Labour expulsion, is not reasonable. ZScarpia has not backed down from using this blog in their comments here. GnasherJew is an anonymous account (it was reinstated) so tying real people to the account is a form of outing, which is serious here given the amount of vitriol here directed at Jewish activists in the UK. Collier has denied being GnasherJew after ZScarpia's comments on Wikipedia. Zero0000, Gnasher Jew and Collier probably disagree on any number of issues. Just because they both are counter-antisemitism activists does not mean they agree on all other issues. Liz Truss and Priti Patel would probably object to being mixed up even though they are both minsters from the same party. Saying somebody is somebody else is a smear. This is beyond the outing aspect. 11Fox11 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Inf-in MDDespite claiming he understands what he did wrong, I don't think ZScarpia actually does. Immediately after assuring us he's had time to reflect on this, he posted the following diaprging comments about a living person here. There's no link given, but it can easily be verified that this comes from Mondonoweiss, another group blog of poor quality and dubious reliability. [43] . User:Deepfriedokra recommendation of a BLP-ban seems reasonable. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Comment by GoodDayFWIW, I wish the lad would remove the arrow pointing left from his signature. Kinda distracting. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning ZScarpia
Unless there are objections, I'll be closing this complaint in a day or so with a logged warning to ZScarpia about subpar sources and BLP (logged at ARBPIA, however), and a caution to Nableezy about keeping to their promise (i.e. tone police thyself, please, no one likes it doing it). El_C 12:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
|
Selfstudier
Withdrawn by filer, who hopefully had learned some valuable lessons along the way. Mostly about how WP:AE is meant to facilitate WP:DR, not the other way around. El_C 21:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Selfstudier
I notified Selfstudier that they broke the 1RR rule, and asked that they undo themselves. After they failed to do so, I removed this from the lead and reported here. Also User:Hemiauchenia provides this context on Syrian civil war conspiracy theories for Miller. Read Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media and The Times for coverage on those. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SelfstudierStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SelfstudierOn 24 September, an editor removed material from the lead and placed it in the body instead. There were then intervening edits and continuing discussions on the talk page in the normal course. Then because the lead at that point contained zero criticism (on the 29th), I made a summary of some of what was in the body as criticism and added it to the lead as is normal practice (it's not even exactly the same although I agree it is similar). A revert would have been taking the same material back out of the body and reinserting it into the lead. The second diff is a revert, I made that straightaway because there was an ongoing discussion at the NPOV noticeboard where an editor gave his opinion and then came to the article and reverted in order to enforce his opinion, which I thought was an unreasonable thing to do. I asked 11Fox11 several times to explain what the second revert was a revert of and he declined to do so even though I said that if he could convince me that I had breached 1R I would of course fix it but he just ignored that and filed here. He has now reverted the material out of the lead himself so even if my editing was considered a revert, I would not be able to self revert it anyway. This is not collaborative behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Selfstudier
|
Dabaqabad
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 Dabaqabad
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Apaugasma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Dabaqabad (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 enforcement log#Horn of Africa (part of ARBHORN)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 24 August 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content)
- 10 September 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page
- 28 September 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content)
- 10 October 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content)
- 10 October 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (removing sourced content)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 25 January 2021 Dabaqabad blocked for 48 hours (disruptive editing in ARBHORN area)
- 4 March 2021 ARBHORN DS editing restriction imposed
- 24 August 2021 Dabaqabad blocked for 1 week (violating ARBHORN DS restriction)
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
After having been blocked on 25 January 2021 for disruptive editing in the ARBHORN area, Dabaqabad was placed under a special editing restriction by El C on 4 March 2021, reading you are to always follow a revert with an article talk page comment explaining it in any and all WP:ARBHORN topic area pages or edits (whatsoever)
. They were warned on 23 March 2021 for violating the restriction. On 16 August 2021, they got into an edit war in an ARBHORN-related article (obviously including reversion without engaging on the talk page). On 24 August 2021, I inquired on El C's talk page whether the editing restriction was still active, pointing out repeated violations [47] [48] [49] [50] [51], which lead El C to block Dabaqabad for one week.
Their very first edit after getting unblocked was already a violation of the restriction [52]. Like most of Dabaqabad's reverts that stay unexplained at the talk page, this was reverting vandalism/a test edit, so at the time I decided to just leave it be. However, looking at their last 100 edits, it becomes clear that Dabaqabad is violating the editing restriction imposed on them almost casually. It's also not always obvious vandalism, e.g. [53] [54] [55] [56]. However, it becomes really egregious at the point where they are reverting the addition of reliably sourced content [57] (perhaps undue, but per their restriction they should explain this at the talk), and especially when reverting the removal of unreliably sourced (mis)information [58] [59].
Dabaqabad has little understanding of what constitutes a reliable source (for a long read, see here), and combined with the uncommunicative attitude and the clear disregard for an existing editing restriction, I believe there is enough evidence that they are not compatible with the project of building an encyclopedia.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Dabaqabad
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 Dabaqabad
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Dabaqabad
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.