Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Result concerning Aredoros87: re KU's response and Vanamonde |
|||
Line 538: | Line 538: | ||
The example when {{tq|an editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines}} is specifically listed as a case of stonewalling, and Rsk6400's condition that {{tq|primary sources should not be used here}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1188642508] has no basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. |
The example when {{tq|an editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines}} is specifically listed as a case of stonewalling, and Rsk6400's condition that {{tq|primary sources should not be used here}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1188642508] has no basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. |
||
Regarding the accusations of me edit warring: [[WP:DRNC#How to respond to a "no consensus" edit summary]] advises, upon not receiving any response on the talk page from the revertor within a few days, to reapply the change, prior to taking the dispute to other forums. This is the recommended course of action that I followed. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1191500358] |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1191500358] |
Revision as of 09:06, 25 December 2023
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}}.
|
Andrevan
Participants have voluntarily agreed to notify editors of 1RR violations, and wait before escalating. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:10, 21 December 2023 (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 Andrevan
Blatant 1RR violation, declined they made two reverts
There are a number of issues in Andre's blanket revert. Among the things he removed was material on the healthcare system collapse, never discussed on talk, material on the number of journalists killed, never discussed on talk, material on early reports of atrocities later proven to be false, never discussed on talk, material on the spreading of those false claims by politicians and media, never discussed on talk. And the material on the killing of multi-generational families. All of this removed material was about things opposed to his POV, as he has made abundantly clear, and all of it well sourced and all of it removed with a token hand wave to a policy that does not support it. But he did self-revert the 1RR violation, so yall do what you want. nableezy - 10:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
El C, this is a revert of this, and this diff shows the first revert restoring a prior edition, reverting all the intervening edits. nableezy - 20:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AndrevanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Andrevan
Statement by Iskandar323The explanation from Andrevan that they were wholly unaware of what a revert is and thought it pertained solely to edits performed with the undo button is uncompelling given their long and extensive tenure. The same applies to the notion of not comprehending that it is incumbent on editors to check that they are not accidentally reverting on a page with revert restrictions. To answer their question: yes, 24 hours is just about the bare minimum period you should look back over to ensure that you are not reverting beyond 1RR. I dare say that on most pages it is incumbent on editors to look back much further than that. The more dramatic and frequent your edits, the more caution you just take. This is par for the course – a course that Andrevan should know well by now. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by CoretheappleAndrevan is correct. He was responding to an edit request, which can be found here. Editors who make good faith edits should not be subjected to this kind of trumped up "gotcha" accusation. I am fairly new to this article and subject area. I have in my eleven years on this project edited in other controversial areas, and I have never seen 1RR deployed as a bludgeon in this fashion. Indeed, as I was composing this, I see to no great surprise that nableezy used the same tactic against me [10]. No, my earlier edit was not a revert. I added words in the earlier edit cited (the most recent one was a revert). There was no intent to revert a blessed thing in the earlier edit and I most certainly did not. These accusations, raising 1RR in a hair-trigger fashion, have a chilling effect and should not be tolerated.Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by DrsmooThis is frivolous and content based. I’m hoping there can be some kind of WP:Trout over bringing content disputes to AE. Drsmoo (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by Valjean
Okay, let me word it more specifically. (I assumed that anyone reading my comment would analyze Nableezy's comments, but alas.) So calling out personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith ("lying" is normally a sanctionable accusation) is not allowed at AE? Hmmmm....these are new times. Even at AE, one should AGF and not accuse another editor of lying, especially when other editors don't see it that way. Lying implies an intent to deceive. That's why we avoid the word here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC) ScottishFinnishRadish, I really like your resolution. Let's get back to editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by IennesAndrevan wrote in their statement above that I "User:Iennes added some fun errors like the text "the Israeli Department Forces." Instead of rectifying a mistake and explaining it in an edit summary or writing a comment on a talk page, Andrevan reverted all my edits in a click [11]. This is just pure censorship. I added content showing that the "beheaded babies" story was false and how it was built with mainstream media, I did a work of research. [12]. Reverting sourced historical content concerning such a sensitive issue, says a lot about the user, as in anyone's book, "beheaded 40 children = barbarism". In that section which relates how misinformation is created on purpose, the reader can see the chronology of events and ponder how a democracy can invent such a thing. so, I am asking Andrevan to collaborate with users and reverting no more sourced content without explaining it. A collaborative work is first improving, and not reverting for the sake of reverting. Correcting yes but certainly not erasing relevant material. Iennes (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by Sideswipe9thChiming in here as I'm uninvolved. I'm in two minds here. While Nableezy is right that there is a 1RR violation here, I don't think that's the full story. The edit request (PermaLink) that Andrevan was responding to was not obviously a revert. Yes editors who are responding to edit requests are responsible for the edits they make, but even in a 1RR how many editors are running Who Wrote That? to find when a sentence was added or last changed? Now look at the sequence of events on Andrevan's talk page. At 07:43 UTC Iennes issues a {{uw-ew}} warning. Andrevan responds less than a minute later, expressing confusion. Two hours later at 09:28 UTC Nableezy issues a custom 1RR notice asking Andrevan to self-revert, and then a minute later interprets Andrevan's confusion towards Iennes as a refusal to self-revert. Andrevan responds that same minute again expressing confusion, and Nableezy instead of responding files this AE case and provides a link to it. At no stage in this exchange was Andrevan given a link to the diff where they violated the restriction. Despite this, Andrevan still self reverted the edit request removal once it became clearer what edit was the 1RR violation. Honestly, I don't think Andrevan should be sanctioned here. Yes he should be more careful when responding to an edit request, but this seems like a simple and honest mistake. Nableezy and Iennes both need a trouting at minimum here. I feel like this whole set of events could have been avoided if both of them had been more communicative when explaining the issue, and asked for a good faith self-revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by SPECIFICOHere's how I see nableezy interacting less than a day after the proposed optimistic resolution. I don't think that tone is acceptable in this topic area. BTW "gentleman's agreement", at least in the US, has rather dark implications. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenI do not believe that "gentlemen's agreement" ("an arrangement or understanding which is based upon the trust of both or all parties, rather than being legally binding") has any "dark implications" in the US, depending, of course, on who the "gentlemen" involved are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Andrevan
|
Coretheapple
Participants have voluntarily agreed to notify editors of 1RR violations, and wait before escalating. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:11, 21 December 2023 (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 Coretheapple
This material has been repeatedly inserted in to the lead, despite the obvious lack of consensus for it on the talk page (Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war § Hamas denial of sexual violence in lede) Requested they self-revert, did not answer on their talk but pointed to their statement above (here) nableezy - 16:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Barkeep49, I have generally been against adminshopping in which an editor reaches out directly to an admin outside of cases where an admin has dealt with an issue that has repeated itself. I dont really think it appropriate to directly request an admin deal with something. But I do dispute that only a warning should result when a 1RR violation is not self-reverted, that should result in a block, maybe a page block, or a topic ban. I always offer an opportunity to self-revert, but if that is refused then the user is taking advantage of the restrictions that block others from reverting their improper revert and that should not be allowed. I was under the impression that AE is a better venue than AN3 for arbitration imposed edit restriction violations, including the 1RR. nableezy - 17:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CoretheappleStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CoretheappleThe most recent edit cited here was a revert, that is correct. However, the earlier one most definitely was not. In the earlier edit cited I was adding detail to the bare-bones language describing the rapes, as I felt the previous wording raised an NPOV issue (per WP:VALID) by giving false equivalence to the well-documented rape accusations and the perfunctory Hamas denial.. An examination of the edit in question under number "2" will show that it was not a revert, as I did not undo a previous edit, and not intended to be one. Inserting As I mentioned in my statement above re Andrevan on a very similar accusation leveled against another editor, I have edited many articles in controversial areas in the last eleven years and have never seen 1RR used as a bludgeon in this fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Please note that I have revised this comment after a less hurried examination of the diffs cited by Nableezy. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Coretheapple
|
Dympies
Dympies is placed under an indefinite one-account restriction, and the accounts Yoonadue and Togggle are blocked indefinitely. Their Rajput TBAN is rescinded and replaced with an indefinite topic ban from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:15, 20 December 2023 (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 Dympies
As part of an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel, the user Dympies was found to be operating two undisclosed checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet accounts, User:Yoonadue and User:Togggle (technically Yoonadue is the oldest account and the other two are sockpuppets; I have entered this report under Dympies because that is the account under which the sanction was enacted). In the investigation, Beccaynr noted that Dympies is topic-banned from content related to Rajputs but has been using their sockpuppet Togggle to edit on this topic, by making copies in their sandbox of snippets of articles which they then edit. As I said in the sockpuppet investigation, I was not able to determine which articles these snippets come from nor if their changes are being edited back into any articles by one of the other accounts or any other editor. After Beccaynr's observation Togggle requested deletion of their sandbox, which I have undeleted for this report (I couldn't find Beccaynr's diffs in the deleted history, so I undeleted and added the diffs here as they left them at SPI). At SPI, Yoonadue/Dympies asserts that they are allowed to have multiple accounts. That is true generally, but using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is one of the policy-forbidden uses. Using two accounts to split one's editing history within a contentious topic area seems to fall afoul of the intent of the policy if not its letter, particularly for a topic so plagued by sockpuppetry in general. But as the policy is written they're technically allowed, even if I find it unethical. I've gone back-and-forth over the last couple days about blocking or not for sockpuppetry, or to what extent they should be sanctioned for (possibly?) violating their topic ban. At this point it would be better to have more opinions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DympiesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DympiesI was ignorant about the use of Sandbox and felt that it is not covered by the topic ban as long as its use is limited to the Sandbox. I thought that only articles, talk pages, user talk page, Wikipedia spaces are the venues where topic ban applies but not sandbox. I swiftly requested deletion of the Sandbox once I was made aware of this fact that Sandbox covers topic ban. Apart from Sandbox edits, I never violated the topic ban. I promise to abide by the topic ban. Dympies (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by ZLEAI usually stay out of WP:ARE discussions, but the User:Yoonadue account has been involved in a content dispute over a claimed Indian kill of a Pakistani aircraft at Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. See Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21#F-16 for the full discussion. - ZLEA T\C 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by RegentsPark(Moved from admin section since I was recently involved in a discussion with Dympies)
Statement by BeccaynrDympies has used their sandbox to develop Mughal Empire-related content, e.g. [18], [19], [20], including content related to people referenced in Rajput#Mughal_period (Akbar, Jahangir). On 17:12, 8 December 2023, Dympies reverted to restore content in Mughal Empire, including a source discussing Akbar [21], and Dympies participated in discussion at Talk:Mughal Empire on 18:16, 9 December 2023 [22], citing sources with quotes discussing Akbar and Jahangir. Beccaynr (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Firefangledfeathers; I noted conduct at the 15 December 2023 SPI report, such as Dympies arriving at the Divya Dwivedi article for the first time at 15:53, 2 December 2023 to support Aman.kumar.goel in restoring a disputed version of content, including removal of sources [26] [27]; after Aman.kumar.goel was blocked, pinging CharlesWain into discussion at the Dwivedi talkpage; then appearing to support CharlesWain's use of an obviously unreliable source and a source that appears to at best be questionable for supporting contentious content in a BLP. (CharlesWain has recently opened an RfC at the Divya Dwivedi article talk page, citing these sources.) Other conduct by Dympies is also noted in the SPI based on the Editor Interaction Analyzer, including at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India#Estimations (Vanamonde93 asks Dympies "You have never edited a Covid article; how did you hear of this discussion?"), and other instances of Dympies and Aman.kumar.goel appearing to support each other during edit wars. Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by VanamondeI'm evidently late to this party. I have had considerable interaction with both the principal accounts here. When I was first pinged, I was going to recommend a one-account restriction and a TBAN; the conduct of any individual account was skirting the bounds of what was acceptable, but taken together they are far too much. I see my colleagues below have come to this conclusion already. I offer a little more evidence here, in case someone had lingering doubts.
TL:DR;, the restrictions proposed below are necessary and proportionate. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dympies
|
Aredoros87
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 Aredoros87
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Aredoros87 (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 22 November 2023 Immediately restores their extremely contentious additions accusing someone of having "sympathy to Nazism" after not replying to a talk page discussion for over a week
- 23 November 2023 Now adding additional heavily biased sources that contain Armenian genocide denial and inflammatory/offensive comments about Armenians ("Armenian claims related to the traumatic events of 100 years ago", "support claims of Armenian victimhood", "Armenians seem to exhibit amnesia about their brethren’s participation") ("the Michigan Armenian lobby that in all likelihood has been greasing her political career") and otherwise ridiculous false WP:UNDUE claims ("It is practically unknown to most that Armenian antisemitism played a weighty role in Hitler’s Final Solution")
- 15 December 2023 Makes a WP:PA against me ("Is this the way that you discredit authors that you dislike?") and that I "unlawfully" did the same in an AFD that everyone except Aredoros87 supported. When the previously mentioned genocide denying and xenophobic sources are pointed out to them, Aredoros87 denies those sources have offensive and undue claims
- 15 December 2023 Continued edit warring and restoring these unreliable sources after all of the issues with them were pointed out
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Participated in process about the area of conflict (that is, requested same sanction against me with diffs that didn't merit action), on 5 December 2023.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Just that I didn't want to make an AE report on Aredoros87 any time soon after they made one about me, until they made a personal attack. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Grandmaster: Did you even realize that the UN report is ALREADY IN the article (second to last paragraph) but in a proper context? Did you know that you had added the same information twice? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Aredoros87:
- That mosque list article is a copy of an article that was already deleted in an AFD consensus, another user recreated it in spite of the AFD result, so I redirected it.
- I was reverting a topic banned user the was blocked as a result of making that edit.
- Okay, how about a source from the Turkish Foreign Minister? "Reynolds does not categorize the Armenian events of 1915 as genocide"
- I had individually broken down each source to explain to you why they are undue or unreliable, which was time consuming, and these are still new heavily contentious additions you had no consensus to add. And despite individually explaining each source, you still restored the source blaming Armenians for the Final Solution right away.
- You weren't involved in #1-3 at all. Why didn't you discuss them? Why is the first time you are making any issue of them while asking for sanctions (again)? Trying to scrap the bottom of the barrel of my contributions seems to be the exact same thing that
FirefangledfeathersScottishFinnishRadish had described two weeks ago, that you are still throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Aredoros87:
- @Callanecc:
- I was literally quoting the closing statement, closed with no formal action. I took the advice to follow WP:BRD very seriously, and have already demonstrated doing so.[41][42][43]
- I participated in this talk discussion on an identical article. As my edit summary explains, this source is not related to the offensive at all, so it's removal seemed to be uncontrovesial.
- Aredoros did not explain any real concerns about the sources, Aredoros quite literally just asked for the sources not to be used
- That section was originally created by me as Massacre of Armenians, so it was someone else who added MOS:ALLEGED wording for something that is not in doubt. There are confirmed incidents of children being beheaded, so please understand why referring to this as "claims" seemed to cross into offensive material that needed to be removed immediately
- During those three weeks, there was an SPI on Aredoros, which I was waiting on the result for. And because Aredoros was filibustering obviously unreliable sources, it took time to break each of them down. Aredoros used terrible sources and original research to call someone a Nazi, this was potentially WP:LIBEL and seemed like something that should've been removed while being discussed.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Aredoros87
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 Aredoros87
KhndzroUtogh selectively mentions diffs in a misleading timeframe, but:
- I added (14/11/23) sourced quotations ([1], [2]) day after Khndzor claimed that the sources doesn't mention it. After his revert (21/11/23), I assumed his WP:GF both in edit summary and talk page.
- Initially he did cherry picking and called the source "propaganda agency". Then complained about Age Matters and asked more sources.3. Then claimed the source was primary and removed the content both in this article and in another article. Again claimed that the source doesn't mention what I said. I listed all the mentionings. Then KU comes back with the exact same arguments plus tries discredit all 8 sources. For example, he claims author has "COI" just because he gave an interview about political and economical relations and his predictions between 2 countries, or tries to discredit another author just because she is founder of AZ-US cultural foundation.
- Calling a well-known scholar "genocide denier" just because he said that as a historician "I cannot make juridistic assestments" is nonsense.
- The last message on talk page was from me and posted in 23/11/23. Then after ~1 month (14/12/23) he suddenly comes and deletes content with 8 sources. Then I restored it and wrote about it on talk page.
Aredoros87 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I support WP:BOOMERANG. It's evident that Khndzor's attempting to whitewash one side while portraying the other side negatively, he's here to POV-push, not to build an encyclopedia:
- On Mosques list of Shusha, Khndzor redirected the article[1], claiming that it was "copy" of another article. Khndzor basically deleted well-written and sourced article and redirected it to a low-quality article that lacks proper citations. The user didn't make any attempt to merge the information into the redirected article.
- On Shamakhi, Khndzor claimed to be restoring removed citations[2], but in reality, Khndzor removed a significant amount of sourced information, such as the mention of the common language of the city's inhabitants being Turkic and the demographic breakdown of the population being Turkic.
- On 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, Khndzor changed "Claims of violence against Armenians" to "Massacre of Armenians," arguing that it's massacre as there's confirmation of civilians being killed.[3] However, there is no reliable source confirming civilian deaths, and even the UN mission confirmed that there were no violence against civilians. Interestingly, in the "Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia" article, Khndzor removed a sourced content about massacres of Muslims in the Caucasus, claiming that the page doesn't mention Azerbaijanis and the author doesn't suggest that massacres took place.[5] Furthermore, Khndzor removed sourced information, absurdly arguing that homogenization only refers to deportations and not massacres.[6] It appears that Khndzor is applying a double standard, considering dubious claims of a few civilian deaths as a massacre while disregarding mass deaths of Muslims in the Caucasus, which are described by reliable sources as acts of revenge.
- Khndzor calls sources he doesn't like "partisan" to discredit them, but meanwhile defending the partisan outlets like ARF (nationalistic party in Armenia)[7]
- Aredoros87 (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Grandmaster
Per WP:Boomerang, I think it would be appropriate to look into KhndzorUtogh's own recent activity. Today he removed from 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh the information provided by the top international organization, the UN, claiming that the UN info was false, despite no authoritative international organization or other third party source contesting it: [45] [46] Previously, he was among those who objected to inclusion of the same information in the related article of Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. In order to resolve the dispute, I followed the advice of an admin and did an RFC on whether the UN information on violence against civilians during the recent hostilities should be included or not. The overwhelming community consensus was that the UN information should be included, and it was restored to the article. [47] Now KhndzorUtogh removes the same information from another article on the related topic, despite the clear community consensus that this information is relevant to the topic. Do we have to do RFCs on the same topic on every article concerning the same event, or it is enough to form the community consensus once and follow it? Grandmaster 10:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- First off, it was not just the UN office in Azerbaijan, but the mission organized by the UN that was headed by the UN Coordinator in Azerbaijan, and included representatives of various UN bodies, such as FAO, UNICEF, UNHCR, etc. The conclusions were announced by the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General [48]. Second, this mission has a direct relation to the offensive, as it came to check the situation on the ground after the hostilities ended. This same article mentions the statement by another UN body of 12 October 2023, so why not mention the finding of the UN mission of 1 October? Al-Jazeera is not pro-Azerbaijan, and the source that you quoted says nothing about civilian casualties, it mentions only military casualties. Further, if we have a section discussing civilian casualties, the UN mission statement of them finding no evidence of thereof is relevant in this context. The information about the UN mission at the bottom of the article omits any mention of the UN mission report that it "did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire". This is the same situation that led to RFC in the article about the flight of Karabakh Armenians, where the UN mission was mentioned, but the part about civilian casualties was omitted. And 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh and Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians are pretty much the same article split in 2, they are offshoots of one another, as one event led to the other. The arguments against inclusion of the UN mission findings about violence against civilians were discussed in much detail during the RFC, and were rejected by the community, but KhndzorUtogh keeps bringing them up again on a related article. How acceptable is that? I think it is just a waste of community's time to do RFCs on the same source in every article where this UN mission is mentioned. Grandmaster 10:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Clerk work (Aredoros87)
I don't intend to respond here except as a clerk.Aredoros87, you greatly exceeded your word limit, and I have cut your most recent response. You are free to shorten your statement to accommodate further responses—as long as you don't meaningfully change any part that has been responded to—or request a word limit extension. Please assume that you will need space for further replies and trim accordingly. I'm unlikely to accept an extension request until it's clear that responding admins would benefit from further info, but such a request might be granted by someone else. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) striking a bit 23:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)- KhndzorUtogh: you are at your word limit. Please do not reply further unless granted an extension. You may want to proactively trim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Grandmaster: you are at your word limit. Please do not reply further unless granted an extension. You may want to proactively trim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- A note in case it helps: I'm unlikely to grant word limit extensions at this time. I think the current length is already a barrier in getting admin attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Result concerning Aredoros87
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I said I was just going to clerk, but I forgot I'd reviewed a prior dispute between these two. Might have thoughts later, but I'd prefer to hear from other admins first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- It seems like there are two issues here:
- A87's and KU's conduct at Ruben Darbinyan and its talk page.
- A87's and KU's conduct in the wider AA topic area.
- I think there's enough evidence presented—which I haven't reviewed quite enough yet to suggest any action—for responding admins to come to some sort of conclusion for #1, even if that conclusion is inaction. I think it makes sense to start small and go big, so I'd prefer to postpone review of #2 or have it take place in a separate filing. A narrow finding of fact might be useful in processing the wider issue. I'm partially favoring this process option because I, and probably many admins, will be busy with holiday obligations for the next week or so. Any admin that's enthusiastic about a wider and deeper review should go ahead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- My analysis of the evidence presented above:
- I believe we're in WP:ARBAA3#Administrators encouraged territory so we're at a spot where sanctions are necessary. The goal of this thread will be to determine what those sanctions are.
- Aredoros87 filed an AE request concerning KhndzorUtogh earlier this month. The request was closed on 12 December with advice to both editors. For KhndzorUtogh to follow BRD more closely, check content they're adding to the lead is sourced and include reasons with reverts. A87 was advised to build a stronger case before coming to AE and not to cite consensus where none clearly exists. Given the history between these two editors of not working well together and that they've recently filed requests against each other a mutual interaction been seems a good starting point.
- Re KhndzorUtogh:
- Despite this month's AE thread being closed with advice to them, KhndzorUtogh says above that the the AE thread saw nothing to support any action against them [49] which suggests that they don't feel they need to improve their conduct.
- I find this revert concerning given the reminder about BRD in the previous AE thread and that there was a talk page discussion underway that they had not contributed to and rather than do so first they reverted as the first step.
- At Ramil Safarov, while dismissing a concern A87 had about sources KU added to the article, KU implied that as the sources aren't listed at WP:RSP they are fine to use and reverted A87's removal of them.
- At 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, after the December AE thread was closed KU changed the section heading regarding civilian deaths from "Claims of violence against" to "Massacre of". Around 24 hours later this change was then reverted by A87. Approximately seven days later KU changed it to "Reports of violence against" without noting this in the edit summary. Neither change was discussed on the article talk page.
- At Ruben Darbinyan, KU edit warred rather than allowing discussion to take place without this added conflict. 3 November (then started talk section) 21 November (seven days after last talk page reply) 13 December (three weeks after last talk page reply) instead of only engaging constructively in discussion to come to a resolution. KU's third revert occured after they had not replied on the talk page for three weeks following A87's most recent talk page comment and article edit.
- Re Aredoros87 :
- At Ruben Darbinyan, A87 edit warred rather than allowing discussion to take place without this added conflict. 10 November (5 days after last talk page reply), 23 November 15 December. The last two reverts were following KU returning to the article after a break and reverting.
- A87 engaged in incivil behaviour and made a personal attack towards KU at Talk:Ruben Darbinyan.
- Summary: As I said above the starting point for sanctions appears to be a mutual IBAN between A87 and KU. I'm currently considering whether further sanctions are necessary. That might be a crafted revert restriction (BRD with a long timeframe or a paired down version of something like consensus required) or a topic ban. I'm not convinced that this'd work in practice but another option might be that if a source they wish to use is challenged (including reverted) they need to establish a consensus in favour of using it (on the article talk page, RSN, etc) before they can readd it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- After seeing KU's reply I'm more inclined to TBAN than I was before. Their justification that they were quoting from the closure statement of the last AE request is patently false, "closed with no formal action" is not the same as "saw nothing to support any action". If they believe that that is a quote then I have no faith in their ability to assertain information from sources. In the last AE thread they were advised to follow BRD more closely and while KU has provided some examples what I think they've demonstrated is that they were doing it sometimes but not in this instance. For example, KU said that they added the "Massacres of..." section header and so when it was changed by someone else then didn't follow BRD when changing it back.
I'm also more convinced of the POV editing from A87 and that to counter it required a TBAN, potentially limited to particilar areas around conflict in particular.
Re Vanamonde93's suggestion of a logged warning, I think in some topic areas, especially where ArbCom has passed an "Administrators encouraged" remedy, we should look to seeing unlogged reminders/advice and logged warnings as effectively equivalent. If advice didn't work we should strongly consider skipping logged warnings in favour of more impactful sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- After seeing KU's reply I'm more inclined to TBAN than I was before. Their justification that they were quoting from the closure statement of the last AE request is patently false, "closed with no formal action" is not the same as "saw nothing to support any action". If they believe that that is a quote then I have no faith in their ability to assertain information from sources. In the last AE thread they were advised to follow BRD more closely and while KU has provided some examples what I think they've demonstrated is that they were doing it sometimes but not in this instance. For example, KU said that they added the "Massacres of..." section header and so when it was changed by someone else then didn't follow BRD when changing it back.
- This is a difficult situation, that is in many ways similar to nationalist POV disputes in other contemporary ethno-nationalist conflicts. It's made more difficult by the fact that many sources are not in English, and assessing their quality and partisanship is therefore very challenging. I'm seeing sub-par behavior from both editors that smacks of POV intent; reverting while discussion is ongoing, using marginal sources to support a preferred version of content but opposing sources of similar quality elsewhere, using marginal sources to make the most sweeping statements possible, edit-warring slowly instead of discussing (not every behavior is visible for both users). KU is also showing some evidence of stonewalling/filibustering, while I'm more concerned at A87's use of sources (including at this AfD, that isn't mentioned here AFAICS). That said, I'm not necessarily seeing a smoking gun here that would justify a draconian sanction (such as a CT-wide TBAN); and I'm not sure what lesser scope I would choose. Callanecc, I'm somewhat opposed to an IBAN. This isn't a particularly wide topic; I find it difficult to believe these two can continue to edit constructively in this topic without running into each other constantly. I would prefer a logged warning about battleground behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
שמי (2023)
Blocked for one week by ScottishFinnishRadish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:09, 25 December 2023 (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 שמי (2023)
All of these are WP:ARBECR violations.
This user has never responded on its talk page, nor reacted to having edits reverted on ARBPIA grounds. Whether that indicates blissful ignorance or wilful ignorance, I don't care to guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:שמי_(2023)&diff=prev&oldid=1191418762> Discussion concerning שמי (2023)Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by שמי (2023)Statement by (username)Result concerning שמי (2023)
|
Rsk6400
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 Rsk6400
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Crash48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Rsk6400 (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:ARBEE
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- WP:STONEWALL:
- 13 November 2023 reverted my addition with the message
stop edit warring. You have no consensus for that
; two weeks earlier, on 29 October 2023, I had pinged him on the article talk page asking whether he had any opposition against my addition; Rsk6400 ignored my question, and it remains unanswered to this day. - 13 November 2023 refused to state any specific reasons for reverting my addition when I asked him on his user talk page.
- 16 December 2023 claimed that most of the draft I created is original synthesis of primary sources; but then refused the moderator's request to identify the text that is synthesis from primary sources.
- 13 November 2023 reverted my addition with the message
- WP:FILIBUSTER:
- 28 November 2023 feigned willingness to participate in a mediated DR; but then, over the course of a month, refused to suggest any specific change to the article, or to relate to any specific change suggested by me.
- 10 December 2023 stated that after a draft of the proposed article section is created, he'd like to take part in the process of improving the draft; but after the draft was created, he refused to contribute even a single edit to it.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict on 24 November 2023, and further warned by the DR moderator on 4 December 2023, on 5 December 2023 and on 22 December 2023 as he kept on filibustering without engaging in the discussion of the content whose inclusion he opposes.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
See WP:DRN#Ukrainian language for the DR which is now closed as failed.
Earlier, on 20 September 2023, Rsk6400 stated that the reason why he reverted my addition was "because it was without context". Then, on 22 September 2023, Rsk6400 added a "context" to the article to his satisfaction; but he insists on reverting my addition even though the "context" he had required is now present.
The example when an editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines
is specifically listed as a case of stonewalling, and Rsk6400's condition that primary sources should not be used here
[50] has no basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines.
Regarding the accusations of me edit warring: WP:DRNC#How to respond to a "no consensus" edit summary advises, upon not receiving any response on the talk page from the revertor within a few days, to reapply the change, prior to taking the dispute to other forums. This is the recommended course of action that I followed.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [51]
Discussion concerning Rsk6400
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 Rsk6400
The issue was discussed at
- Talk:Ukrainian language#Little Russian language
- Talk:Ukrainian_language#Pereiaslav_and_Western_Ukraine
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Talk:Ukrainian language#Little Russian language
- [Arbitration requests https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1185623520#Ukrainian_language]
- Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ukrainian_language
- After filing this request, Crash48 also started an RfC at Talk:Ukrainian_language#Request_for_comment_on_adding_a_section_on_the_names_of_the_language.
Re "Stonewall" 3: The moderator misunderstood my point, which was "The claim ... is not really supported by the source." (From the diff given by Crash48)
Re "Filibuster" 2: When I stated my willingness to improve the draft, there were three editors in the discussion. I was hoping that the third editor would provide a sensible draft, but they withdrew from the discussion.
I'll gladly answer to the other points if an admin has any questions.
Please note that Crash48 says that I "feigned willingness" (against AGF) and that they continued edit warring at Ukrainian language after they accepted the rules of the moderated discussion. I'll provide the diffs as soon as I can, but please excuse me for now because of Christmas celebrations (Happy Xmas to all who celebrate that feast !) Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Please note that I informed the third party of the DNR of this discussion[52].
Replying to Robert McClenon's statement: It's not true that I "wanted to roll back the article to a stable version". I demanded that the rule be applied according to which the mediation failed because Crash48 edited the article after having accepted the rules.[53] I also wanted that you saw that you were mistaken when saying that Crash48 made that edit "so soon after I [Robert McClenon] provided the rules."[54] It's also not true that you "had to" collapse much of the discussion. At least everything that I said was said for procedural reasons. The extracts from the discussion (8th to 10th statements) which you presented here are arbitrarily chosen. Of course, I said that "most" was original synthesis. But the most important claim was "not really supported by the source." I'm really at a loss how you could misunderstand me so often and so deeply. I reject your final statement that it was me who "made reasoned discussion impossible." Rsk6400 (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
I was the moderator at DRN of the dispute over the content of the Ukrainian language article. When I begin mediation of a content dispute about a contentious topic, I instruct the principals to acknowledge that they are aware that the topic is contentious. Some topics are subject to battleground editing because they have historically been real battlegrounds. Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, which is where World War Two began. It is also the location of the bloodiest war of the twenty-first century.
This was a difficult mediation. Both Crash48 and Rsk6400 had to be warned. I had to collapse back-and-forth discussion. Rsk6400 wanted to roll back the article to a stable version, which I did not do, because my objective is to improve the article going forward rather than to go back. Rsk6400 wanted me to fail the mediation because Crash64 had edited the article after I had said not to edit the article. I could have failed the mediation at this point, but chose not to do so, because I was trying at least to get the parties to agree as to what they disagreed about.
Things got worse on 20 December, when I tried to explain what I saw as the situation. I thought that I was quoting Rsk6400, and they denied having said that there was original synthesis from primary sources. This appears to be an attempt to gaslight the moderator. I failed the moderation when I thought that I was being gaslighted.
In Rsk6400's Eighth Statement, they wrote:
Commenting on this version of the draft: Most of it is original synthesis of primary sources.
So in my Tenth Statement, I wrote:
I was mistaken in my statement about what Rsk6400 wrote about Crash48's section on name. They said that the section consisted largely of synthesis from primary sources.
Then in Rsk6400's Tenth Statement, they wrote:
Dear moderator, the whole thing has become too frustrating for me. You misunderstood my eighth statement once again. The claim in the first sentence "[before mid-19th century] the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian" is not really supported by the source. The source (Flier & Graziosi) is of course a secondary source. I did not claim that this was original synthesis as you mistakenly claimed in your last statement.
Maybe they aren't trying to confuse the moderator, which may be like trying to confuse a jury, but the effect is that they made reasoned discussion impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Rsk6400
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Crash48's contributions to the mediation are filled with sections where they demonstrate a battleground mentality. For example Third statement and Fourth statement.
Robert McClenon's statement does a good job of summarising Rsk6400's stonewalling in this discussion. I also found Rsk6400's focus that the mediation should have failed when Crash48 edited the article exemplified their stonewalling and battleground mentaility throughout the mediation.
Both editors also engaged in (slow) edit warring at the Ukrainian language article. Based on the above I would support topic banning both editors from the Ukrainian language. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)