Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
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}}.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NomanPK44
Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 21:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by NomanPK44I removed the edit from here [1] because ThePrint is not a reliable source for Balochistan Liberation Army as it has been speculated that it has been supported by India so only third party sources are considered reliable after that I also added a reliable source on that page for the correct size of them[2]. Now if you look to Smuggling tunnel edit I removed the text because it was added using only INDIAN SOURCES no other media source was present there it clearly looks like to be against Pakistan. Because the section was about India-Pakistan so a third-party source should be reliable in this matter rather than all INDIAN SOURCES. Now if you look into the third one [3] I modified it by linking an closed WP:RFC Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory? while the other discussion here is not closed yet. Now on the last edit [4] another user already told me to go to the talk page and also told me that it is a friendly warning and I already have opened a discussion on the talk page after that [5]NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by El_CThe diff that I cite in the sanction notice as an example reads (in full): Not sure if other AE admins are with me on this (hopefully!), but I am at the point now of just not wanting to let IPA misconduct be overlooked any longer, for whatever reason, and generally am interested in setting a higher standard in this key topic area with respect to following up trouble with enforcement, firmly so. Noting also my pervious AE action against the appellant a month ago, involving a 2-week partial block from the Insurgency in Balochistan mainspace article due to a 1RR violation (see WP:AEL#India-Pakistan for my log entry). El_C 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Srijanx22As the filer of the report which resulted in topic ban, I would recommend declining because NomanPk44 sees nothing wrong with any of his edits and justifies his edits over what "has been speculated" and continued doubling downing with his poor understanding of what is WP:RS. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NomanPK44Result of the appeal by NomanPK44
|
Mclarenfan17 (follow-up IP report)
Although some limited communication with Mclarenfan17 did occur at User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement, they continue to sidestep the point (as of mere minutes ago, even) about their usage of multiple accounts to circumvent the sanction. Per Black Kite's suggestion, I have indefinitely blocked the Mclarenfan17 account for socking. Black Kite has also noted that range blocking isn't feasible at this time due to high collateral, so we're down to semiprotections — Robert McClenon has compiled a list of these, which I have since applied. From this point on, protections for affected pages may be requested at WP:RFPP, noting specifically that this is
|
---|
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 Mclarenfan17
Not applicable
I'm reporting 1.129.108.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per the instructions in the outcome of the recent arbitration request. The IP made a number of edits in the same generale style and purpose of the edits of this user and edited the a group of articles they frequently edited. The IP also strems from the range they generally use.Tvx1 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Update: The user has now directly reverted an edit of mine (in fact a blanket revert of a series of edits I had executed), which is another direct violation of the interaction ban.Tvx1 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC) One remark to Robert McClenon's statement. I think requiring that the person simply limits themself to using the Mclarenfan17 account could also be an option. As far as I can understand it has been truly established that they cannot access that account anymore.Tvx1 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite: what concerns me the most is that the first of the edits you referred to directly reverted a set of edits of mine, which is a clear violation of the interaction ban.Tvx1 02:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mclarenfan17Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mclarenfan17I find Tvx1's claims to be made in bad faith. I am largely retired these days; I have been doing a bit of editing recently because of virus restrictions. When he first posted here, he could not cite a single edit that he believed that I had made. He even posted to this page a few days ago and was told that he needed something more concrete. Furthermore, Tvx1 made this edit at 22:31 GMT. It ignored a consensus which was established on the article talk page. Then at 23:01 GMT, Tvx1 posted here at arbitration enforcement claiming that I have been circumventing the terms of arbitration, even though he had no proof of it. Tvx1 is well aware that there is only a small handful of regular editors to that article. In effect, he has made an edit that ignored a consensus, them came here almost immediately to try and have sanctions imposed against me to shut me out of the editing process, if I was ever involved in it to begin with; I was, but given that he could not point to any edits that I had allegedly made, this has clearly been done in bad faith. He has not made any other contributions to that article except to circumvent a consensus, and his interest in the topic waned when I went into semi-retirement last year. Tvx1 has a history of ignoring consensus and of wikilawyering, both of which were acknowledged in the original arbitration discussion by the arbitration committee. I think he is trying to use arbitration enforcement to shut editors he disagrees with out of the editing process so that he can then ignore a consensus that he personally dislikes. Furthermore, the device that I edit from has a dynamic IP address. While I am aware of this, I do not know how to switch it off. So while I might appear to be hopping between IP addresses, everything that I have done has been done in good faith. I am not trying to circumvent the arbitration ruling and have generally avoided Tvx1 since I became active again. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenonI don't know exactly what is meant by an explicit one-account restriction, but I will either suggest or agree with the idea that unregistered editing should be disallowed in the motorsports area, at least in articles that User:Tvx1 has edited. I have tried in the past to be neutral in this dispute because I was previously trying to act as a neutral mediator, but McLarenfan17 has made it impossible for me to be neutral. As a scientist and a historian of science by education, I apply Occam's Razor, which is to use the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation of this motorsports dispute between two editors is that Prisonermonkeys / Mclarenfan17 is gaming the system by the use of IP addresses. It no longer matters whether they have lost their password a second time, or whether they lost it a first time. They know how to create a third account, and their failure to do so can only be explained by trying to game the system and evade the interaction ban. Their statements that Tvx1 is acting in bad faith are a handwave to distract attention from the way that they are acting in bad faith. The way that they can re-establish good faith would be to create a third account. I think that the human who has been User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Mclarenfan17 should be given a choice of two options. First, create a third account and edit only from it, and never from IP addresses. Second, completely retire from Wikipedia and make no edits in the motorsports area. In either case, motorsports articles should be semi-protected. If the human who has been Mclarenfan17 does not agree to one of the two choices, then either the admins at AE or the ArbCom or the community should ban the human, and treat all such edits as edits by a banned user. That's my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's a Whac-a-mole exercise. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Comment by GoodDayClarification needed. Why is any editor being allowed to edit signed-out, when they have a registered account? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC) His IP range should be blocked, as it appears as though the editor-in-question is giving the figurative 'middle finger' to the project. There comes a point, when the project has to acknowledge when an individual 'may be' -bleeping around- with them. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mclarenfan17
|
My very best wishes
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 My very best wishes
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- My very best wishes (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:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
The user removed with confidence a huge amount of data of the past of politician Alexei Navalny (approximately 7 years of documented pro-nationalist facts and political views from 2007-2013), mainly the controversial one (together with RS), justifying itself in the many (on purpose?) engulfed wall-text-discussions we had [6][7][8][9][10] mainly in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography",[11] abusing everywhere, in my opinion, of the magic word "Undue weight". Or "his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant",[12] confusing Wikipedia for LinkedIn.
- 03:51, 9 February 2021 Removal of controversial Narod movement (2007), accusing weak sources, instead of seeking RS, justifying it with "Undue weight" (RS [13] [14] [15])
- 16:51, 12 February 2021 Not collaborating: He questions Narod's existence and asks for the website url.[16] I gave him the archived website.[17] His answer: "This is internet garbage".
- 21:29, 9 February 2021 Removal of references to Navalny on Anti-Georgian sentiment (RS [18] [19]) for "Undue focus". Read the answer [20] from User: Kober
- 20:40, 15 February 2021 Removal of the Russo-Georgian war and racial slurs, (RS [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]) and the nationalist campaign, (RS [26] [27]) denying that the consensus for that part was reached in TP. [28]
- 00:57, 17 February 2021 Not accepting consensus, changing argument in front of evidence in the summary of the user's statements [29]
- 04:24, 11 February 2021 Deliberate distortion of the RS, to omit that Navalny declared himself a "Nationalist-democrat", as User:RenatUK reported [30]
- 04:27, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on the support to 2013 ethnic riots for "Undue weight" (RS [31] [32])
- 04:06, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on Russian march and nationalist campaign, including RS, for "Undue weight" (RS [33] [34] [35] [36])
- 21:01, 12 February 2021 Removal of controversial NAROD-Navalny's videos and accusing TheGuardian,[37] Telegraph,[38] NYTimes,[39] FinancialTimes,[40] Politico [41] having produced "defamatory content".[42]
- 23:06, 13 February 2021 Removal of any reference to the nationalists, despite what the RS says.[43]
- 18:25, 16 February 2021 Coincidences: supports the innocence of a banned user accused of sockpuppetry who took sides for the removal of contents on Navalny.[44] At the same time he supports the guilt of a user accused of sockpuppetry [45] who was in favor of maintaining the contents. Wasn't it better to avoid taking sides?
- 06:21, 11 February 2021 wikihounding: reverts my old edits of 25 May 2020
- 21:41, 15 February 2021 wikihounding/defaming?: reverts one of my first edits of 28 January 2015 and accuses me of sponsoring terrorism.[46]
- 21:49, 15 February 2021 wikihounding: article Vitalii Markiv, he reverts my old edits of 1 October 2020 with RS (controversial content) for "Undue weight" (his last edit on the article: 27 July 2019)
- 15:37, 16 February 2021 wikihounding: article Myrotvorets, he reverts my old edits of 9 October 2020 (controversial content) and warns me that I used an "extremist" source[47] (actually a Security Service of Ukraine website)
- 23:32, 25 February 2021 wikihounding: article Herashchenko, he keeps following me after I edited the article just few hours before.[48]
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Not applicable
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I am "forced" to answer to the slanderous accusations that the user is addressing me again. In this diff[49] I demonstrate how both MVBW and Nicoljaus targeted my edits from last year, removing them. What I wrote on Nicolajius' tp was a sincere invitation to be left in peace,[50] and now MVBW is even trying to accuse me of provoking them![51] Keep in mind that this is the level of how MVBW distorts reality, which is why I ended up making this AE request: I need someone to tell me if I went crazy all of a sudden, or if there is something wrong with this user's behavior.--Mhorg (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
My last answers (I hope) to MVBW's statements; collapsed to follow word limit
|
---|
At first, I want to specify that I didn't add much to the article, all the controversial parts were already there. I just added tons of RS (from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), released hundreds of comments in the discussions in a polite manner (I hope), always open to mediation. I find myself compelled to fill this request because I am exhausted and I think the user is acting disruptively, skillfully walking on the edge of Wiki rules. The user now says [52] he did some self-reverts too (23:39, 13 February 2021), but coincidentally happened once he got to know the report [53] I was doing about him, about 1 hour later.(22:34, 13 February 2021). He also claims that the article continues today to have those controversial parts; Yes, they are there not thanks to him, but to those who tried to defend them. If no one had intervened, there would have been a 7-year gap of pro-Nationalist views and facts in the politician's career.--Mhorg (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC) What I think MVBW has proven is that he acts, at least for the cases that have been reported, in an aggressive manner with content removals even in fields that are not his competence. User:Bob not snob statement, in this AE request, reported the example of removals of contents on articles related to Poland that MVBW doesn't even know about (by his own admission).[54] The same thing happened on the Myrotvorets article (he knows a little about the subject, in fact he ended up on the article only for Wikipedia:FOLLOW\Wikipedia:HOUNDING [55]), where the user intervenes to remove some content (always controversial, coincidentally) warning me that I am using an extremist website as source,[56] not knowing that the website is managed by the Security Service of Ukraine: for the more inexperienced, there is even written in the article's lede! Not even a small commitment to read what Myrotvorets is. Going back to the Navalny issue, the user wants to make it appear that he disagrees with me on only one topic: clearly the user don't want to click on the diffs which show that he has removed practically every controversial part of the article. This seems to me is his strategy, first he removes everything, then in discussions he abuses everywhere the term "Undue weight" and engulfs them, always remaining vague (I don't know if there is already a Wikipedian term to describe this behavior). I know that the discussions are long, but I invite the admins to scroll through them carefully, the user always tries not to get to the point. About the Consensus: it has been reached (not only about the RS-reliability, but also about the content to insert) at least on the Georgian issue, but the user simply won't accept this. He talks about contextualizing (I'm always in favour of contextualizing), but his proposals are smoky, it never gets to the point.[57] He simply wants to remove this fact. In a normal discussion, something like this would have ended quickly:
Among the users against it there is the same user suspected of being a sockpuppet and that MVBW himself contributed to unblock (a disinterested action, of course), and that user was blocked at that time of the summary about the Georgian issue (unblocked the 20:10, 16 February 2021, so he couldn't be counted as one of the 3 users against he talks about. On the Georgian issue, the contrary users are MVBW and Nicoljaus only. Distortion of reality, again. Finally, since MVBW is making controversy about this thing, if I have violated any of the Following\Wikihounding reporting rules, I deserve the penalty. I just want to specify that I did not know the rule, and that I promptly substantiated in the following comment[58] the diffs that show that he and Nicoljaus, both involved in the discussion, have targeted my old edits on purpose.--Mhorg (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC) The user, after following me on the Myrotvorets article, continues to follow me also on Anton Herashchenko article, modifying a part related to the Ukrainian website.[59] |
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning My very best wishes
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 My very best wishes
- [64] - This is a typical accusation by Mhorg in response to my self-revert on the page to restore "his" version [65], a subject of further editing of course. See also a typical edit summary by Mhorg. He say that I want to remove all "controversial issues", but I never proposed or tried it. In fact, the entire BLP page of Navalny is one continuous controversy. The content was there all the time. For example, his "nationalism" is now described in the 2nd paragraph of this section. I did not remove it, and I did not try. The diffs by Mhorg only reflect my attempts to properly summarize multiple RS, use neutral wording and exclude duplicate or arguably undue content from the very large page. But in the end, there is only one specific content disagreement between Mhorg and me on page Navalny (below).
- Here, on talk page of El_C, Mhorg tells: I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician...I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. "Fighting" (actually a content dispute) about what? He wants to include this text about Georgians described as "cockroaches", "rodents", "rotten teeth", etc. That was discussed on talk page. For example, here - Mhorg himself marked bold all words he wants to emphasize on the BLP page. I believe Mhorg wants to disparage the most famous anti-Putin activist by selectively citing the worst one can possibly find in polemic journalistic sources. I agree that something about Georgia can be included, but not this specific wording by Mhorg.
- There is no consensus to include such specific version by Mhorg. He started a thread on the talk page, here. (note this edit by another user that makes a part of this thread to appear as started by me.). Looking at these threads, do they look like consensus to support anything? I started another thread to clarify what consensus could emerge. It appears that people are more or less agree on sources, but disagree on specific text to be included. Mhorg is the only user who advocates his version in this thread, while 3 other users (me including) object. I think this content disagreement could be easily resolved by submitting an RfC.
- Additional responses (roughly in the same order as in the complaint by Mhorg):
- We actually agreed with Mhorg to include the content about "Narod" long before he submitted this AE request, i.e. I self-reverted [66], and Mhorg re-edited this text as he wanted [67]. However, Nicoljaus removed it with a reasonable justification [68]. This is not a disagreement with me.
- Yes, the sources in this diff by Mhorg here if not an outright "internet garbage", but definitely something we do not want to use. Please check these links.
- Anti-Georgian sentiment. Here is discussion [69]. This is a typical content disagreement, and I think it was already resolved.
- Vitalii Markiv and Mitotvorets. Actually, we quickly came to consensus with Mhorg on both pages [70], [71], including full agreement on talk page (here, on the bottom). Why bring this here? I checked these pages again though.
- No one accused Mhorg of sponsoring terrorism. That was my comment, and it was summarized in edit summary. That was not about terrorism at all. Yes, I had a concern here, and asked Mhorg about it [72], but it was more along the lines of "links to avoid" and using unrelibale sources (anonymous YouTube videos) with content about living people in WP.
- "a banned user accused of sockpuppetry". That user was actually unblocked by admin. See discussion here. I hope they will contribute constructively. If not, they will be re-blocked.
- "Wikihounding". Mhorg and me edited a few common pages (there is an interest overlap), but in all such cases that was a productive collaboration, i.e. we quickly came to a better version of the page and consensus, excluding only a single remaining content disagreement on page Navalny (see above). There was no wikihounding. These diffs are just a few examples of my edits on these pages. For example on page Myrotvorets, Mhorg reverted my edit after 8 minutes [73], but that was totally OK. We had a friendly discussion on talk and came to consensus that only one link needs to be removed [74]. End of story. Page improved. I do have a habit of (re)visiting pages if they appear in discussions on ANI and AE. This is all.
- Collapsed insert by Mhorg ("My last answers"). Mhorg uses selective citation out of context, and it is not clear what specific text these people support. I could also say "yes" if it was a reasonable specific text under discussion. Actually, at least some of them do not. For example, in the last/latest thread on the page [75] Alaexis responded specifically to the "summary" by Mhorg (same as he now posted to AE) and said this: [76].
- My discussion with Mhorg during this AE: [77].
- @Mhorg. Yes, I saw your comment on talk page of El_C. Hence my comment: [78]. Here, I just tried to explain the BLP policy to Mhorg. That did not work. He continue inserting undue content, such as "controversial elements about the Ukrainian state" in his own words) to BLP pages right now [79].
- If one looks at talk page of article Navalny [80], it was very much peaceful and constructive until Mhorg started this thread on February 3 (I started commenting there only later, on February 9, after an invitation by another user [81]).
- @Bob not snob. Here is my edit. The justification for the edit has nothing to do with sources, as reflected in the edit summary and explained on article talk page. Yes, I do not know Polish and can only rely on Google translator and reviews in English RS about specific Polish sources. In the edit summary I mentioned a book by Michael Fleming (historian) as presumably a "good source" based on discussion by others at RSNB. As about "Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza", yeh, I thought from the beginning this is probably not a good source, but then decided to AGF with regard to Polish-speaking users who originally included it. However, when you brought my attention by posting on my talk page, I realized that indeed I do not know Polish, and therefore should not be involved.
Statement by Nicoljaus
I think it's enough to look at the "Top edited pages" of Mhorg [82] and the VoxKomm main page [83] to see almost a complete intersection by topics. Obviously, the user here is just WP:NOTHERE.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it
-- "almost a complete intersection by topics", as Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella
It looks like AE is being used to win content disputes to me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @MVBW ---> "forced" ---> [84] - It could be the language thing.. They could mean "I had no choice." Possibly, I'm not sure, but I believe that's what they meant. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
The filing editor filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on 10 February, which had to do with a survey that had been disrupted by sockpuppetry. The DRN request listed eight editors, the eight who had responded to the survey, which is more than DRN can normally work with effectively. I recommended that the survey, which was sort of an informal RFC, be converted to a formal RFC, with the assistance of a volunteer. Mhorg then requested to put the DRN on hold, which was done. Mhorg then said that there was a complex mix of content and conduct issues, and that they wished to withdraw the DRN in order to file a conduct report, which is this thread. They have now asked me a question on my talk page about the word limit. I can see that they are using a lot of words. I haven't researched the details of the conduct dispute, and have nothing more to add at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Bob not snob
Over in the Western side of Eastern Europe, I encountered My Very Best Wishes in this recent edit in which he restored information sourced to Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza. This is an "anti-socialist" webpage or blog, that is right-wing extremist, and is not a reliable source for anything. The extremist nature is quite obvious, on the archived source itself there is an image of Donald Tusk with a German and Polish flag, with text expressing opposition to the election of a "German candidate" to the Polish presidency. The about page describes how this website was initially the website of the Masovian district of the Real Politics Union, a small extremist political party. The site itself is mainly the work of one individual, Krzysztof Pawlak.
When I pointed this out to My very best wishes, he first reverted my post and then later posted on my talk page: "Unfortunately, I do not know Polish, and I am not sufficiently familiar with Polish sources and politics to respond to your comment".
Moments before placing this extremist source, he removed content from an academic source.
If My Very Best Wishes is unable to assess Polish sources, why is he restoring content removed with the edit summary of "This is not a reliable source"? Bob not snob (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Alaexis
I participated in discussions with both users on the talkpage of Alexei Navalny article, from which most of the diffs in the request come from. It is a content dispute, primarily about what constitutes due weight, and should be dealt with as a content dispute. I don't think that either editor has displayed bad faith in those discussions. Alaexis¿question? 06:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Paul Siebert
I think this case should be taken very seriously, because Mhorg's words: "My very best wishes, You keep mystifying everything, everything" are absolutely correct. MVBW's contributions look perfect until you examined them more carefully, but my impression is that admins usually do not like to go into such details.
Below, I describe just four incidents, and I respectfully request for an extension of the 500 words limit, because a short description does not provide a full picture. If the word limit extension will not be granted to me, I will probably address directly to ArbCom, because, as I see, other users are being negatively impacted by MVBW's activity too.
- Incident 1 False accusation of disruptive editing supported by multiple false claims.
This commentary was made by MVBW on me at ANI: The post was made by MVBW on 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC) in this archived discussion)
- "Indeed. However, the problem is not only the number of edits, but POV-pushing. OK, these subjects are big and complicated. Let's take a small a simple page, like Gas van, see discussion here. I argue that a book by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. should be used as a scholarly book that tells something exactly on the subject, along with other sources. This should be simple, right? Wrong. An extremely long discussion follows, after which I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired (see also this part: Paul fight with every author who does not fit his POV, even a Nober Prize winner; the discussion includes some Russian texts; Paul is a native speaker, just like me). The "winner" happily removes the reference to the book, along with direct quotation from the book [85], and he does it with false/misleading edit summary (no, the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"). That is what Paul do on many pages. That was the reason for my WP:AE report [86]. (signed by MVBW) 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)"
MVBW was not previously involved in that ANI thread, and his post triggered an avalanche of negative votes during the ANI discussion (which eventually lead to my topic ban). Unfortunately, I didn't try to refute MVBW's ridiculous claims during that discussion (I thought that was obvious to everybody they were fasle), which was not wise. Now I am fixing that my mistake.
What really happened during the discussion MVBW is referring to is an example of a perfect work. I am still proud of that. We (User:Assayer, MVBW, and I) analyzed a large number of ostensibly independent sources that described ostensibly different cases of usage of Gas vans during Stalin's Great Purge, and we found that all those books and articles are based on a single report published in one Russian tabloid. By the end of the discussion, we reached a consensus, and Assayer and I continued to stick to it afterwards.
That is what MVBW described as my "disruptive" editing in his ANI post. Detailed analysis of his statement is presented below:
Detailed analysis of MVBW's false claims
- First, that "extremely long discussion" resulted in a consensus, and the last MVBW's post does not create an impression that he was driven away by me. Contrary to his claim ("I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired"), MVBW would return to that page in 2019, and break the consensus, but that is a separate story.
Conclusion: False claim
- Second, under "Nobel prize winner" he meant Solzhenitsyn. I objected to that source because the author de facto accused Jews of invention of gas vans, but I didn't remove that source from the article: that source was present in the consensus version supported by me, Assayer and MVBW, and it was me who restored this source later, after it was removed by someone else.
Conclusion: False claim
- Third, he provided the diff where I removed the Albatz's book, however, he forgot to mention that was not a final version: our consensus decision was to keep Albats (as I summarised in the same diff; I typed a wrong number of tilds and misspelled her name, but it was me who supported Albatz. That source was included into the consensus version; it was later restored by me along with Solzhenitsyn, see above). I am honest, I DISLIKE both sources, because they add no fresh information (they, as well as several other books, just reproduce the information from one tabloid), but I did not attempt to remove them after a consensus was achieved, because I respect consensus.
Conclusion: False claim
- Fourth, he said "the winner happily removes...", but I didn't remove any source that was supported by a consensus, which is easily verifiable (don't need to prove negative).
Conclusion: False claim
- Fifth, I never claimed to be a native Russian speaker, although I do know Russian. What was a reason for posting that personal information about me, and, no matter if it is true or false, where he obtained it?
Conclusion: Disclosure of a non-verified personal information
- Sixth, he says that "the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"", which is supposed to imply that I made a false claim that it does cite it. However, the statement he ascribed to me was made by Assayer, and, importantly, that statement was correct (later, MVBW reproduced it).
Conclusion: Doubly false statement
.
Moreover, MVBW de facto ascribed his own sins to me. It is easy to see that during that discussion he was opposing to two editors, me and Assayer, and that discussion became "extremely long" not because of me, but because of MVBW's refusal to get a point. The Assayer's opinion on MVBW's behaviour can be found here.
MVBW's false statements mislead good faith users at ANI, which negatively affected an outcome of the ANI discussion.
- Incident 2 False accusation of sockpuppetry, with a subsequent attempt to conceal that fact.
1. MVBW accused me of sockpuppetry
4. MVBW edited his previous post, secrfetly removed the direct accusation of sock/meat puppetry (instead of striking them through) and "summarized" that he didn't accuse me of sockpuppetry (as if that were his original statement).
Comments:
The MVBW's attempt to conceal the evidences of policy violation confirms he himself was perfectly aware of them. And, that was a double violation: baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, and editing his own comments after others commented on them. Incidentally, an accusation of sockpuppetry was thrown by a user who himself was involved in off-Wiki communication (see Incident #4).
This case is very close to what we see here: this diff draws some hypothesis about similarity in Mhorg's and El C's political views. Is there any legitimate reason to post that information here?
- Incident 3 Vandalising the article to support some fringe theory that whitewashed Hitler
MVBW is making some very questionable edits with misleading edit summaries. Thus, he removed ca 70% of the Icebreaker (Suvorov) article supplementing that with an innocent edit summary. Another user reverted it, his edit summary was partially inappropriate, but it was clear from it that MVBW (probably, unintentionally) restored some pro-Nazi vandalism by some IP (that IP was a real pro-Nazi vandal, because it vandalized the Holocaust article). Instead of taking this information into account, MVBW repeated the same vandalism, and, after having been reverted, continued to remove the article's content piecemeal. These edits were by no means innocent. They removed a criticism of some fringe theory that puts a major part of responsibility for WWII outbreak from Hitler to Stalin and makes Hitler looking better. This theory is being enthusiastically supported by many German right wing politicians, and neo-Nazi. (For the record. I already attempted to draw admins attention to repeated restoration of pro-Nazi vandal's contribution by MVBW, but I used not completely correct wording, which resulted in my topic ban for 3 months, and these MVBW's actions had never been analysed by admins.)
This incident perfectly fits into Mhorg's description (" This seems to me is his strategy, first he removes everything, then in discussions he abuses everywhere the term "Undue weight" and engulfs them, always remaining vague ... etc").
- Incident 4 An attempt to obtain a personal information for subsequent malicious usage of it (WP:EEML)
This incident happened in 2009, but I learned about all details only recently. I believe that story is relevant to the current case.
MVBW was previously known as User:Biophys. This account is currently deleted, but his second account, User:Hodja Nasreddin is still active. Biophys was a member of WP:EEML, whereas Hodja was not used for that activity, and not mentioned in the WP:EEML case. However, a user Hodja Nasreddin made this post at my talk page, where he "friendly asked" me about the origin of my user name. I responded, but didn't pay attention to that until 2019, when MVBW posted a lie about me at ANI (let's be frank: it was a direct lie, and the above analysis perfectly demonstrates that). Before 2019, my attitude to the EEML story was pretty neutral (see this discussion for more details). However, since I was previously informed by a User:Viriditas that they privately discussed me, I decided to read the EEML archive (only those emails where my name was mentioned), to figure out why MVBW asked me about my username. That reading was by no means pleasant. I found that Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin, a.k.a My Very Best Wishes shared my response to his "friendly question" with other EEML members, and ... I do not know if I am allowed to disclose details of that private discussion, I can only say that they concluded that the information obtained by MVBW was insufficient for making anything to me (and probably that is why I was not among EEML's victims). Clearly, MVBW's "friendly" question was by no means friendly, and his edit summary was deeply deceptive (what a surprise).
All said above confirms my previous feeling that that user cannot be trusted, and all his posts and edits must be carefully checked for factual accuracy. That means MVBW's contributions by no means improve Wikipedia. I believe the evidences presented here (and other evidences that I am ready to present upon a request) do allow me make that statement, because only those accusations that lack evidences are considered a personal attack, per our policy.
In my opinion, this user should be permanently banned from the EE area, because the history of his disruptive activity is long, and it leaves no illusion that some temporary ban may have any positive effect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- El C, thanks. I shortened it a little bit. If you believe it is too long for AE, I may file a full scale arbitration request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood, El C. Then I propose the following solution. Take a look at this my proposal. It may partially resolve the conflict, because, from my experience, I know that when only the best quality sources are being used, that minimises a probability of conflicts. I propose to close this case by imposing additional restriction on the Navalny related topics. Meanwhile, I will start working on filing a full scale arbitration case regarding MVBW. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Uncollapse per El C. Unfortunatelly, I cannot just delete it, because others already commented on that. However, I withdraw my statement, because all of that deserves a full scale arbitration case. Please, disregard it in the context of this request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Result concerning My very best wishes
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Note that I was asked to investigate this dispute, singularly (User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article), as an AE matter, but declined. I still don't really have time to look into this in too much depth, but I would like to reaffirm Mhorg's citation of what I said to My very best wishes a few days ago about the nation of Ukraine not setting the tone in designating pro-Russian separatist groups as terrorist organizations (diff). Ukraine certainly does not have anything remotely resembling the gravitas of such designations as listed by the US Dept. of State in their United States Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Also noting a recent related warning from a few days ago which I had issued Nicoljaus with in the course of this dispute (diff). Their extremely terse accusation above that Mhorg is NOTHERE does not inspire confidence, I'm afraid, about Nicoljaus toning down on the WP:ASPERSIONS. What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus.
- That said, not sure why Mhorg would call attention to MVBW's edits to their own sandbox (diff). That space is for MVBW to do with as they see fit. I'd also point out to Mhorg that in one of the pages where they claimed MVBW was HOUNDING them, MVBW had actually edited that page before them. Notwithstanding all of that, my first impulse (such as it is) is that this isn't actually as one-sided as some of the participants above make it out to be. Finally, Mhorg, remember what I told you about the AE noticeboard having a word-limit? Please make note of that (didn't count, but it does look pretty close to the limit, at the very least). You may wish to trim in order to continue participating. El_C 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, the point is that there are more than a few nations out there (like WP:ARBAA2, etc.) who may designate hostile groups as "terrorist" or "extremist," but that does not imply that this is something which we necessarily are required to observe on the project, as such, overall. El_C 18:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, if you are unwilling or unable to substantiate, it's best to say nothing. Doubling down on WP:ASPERSIONS is not a good look and may be a cause for sanctions. El_C 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, you presume incorrectly. I had no knowledge of that edit. The warning, as mentioned, revolved around Nicoljaus' most recent comments to Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Narod_movement. El_C 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that I have imposed an indefinite topic ban on Nicoljaus from the EE/Balkans topic area, broadly construed. Obviously, the previous AE sanctions that I had imposed on them in the past did not produce the desired effect. El_C 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, I only noted the sanction here for the record. But, in any case, the actual reasons that immediately prompted it are noted here. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the sanction, nor are 3rd party AE appeals a thing. El_C 23:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Paul, extension granted. Though, I can't guarantee I'll get to review your lengthy submission or otherwise follow up on this case. (Possibly, there's a misapprehension that I am to fully attend to every request at the AE noticeboard, but I wish to relieve anyone of that mistaken notion.) El_C 21:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Paul, I really don't know enough about either this case or MVBW's editing overall, for that matter, to meaningfully advise you. I think you've participated in enough AE complaints by now to probably get a feel for what's needed. Anyway, if you're saying there's merit to this case —or to a case about MVBW, in general— that certainly gets my attention. That said, I'm sorta focusing on misusing Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST right now, so, again, not sure I'll get to follow up on any of this. To that, spamming two new pages: Songs from the homeland & Buck Flower (security guard). El_C 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Paul, just letting you know that I've responded to your proposal at WT:RFAR. El_C 05:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- The initial complaint filed by Mhorg just seems like a regular content dispute. The issue identified by Bob not Snob appears a bit more serious a bit more serious, but in context seems more like a sloppy revert during a minor edit war, and doesn't seem like something that merits sanctions on its own. I think this can probably be closed without action. signed, Rosguill talk 05:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus
Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 14:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by NicoljausThe administrator who imposed the restrictions put forward two reasons. The first one, as he himself admitted during the discussion on my talk page [87], is irrelevant (he claimed that I admit my HOUNDING of the user and even justify it). In fact, the situation is completely reversed and El_C even warned the user that I "hounded" [88]. So, one of the reasons for the indefinite topic ban can be discarded and I think we should expect some easing of sanctions. The second situation is more complicated. I found in the contribution of Mhorg some features that seemed suspicious to me. When Mhorg submitted an AE request to another user they were "fighting" with, I shared my observations so that a non-involved administrator could evaluate them by making a decision on the request [89]. The administrator El_C in response made some claims that I may have misunderstood. Later, during the discussion on my talk page, he mentioned that the site I link to was in Italian. But there was no indication of this in his message [90] (actually, I don't read Italian either, but I didn't have any problems). I felt that it was necessary to specify more precisely which part of the rule WP:NOTHERE I refer to and specified the corresponding line, that's all. Reaction of administrator El_C seems excessive. I may have underestimated how serious the charge of violating the WP:NOTHERE rule is (my previous wiki experience doesn't give a reason for this). It is also possible that my observations do not provide sufficient grounds for such accusations, but I have not received direct explanation for this. As a result, I find the measures taken, on the one hand, unnecessarily harsh, and on the other hand, do not allow me to understand what is wrong. I write a lot on the subject of the Second World War and the history of Russia and usually had no problems with my fellow Wikipedians. My previous blocks is usually arose from the fact that I was constantly attacked by the sockpuppets of disruptive users such as Crovata or Umertan. (With Mikola22, there was a special story, and I admit that I was wrong). I'm asking for lifting, or, at least the modification of the topic ban) – guys, seriously, what are the problems if I write articles like Dmitry Krasny, Battle of Belyov, Izyum-Barvenkovo Offensive, Alexander Bubnov, 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism (except for my poor English, of course)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I respectfully request for an extension of the 500 words limit to expand the collapsed part, as the user claims WP:NOTSILENCE: [95]. The new word counter will be about 850--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by El_C
Statement by MhorgMy accuses of Following\Hounding come in relation to this AE Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes. User:Nicoljaus was trying to find something to discredit my work on Wikipedia (which is public, and I am still waiting for someone to tell me when I have acted maliciously) looking in my edits history... In fact, the user first made an edit[96] to contest an old edit of mine of 25 May 2020, then accidentally removed all my edit[97] (with the motivation that he was fighting with an anonymous user, I don't know...).
Statement by involved editor My very best wishesWe have had a discussion with El_C about it on the talk page of Nicoljaus. Yes, I know: admins have discretion. Sure, El_C had a reason for issuing the topic ban. But I do not think Nicoljaus behave so badly to deserve the topic ban. For example,
Statement by Mikola22As for our conflicts in the past is concerned I think they were unnecessary, childish and fight about irrelevant information's, but with violation of revert rules. These blocks are now counted in every possible report against me or editor Nicoljaus. We do not meet in the articles after these conflicts and even if we meet I think we would resolve possible problems in good faith. Current editing of editor Nicoljaus I don't follow so I can't say anything about it, but if our conflicts ie blocks are also counted in this procedure I can only ask the authorities not to take our blocks too seriously, if this can be asked at all (I say this from the present time perspective when these conflicts seem ridiculous to me). Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 4)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus
Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus
|
Noteduck
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 Noteduck
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Noteduck (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#Final_decision
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Edit warring Reverted editors include myself, Conan The Librarian, Shrike, Visite fortuitement prolongée, Mcrt007, Pincrete, Kyohyi. While wp:ONUS puts the burden of making the case for inclusion on the editor trying to include new content, Noteduck feels the burden is on those rejecting the change.
Behavioral Standards: Bludgeoning
- Long discussion regarding the Bridge Initiative as a SPS here: [[123]]. Editor tediously says consensus is reached because they feel objections have been addressed. [[124]], [[125]], [[126]]
Behavioral standards: Edit summaries disparage editors (trimmed)
- [[127]] "Given that (from your talk page) you've engaged in edit wars on this page and given that you called the PragerU page "critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter" (20 November 2019) you may be struggling with bias. I see you and [editor] know each other - please don't collude to remove material"
- [[128]] "a warning was given for disruptive editing which was ignored. Lvl3 vandalism given on page User:[editor]. Please refrain from deleting material on the page without evidence. Go to talk page for commentary on article and discussion"
- [[129]] "I am concerned that your revision was not made in good faith and can be considered tendentious editing. If these edits are removed again a warning for vandalism may be due. You betray your biases with your description of academic sources as "absurd" and "nonsense" on the talk page. Please refrain from unjustly removing evidence thnx"
Behavioral Standards: Casting aspersions/inappropriate talk page comments: (trimmed)
- [[130]] If you cannot view this subject neutrally and objectively it may be best not to edit this page
- [[131]] In particular, this comes in the form of right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects, resulting in a kind of whitewashing by omission or status quo stonewalling
- [[132]] "I've noticed that certain editors on this page have a regrettable tendency to revert large blocks of recently-added material wholesale, especially material that might be controversial." - Admin deleted the section [[133]]
- [[134]] "have a look at WP:ROWN when considering whether to discard this edit"
- [[135]] Created section "Blatant partisan politicking on this page" - "This is the last attempt I'm going to make to put a stop to these tendentious edits. The editors engaged in this process of tendentious editing know who they are and I'm not going to ping them for now.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
NA
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- [[136]]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Noteduck account created 19 Dec 2020 (prior account Spungo93 from April 2020). Battleground mentality including include edit warring, uncivil talk page behavior (unrelated comments about editor, tendentious editing, refusal listen to others). Editors have reached out to discuss issues [[137]], Callanecc (uninvolved) commenting[[138]][[139]]. Myself before filing this complaint [[140]]. Noteduck complaint at the Treehouse. An uninvolved editor said Noteduck needs to listen to others[[141]].
Dialog was ignored or treated as examples of the unreasonableness of other editors. Noteduck does not follow concepts like BRD and CONSENSUS, repeatedly reintroducing disputed content absent consensus or sometimes discussion. This resulted in extensive, slow edit warring. Noteduck is quick to use article talk pages/edit summaries to cast aspersions and or inappropriately focus on editors. Affected articles include PragerU, Roger Kimball, Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo.
Edited for length Springee (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- and again Springee (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Replies
- Noteduck's replies illustrate why they are problematic. Rather than address their own behavioral problems (edit warring, attacking other editors etc) they have bludgeoned the discussion with text, much of totally misrepresenting the facts. As an example, in "Update 5" Noteduck falsely said I removed "Reuters and Fox News(!)[281]". The link in question shows I moved the text, removed nothing. This sort of false accusation yet again illustrates the issue. It is not possible to have a good faith disagreement with this editor. Until they learn the ropes they should be restricted to less contentious areas of Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Noteduck, your Update 5 accuses Pudeo of colluding on some of the disputed pages:
- It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal have all edited together and largely backed each other up on pages like Andy Ngo and PragerU
- The editor interaction tool is telling here [[142]]. Pudeo has never edited PragerU or its talk page. They did edit Andy Ngo... over 2 months ago (2 edits total). Their edits to Douglas Murray (3 months back) and Roger Kimball (3/4 years back) are even further back and less than 3 edits each time. Falsely accusing editors of collusion is an example of the disruptive behavior that we are concerned about. Springee (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Generalized reply to Loki and Shadydabs
If you look at the diffs in most cases Noteduck isn't reverting my edit or replying to my comments. Absent diffs claims that I was edit warring, POV pushing etc have no merit. Springee (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Loki, your edit here fails to noted the talk page discussions that went along with the edits. Most of this talk page is about the content in question[[143]]. Note there were more editors in the discussion. Can you say there was a consensus for any of the edits you cited?[[144]] Why have a consensus policy if we don't expect editors to respect it? Springee (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is clear Noteduck still doesn't get that they should comment on the edits, not the editor. In the last few hours they accused Hipal of ROWN.[[145]] Springee (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Shadybabs, it is perfectly reasonable to dispute your edits to long standing article text. Why is that a complaint here? Springee (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Cedar777
Cedar777, your accusations against me misrepresent the facts but also miss the point. For example, when looking at the examples of casting aspersions, Noteduck is attacking a large number of editors, not just myself. Even with this active ARE they decided to accuse Hipal of ROWN just a few hours ago. Springee (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Reply to dlthewave
Dlthewave, I think you are confusing disagreements regarding content with editors casting aspersions etc which is the heart of the issue here. Your last point, saying I refused to review a list of sources, is not entirely accurate. Noteduck dumped a large list of possible sources on the talk page and asked which I would reject which is already borderline failing to AGF. Since there was no text to accompany the source we have no way to know how the sources would be used. I did provide an answer [[146]] but it had to be limited to just the sources which were either not green or not green for this topic. You also neglected to mention that you are an involved editor. Springee (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Reply to El_C
El_C, I've thought about what is the correct remedy here. As I said to Noteduck here [[147]] I want the problem to stop. I think a clear warning that comments about users are not acceptable on talk page. Any comment that is about the editor not the content of the article should not be on the talk page. The one sanction I think would help is a consensus required restriction. This would force Noteduck to slow down and listen to editors who object to changes but aren't willing to engage in the edit wars. Being forced to slow down and trying to address objection or otherwise establish consensus is only going to make Noteduck a better editor overall. Springee (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- El_C, you comment is one of my concerns. The real issue here is the volume of inapropriate comments, edit summaries, examples of large changes made without consensus. In filing this complaint one of the hard parts was figuring out which examples to leave out[[148]]. Springee (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C, even with this AE open, Noteduck's edit warring and failure to follow BRD continues. Just last night they added new content [[149]]. The material was removed, ND restored it with a demand that the objecting editor make the case for removal [[150]]. {u|Peter Gulutzan}} subsequently agreed and removed the content. Noteduck's failure to discuss disputed edits and expectation that others should have to justify removals is contrary to ONUS and BURDEN and leads to more edit warring. A BRD restriction or similar on ND's edits would be helpful. Springee (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[[151]]
Discussion concerning Noteduck
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 Noteduck
I believe 1RR allegations are factually incorrect, as LokitheLiar said.
Given block reverts and vandalism I will concede that I got somewhat cranky around the Douglas Murray (author) page. As a newbie I was sometimes ignorant of policy - eg I know now Springee can delete material from talk page even if I'd prefer they didn't - and I apologize. It seems I edit-warred on several occasions and I apologize - happy to learn from any arbitration decision.
A counter-claim - if not the right forum I will happily withdraw it for now: I contend Springee is highly partisan and doesn't edit pages with any objectivity. Springee's talk page history has many claims of partisan bias and misunderstanding of policy (these just from the last 3 years),[152][153][154][155][156] including worrying claims of firearm advocacy,[157] behavioral problems,[158][159] edit-warring,[160] vandalism,[161] and canvassing[162][163] Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. Stalking has been raised by another editor.[164][165] Springee has followed me around Wiki, aggressively editing pages they previously had no involvement with right after I edit them.[166][167] I believe Springee sometimes follows my user contributions, looking for material to challenge. Springee's MO seems to be stonewalling any potentially unflattering material from pages on conservative subjects. It's worrying that Wiki pages of powerful conservative groups have become one-sided and whitewashed thanks to Springee. Full disclosure - I have discussed these problems with other editors via email who have concurred.
I appreciate Loki's criticism - it's ironic of Springee to accuse me of ignoring requests for help. On several occasions my posts on Springee's talk page were rapidly deleted without engagement.[168][169]
As Loki mentioned this is a boomerang but I believe Springee in fact has serious behavioral and POV problems that need addressing. Noteduck (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I went back further through Springee's talk page history, and there are a large number of accounts of behavioral problems and failure to meet Wiki standards going back years, including some serious allegations including hounding and harassment. I'm not sure how to deal with it but it needs attention Noteduck (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- UPDATE 2: I'll get to the other points but first, what is the actual contention of impropriety on the Roger Kimball page? Two primary sources referring to Kimball's endorsement of the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden rigged the 2020 presidential election (which he has done on quite a few occasions, hence the term "repeatedly") were deleted by Springee and I reverted them once. Multiple previous primary sources in the same paragraph that were more flattering to Kimball were not touched. At any rate, after discussion on the talk page and a BLPN discussion initiated by Springee I did not end up restoring the contested source and provided two independent sources for the claim, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Pudeo, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Australian journalism, but Creighton and Newman are VOCAL about lockdowns and climate science respectively, so I don't see how this material is improper in any way. I didn't know the Epoch Times was depreciated at the time and don't see how that's relevant, but I apologise, I should have done more research. I never said Springee hounded me - I said that Springee's pattern of apparently going through my user contributions in order to contest material was concerning given previous accusations of stalking and hounding. Pudeo, given that you made vociferous, detailed, and baseless claims of sockpuppetry against a new editor (myself) on my talk page, and declined to remove them when I asked, your accusations of incivility are something of a pot-kettle-black matter[170] Noteduck (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- [To El_C:] what sanctions are potentially enforceable? I've learned more about Wiki's rules over the last two months and I'll aim to be more mindful of Wiki policies. I still think I have a strong counter-claim though, which I'll support with more evidence soon Noteduck (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hipal, I've presented robust claims of partisanship, POV-pushing, stonewalling and behavioral problems from multiple editors on Springee's part in formal and appropriate language, based on dozens of diffs (with more still being added). I've taken two days off my new job to make sure my arguments are as thorough as possible. This is a forum for resolving disputes between editors, and I hardly think presenting my side of the case constitutes "battleground behavior" Noteduck (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- El_C, I don't quite understand your comments. I am just making my defence that I am not in conflict with a disinterested editor, but rather somebody who is highly partisan and experienced at whitewashing Wikipedia. Is this not the appropriate forum for this? I think my sometimes scrappy behavior needs to be understood within this context, but nonetheless I'll strive to improve and be more relaxed in the future. I believe that my contributions to Wiki, such as creating Soon May the Wellerman Come, Draft:Osman Faruqi(waiting on assessment for this one) and my additions to Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo, as well as innumerable grammar and syntax corrections, are high-quality and demonstrate my commitment to improving this site in good faith Noteduck (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- El_C, I wanted to tell you this privately, but it was bound to come out sooner or later at any rate. I'm disabled - I have bipolar disorder and struggle with mania from time to time. I should have been more proactive about looking up Wikipedia disability policies but I see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility page and a Template:User bipolar2 tag. Over the summer (I'm Australian) I was unemployed and had nothing to do, and nothing to look forward to or be happy about except editing Wikipedia. I think this is trenchant information that demonstrates that I have no ill intent or lack of good faith in editing. I'll cut down the statements in the morning Noteduck (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- El_C, no problem with the trim. For full disclosure, I do plan to launch a claim against Springee, which is in my sandbox for now Noteduck (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Springee, please cease repeating the misrepresentation that I "accused" Hipal of anything. I simply mentioned being mindful of WP:ROWN when considering whether to revert material - a reminder of established policy is not an accusation Noteduck (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- El_C, no problem with the trim. For full disclosure, I do plan to launch a claim against Springee, which is in my sandbox for now Noteduck (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks El_C. I feel like I need to do two things (1) defend my own conduct and the charges Springee is making, and (2) make a counter-claim against Springee's own conduct, which I believe I have a strong case for. Should I being with the first one, or try to combine them both into a single argument? Cheers Noteduck (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Springee, please don't make spurious and misleading allegations. I added a single 14-word sentence to the Dennis Prager page based on a NY Times article that referred to Prager misrepresenting the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. There weren't any editing restrictions on the page at the time, and nobody has told me that I can't edit while the arb request is ongoing. The edit was reverted on the frankly implausible basis that it was "fake news","misleading, biased and anti-semetic"[sic].[171] I think any reasonable editor would have done the same as I did and restored it Noteduck (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by LokiTheLiar
As someone who's been involved in some of the disputes above, I would like to say that Springee's above portrayal of themselves as neutral or justified in all the above is not true. So for example, take the PragerU page from January 5th to January 7th. It's my contention that that history pretty clearly describes a two-sided slow moving edit war, with one of the sides being Noteduck and the other being Springee and Shinealittlelight, and that it's eventually ended by the edit-protection of the page by Callanecc and the starting of this RfC a few weeks later. Or in other words, Springee was also edit warring, they just had a partner making their edit warring less obvious.
I also think the characterization of Noteduck as having broken 1RR on PragerU is incorrect. This edit, which Springee characterizes as a revision of this previous edit adding that entire sentence to the page, is not in fact a revert. It's just an edit. A revert, according to WP:3RR is an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part
. Simply changing the wording of a sentence to be less credulous towards Ngo's claim does not undo the previous edit regardless of what Springee feels about the purpose of including that sentence. (And I'd also like to point out that asserting that it does undo the edit to reword it would be evidence of POV-pushing, as it would indicate that the purpose in including that line was to support Andy Ngo and not to document the facts.) Noteduck made only one revert to that page, this one, in accordance with 1RR.
I'm less familiar with the situation on Douglas Murray but a cursory glance at the page history reveals a similar slow motion edit war that Noteduck is only one of many participants in. Several editors, most of whom appear to now be blocked, remove large parts of the page without going to the talk page, and Noteduck and several other users add them back in, including Springee themself at one point. My impression here is that the side mainly at fault is the side with all the socks that repeatedly tries to remove large sections of the article without talk page consensus.
Some of the above behavior from Noteduck is still concerning. Obviously, edit warring is not good even if many other people are also edit warring on the same page, and I'd really rather Noteduck had just gone to ANI with their complaints rather than cast all the WP:ASPERSIONS they've been casting. But TBH I'm tempted to call for a WP:BOOMERANG here because Springee's case against Noteduck is pretty directly parallel to a similar case that could easily be made against themselves. At the very least, this is not a problem with Noteduck, it's a content war across multiple pages that Noteduck is one member of one side of.
E: Quick reply to Shine: I don't believe that anyone here is casting aspersions, nor do I believe that aspersions can even be cast here,as this is one of the appropriate forums
for dispute resolution that the guideline mentions. The whole point of the guideline is to get people to raise concerns about editor behavior here and not on article talk pages. Furthermore, I gave evidence that Shine was a party to a slow motion edit war, and Noteduck seems to have given plenty of evidence for their accusations, so I really can't help but see this as attempted WikiLawyering.
E2: Because both Springee and Shinealittlelight again have asked me to provide evidence, I am providing a timeline to substantiate my accusation of a slow motion edit war on PragerU (and fixing the broken link above, sorry, my mistake):
Timeline
|
---|
Also for full context, this RfC about Noteduck's various additions was opened weeks later through processes that apparently did not entirely occur on the PragerU talk page. |
In total, over a three day period, that's two reverts each for Springee, Shine, and Hipal (for a total of six reverts by their "side") and four reverts by Noteduck, for a total of ten reverts over 3 days.
@El_C: Could you be a little clearer about what part of Pudeo's comment is causing you to lean towards sanctions? I'm personally not seeing anything interesting/new there.
Statement by Shadybabs
Having come into conflict with Springee in the past I can say pretty confidently that it is Springee, and not Noteduck, who is the primary problem with contentious edits and extremely biased application of wikipedia policy to whitewash factual information with respect to right wing individuals or organizations.
[172] Another diff by Springee undoing edits where I try to move language away from PragerU's self-published claims to those made in RS, as well as re-inserting edits that were still under dispute in the talk page. He provided no specific justification on which edits were sourced poorly. Alarmingly, PragerU's disinformation regarding climate change is removed from the content about their fact-checking spat against youtube, highly biasing the article against youtube in favor of PragerU, against what is reported in third party sources.Shadybabs (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Shinealittlelight
Noteduck admits to being sometimes ignorant of policy
and states that Noteduck edit-warred on several occasions
. Noteduck then quotes editor complaints on Springee's talk page over the last three years, which don't show anything without providing diffs of alleged misbehavior. Noteduck then alleges that Springee was hounding him. But this isn't true: WP:HOUND says Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy
. Given that Noteduck was violating policy (as Noteduck admits) it was reasonable for Springee to check on Noteduck's edits to be sure that Noteduck wasn't continuing to violate policy. Noteduck says Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms
. What is the evidence for or relevance of the claim that Springee has "fixations"? He then accuses Springee, without evidence, of whitewashing. To me, without diffs backing these statements, Noteduck is repeatedly casting aspersions here. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence.
LokiTheLiar apparently concurs that Noteduck has cast WP:ASPERSIONS elsewhere as well. I agree, per the evidence Springee gave above, and I would add that Noteduck has shown an unwillingness to stop this behavior despite being repeatedly warned (again, per the evidence in the complaint). That and his repeated editing against consensus has been what is most frustrating to me.
@LokiTheLiar: accuses me and Springee of slow-motion edit warring. This is an outrage. I'm extremely careful not to edit war. If evidence cannot be produced, then I'd ask Loki to strike that statement. I thought Noteduck was pushing content about Douglas Murray and Robert E. Lee into the article against consensus, which I politely removed one time each here and here. Because Noteduck kept reintroducing this content against consensus, other editors, including Springee but also notably the most experienced editor on the page, Hipal, removed the material, e.g. here. These additions went to arbitration, which produced a massive RfC which seems to be split at present (no consensus so far). This is how editing contentious pages works: we slowly improve the page. Casting ASPERSIONS and editing stuff into the article against consensus is going to drive good editors away. I'd like to also note that Hipal and I have often disagreed in the past; there's no attempt to "team up" here. I see Springee, Hipal, and I just trying to do our best to deal with a disruptive editor.
@Shadybabs: do you have any diffs showing what you're saying about Springee? Otherwise that's more WP:ASPERSIONS.
Noteduck is new, and I don't want to be too hard on new editors. But Noteduck needs to apologize for casting aspersions, and to be sternly warned that continued editing against consensus and casting of aspersions is unacceptable. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar: The "evidence" you allegedly provided is that broken link to the history page? That's not evidence. And no, we can't cast aspersions, even here at AE, without evidence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Hipal
Per the evidence offered by Springee, Noteduck needs to be constrained from involvement with AP2 topics, otherwise we're going to be back, after even more disruption from Noteduck. Noteduck's statement above shows what we can expect until it is stopped: bad faith assumptions of others, an inability to respect content and behavioral policy, and the battleground attitude typical in AP2 topics. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck's subsequent comments above show an inability to take responsibility for their own behavior, in addition to what I wrote above. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck is now arguing above, without any diffs, that editors agreeing with Springee (It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal..
) are doing so because of similar biases. [173] This is absurd and assumes bad faith. Noteduck provides no diffs because it's nonsense. --Hipal (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
On January 27, I provided Noteduck with 13 diffs showing evidence demonstrating you've been working from the perspective that other editors are pov-pushing against your edits
[174]. The response from Noteduck was agreement: right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects
[175]. Almost a month later, Noteduck continues with this battleground mentality in this very discussion. --Hipal (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck has redacted the accusations against me made here.[176] Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, we're dealing in this discussion here with an editor, Noteduck, that I think would be best blocked or banned from PragerU completely for the reasons already given. In this context, I believe my very slow and cautious approach to his latest comments at Talk:PragerU are perfectly fine, especially if one were to assume good faith. Even if this discussion wasn't happening and there was no problematic editing going on, slow and cautious is always advisable. --Hipal (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Pudeo
Noteduck could have been blocked as a "sock of someone" (seen such a block rationale), after Spungo93 was CU-blocked and their explanation for that did not make sense. Noteduck explained: I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it
. This was not correct because Spungo93 had been created on 18 April, 2020 (log entry), meaning Notedeuck misremembered the date by years. Furthermore, the "forgot about it" part did not make sense because they had edited with the account 4 days before registering this one. (After more review, I don't think Noteduck is Perspex03 based on their timecard, though).
Noteduck has used self-published / WP:PRIMARY sources to make contentious claims: 1) Using Dennis Prager's own National Review column to say he rejects scientific consensus on climate change 2) Using Roger Kimball's own columns to say he has "repeatedly" contended that there was voter fraud, then after someone changed "fraud" to "irregularities", they changed that and their own original wording to say he has repeatedly made "false and debunked claims", while claiming white-washing in the edit summary. They once reverted the removal of these primary sources, accusing Springee of hounding. One of Kimball's own columns that Noteduck used as a source was in The Epoch Times which is a deprecated source in Wikipedia. 3) Using Maurice Newman's own column to say he rejects consensus on climate change 4) Using Adam Creighton's own column to make critical claims on his lockdown stance. I think it's unusual that someone would link to The Epoch Times or the person's own columns to make negative claims about the subjects, so it's clear these were WP:OR claims, and editors should err on caution per BLP like Springee has done.
They also initiated a declined RFAR with a focus on four editors on January 7. They seem to be constantly accusing other editors of partisanship: "partisan politicking", "problem with partisan bias", problem with politically partisan editing" "ideologically motivated -- sabotage" etc. Some of their statements had to be hatted in the PragerU DRN thread due to personal comments. While this isn't too unusual in the topic area, it's usually done by ranting IPs, not by regural editors. --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Cedar777
My familiarity with this dispute is limited to the Andy Ngo article. Noteduck has made a number of constructive, if imperfect, comments and edits. The article has benefited after Noteduck pointed to WP:ROWN and MOS:LEADCITE. I do not agree that there was a 1RR violation or that Springee is a faultless party here.
Springee has repeatedly removed reliably sourced content from the article that, if retained, might reflect unfavorably on conservatives. The bar set by Springee (with support from Shinealittlelight) for inclusion of content critical of Ngo is impossibly high such that they have disallowed content from the NYT, the WP, along with a number of other sources listed in green at WP:RSP when the content is not flattering to conservatives. In observing these patterns and engaging with editors on the talk page over several months, the phrase "moving the goal posts" comes to mind. Even innocuous statements such as Ngo has been the subject of wide ranging media coverage (when there were already 77 citations) have been sanitized from the article by Springee as in this edit.
Meanwhile, the door has largely been left open to contributors sympathetic to Ngo where the quality of their sourcing receives limited scrutiny, as with this edit sourced to Sky News Australia followed by more disparagement of RS at talk where the NYT & Wapo were referred to as "fourth rate sources". This pattern is also reflected in efforts to enforce 1RR: sympathizers get gentle proactive advice from Springee here, while opponents are warned and/or scolded here and here where a user restored sourced content that happened to mention a political figure. Overtime, these actions add up to a skewed article that does not reflect what the bulk of RS actually say. Sanctioning Noteduck is not going to address this underlying issue.
Noteduck has been direct at times about the reverting of unfavorable content but is otherwise respectful. Springee and Shinealittlelight have had issues with what is known as "talking out of both sides of your mouth". For example, Springee claims this NYT article can be used to support that Ngo must be called a journalist diff. . . but once a summary of what this same NYT article was discussing about Ngo was added, the source was deemed no longer usable or relevant when it came to criticism. Diff A second instance is where user Springee, in a slow motion edit war, reverted content that was added by 3 different editors, sourced to WP, Bellingcat, and Daily Dot:
- The original contribution Nov 19 from Snooganssnoogans: Addition 1a + sources in Addition 1b Springee deletes content: Deletion 1
- Content restored on Dec 1 by LokiTheLiar: Addition 2 The second deletion by user Springee: Deletion 2
- The most recent addition Feb 12: Addition 3 Which was again deleted by user Springee: Deletion 3
Noteduck is a newer editor, with much to learn. While I cannot speak for the disputes at the other pages, in my view their contributions have been a net positive at Andy Ngo. Cedar777 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
User:Noteduck filed a Request for Arbitration concerning PragerU. I said that I was willing to mediate the content dispute, and the arbitration case was closed, and a DRN case was opened, which was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU The result of the mediation was a six-part RFC, which is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#RFC_on_Various_Proposed_Edits The calendar is about to run out on the RFC, so that the bot will remove the tag, and the RFC will be ready for closure. One editor took issue with the RFC, saying that the sources were unreliable. My view was that reliability of the sources could be considered by the community in the RFC discussion. The same editor, User:Hipal, also said that there were behavioral issues that needed to be addressed. The behavioral issues were not addressed at DRN because DRN is a content forum.
I don't have a strong opinion on either the content, because I was maintaining neutrality in order to mediate, or on conduct, because DRN is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Dlthewave
I have concerns about whitewashing at PragerU, where it appears that several editors are working to block any negative content. The general attitude towards Noteduck comes across as condescending and there seems to be no effort to work collaboratively or help Noteduck develop their editing skills.
Example #1:
- 00:07 19 February 2021: X-Editor adds
"In 2020, a joint analysis conducted by counter-disinformation consulting firm Alethea Group and the nonprofit Global Disinformation Index found that PragerU was one of the five most common sources on the Internet that spread COVID-19 misinformation.[1]"
- 12:12 19 February 2021: Springee reverts with the reason
"Opinions of a red linked group (Alethea/GDI) are not DUE"
, an argument that has absolutely no basis in policy. Springee has been around long enough to know that WP:DUE concerns the reliability of the source, which in this case is MSN/Yahoo News, not Alethea/GDI. - Discussions follow on Springee's talk page [177] and the PragerU talk page [178]. Springee repeatedly claims that Alethea and Yahoo News somehow do not meet WP:DUE, and Hipal repeatedly claims that the source is a "warmed-over press release" (read it, it clearly isn't). Both editors provide little to no evidence or correct interpretation of policy, and there is little effort to acknowledge that Noteduck and myself have a valid point of view, yet these spurious arguments are effectively blocking inclusion of this content.
References
- ^ Dickson, Caitlin (2021-05-01). "Exclusive: Pandemic relief aid went to media that promoted COVID misinformation". Microsoft News. Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2021-02-19.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Example #2:
- 17:38 24 February 2021: Noteduck proposes a "Criticism" section along with 13 sources.
- 18:53 24 February 2021: Hipal immediately suggests a bizarre and tedious approval process -
"How about picking the best reference out of that bunch and telling us what you believe is encyclopedic and due from it? If we don't agree on it, we can go to the next, until we have some agreed-upon references or we run out of references to consider."
This bears no resemblance to our normal consensus building process, and I struggle to see it as anything other than the start of another drawn-out effort to block content that Hipal doesn't like. - 20:23 24 February 2021: Springee refuses to look at the sources and instead insists that Noteduck bring a proposal to Talk before editing the article. This appears to be an effort to require Noteduck to bring a publication-ready proposal that will not be approved until it is perfect, and the entire burden will be on Noteduck to satisfy any concerns.
I've seen this abuse of the consensus-building process before and it's a very effective way for a small group of editors to control article content while maintaining superficial civility and complying with 3RR. I'm concerned that a "Consensus Required" restriction would only grant Springee, Hipal and others more power to block content by refusing to reach consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I also wanted to address Pudeo's BLP concerns. I would generally argue against the use of these primary sources, since they would need secondary coverage to establish WP:WEIGHT and The Epoch Times has been deprecated. However, I fail to see how Noteduck's edits [179][180][181][182] can be construed as contentious or negative. They're literally repeating what the subjects say about themselves which falls under WP:ABOUTSELF from a verifiaility standpoint. Again, this content shouldn't be self-sourced, but it's not the big BLP brouhaha that Pudeo is claiming. –dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Username
Result concerning Noteduck
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Springee, your request greatly exceeds the 500-word limit, so please trim accordingly. Thanks. El_C 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'll preface by saying that I've only glanced at this still lengthy complaint (with me, Spartans!), but from the several random examples I viewed, I'm not seeing anything too egregious. Just a tendency to call out partisanship, which runs both ways, in a way that certainly exceeds article talk and user talk pages usage. Overall, the less said on any of that the better, except in forums such as this. Not sure what the filer or the respondent to this complaint are really asking for. Are they asking for sanctions? A logged warning (to that, to those interested, see my latest clarification request about logged warnings at ARCA)? An un-logged warning?
- Regardless, an evidentiary basis needs to be established with both the recent and the egregious prioritized, if one expects any sort of an outcome from this process. Finally, I plead with several participants to significantly trim and otherwise aim at concision. Us AE admins are not paid staff, we are volunteers like you. I submit that you are asking too much out of available volunteer resources. El_C 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Springee, I'll re-emphasize that the evidentiary burden for sanctions (CR or otherwise) doesn't appear to have been met in your complaint. Just from what I've seen so far. El_C 16:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Springee, I'm afraid I don't have any additional advise beyond those general recommendations at this time. Perhaps another uninvolved admin will see it different...? Who know. El_C 17:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Per Pudeo's evidence, now starting to lean toward sanctions. Will wait to see what other admins think, though. El_C 02:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Noteduck, you probably don't realize this, but your various updates (word limit?) are doing you a disservice. "Partisanship" is in the eyes of the beholder. Even if much of everything (everything!) that you've written has a sound basis in fact, I doubt that, in this case, that's something AE admins would wish to address — if anything, that would probably be a Committee matter. You're basically making the complainant's case for them right now. Thought you should be aware. El_C 13:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Noteduck, two things. First, to re-emphasize: word limit? Secondly, in answer to your question: no, with respect to what you allege about Springee (which, hey, may well be true), I contend that this goes outside the purview of admins at AE, but rather, that this would be a Committee matter. I suppose other admins' mileage may vary, though. El_C 13:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Noteduck, while Wikipedia takes a strong anti-ableist position, as it does against all other forms of prejudice and discrimination (for example, with WP:ACCESSIBILITY and so on), I'm afraid that when it comes to the realm of the psyche, that isn't something for which many allowances can really be made. BTW, sorry for declining your request to correspond privately (I now realize about this), but as a matter of principle, I don't usually do that with users whom I don't already know (well enough). Best wishes, El_C 13:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Noteduck, thank you for the significant (20K) trim. Much appreciated. El_C 23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Gah, I still seem to be the only one contributing to this section, so maybe a couple of additional notes. Noteduck, you should make your case here. If you are to file a new AE request, it is likely to be viewed negatively. Folks may well end up asking: why didn't they just present their case in the original complaint? I'll stress that the filer of an AE complaint faces no less scrutiny than the its subject. Springee, you still need to trim (hopefully, with no more collapsing). The requirement is an upward of 20 diffs, whereas you are now approaching 40. El_C 17:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Noteduck, sorry, I am not familiar enough with the details so as to advise further with any confidence. All I am really able to provide is my general sense. Which, hey, may be off. Who knows. Also, I'm sorry to say (well, not that sorry, to be honest), but I will not be following up further with this or any other open complaint on this noticeboard. Best wishes to all. El_C 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Rtr315
Rtr315 blocked for 72 hours after multiple warnings to avoid WP:CIRCULAR referencing (expressly so) continued to be ignored. Being new does not immune oneself from what is generally expected from experienced users (or, at least, it only hold to a certain degree). El_C 18:04, 24 February 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 Rtr315
User continues to remove reliably sourced content and replace it with original research and poorly sourced content from Hindi Wikipedia, caste association websites, and other poor sources. Sanctions against this user must be placed in order to enforce the ruling of WP:GS/CASTE due to this user's disruptive edits in the topic area. User was warned several times but did not heed them, as seen on User talk:Rtr315.
Discussion concerning Rtr315Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rtr315Statement by Chariotrider555User:Rtr315 continues to bear no heed to Wikipedia's policies of WP:RS, WP:OR, or WP:V, as stated above and seen here. [188] The user continues their disruptive and damaging behavior despite User:El C's stern warning on User:Rtr315's talk page. Sanctions must be placed and enforced on User:Rtr315, as they have shown they have absolutely no care for Wikipedia's policies and will continue their disruptive behavior even after all warnings. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Rtr315
|
SpicyBiryani
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 SpicyBiryani
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- SpicyBiryani (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
- WP:ARBIP
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Since his return from a 3 months topic ban from WP:ARBIP:
- 4 December 2020: Removes "thenews.com.pk" with false edit summary "figures are Indian claims".
- 20 January Unsourced WP:OR and marks such a major edit as 'minor'. Not sure how I forgot to add this diff earlier. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- 25 January 2021: Changes "93,000 captured" to "90,368 captured" by marking such a major edit as 'minor' and inserts false edit summary that "Pakistani POW count now matches the rest of the page", despite the lead mentions "Approximately 90,000[36] to 93,000 Pakistani servicemen were taken prisoner by the Indian Army".
- 20 February: Falsely accused me of adding "unsourced figures to the infobox", and when he was provided clarification and additional sources, he still fails to agree with the validity of the "93,000" figure.
- 23 February: Misrepresents source and makes the edit without edit summary.
- SpicyBiryani: "Pakistan gained control of roughly a third of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan), whereas India retained the rest (Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh)."
- BBC source: "To the west of the ceasefire line, Pakistan controls roughly one third of the state."
- 21 February: Adds report from months back to decide about a conflict that is currently on-going and has gone through series of changes including widely reported "complete pullout". See WP:CIR.
- 23 February Doubles down with his WP:OR. Claims that thenews.com.pk is a "random article from 2014" and asking me "how exactly is GlobalSecurity not a reliable source". See RSN discussion for globalsecurity. In this message he also mocked me by imitating my earlier message ("Your personal research does not carry weight here.") by saying "assumption you made is your own personal WP:OR and carries no weight here". See WP:BATTLE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk)
@El C: One of the discussions I linked above is from RSN, and now I would link another one from Military noticeboard. Both discussions agreed that Globalsecurity.org is not reliable and also showed that it has been subjected to undisputed mass removals after these discussions.[189][190] Having observed these edits earlier, this is why I claimed that globalsecurity.org is not reliable. The website itself notes: "While we make every effort to ensure that the information on this site is accurate and up to date we accept no responsibility whether expressed or implied for the accuracy, currency and completeness of the information."
But I would like to know how SpicyBiryani concluded below that RSN discussion showed the website to be reliable? This is further evidence of comprehension issues of SpicyBiryani.
Since this report, SpicyBiryani has continued to make problematic edits. Here is yet another recent diff where this user added "most
neutral sources rejected this claim." Of course, none of the sources they cited stated or even implied this conclusion. This is the kind of Original Research/WP:SYNTH that is explicitly barred under the policy. Whereas one of the sources they cited said "India’s latest release of information is interesting, but it remains too circumstantial and limited to put the issue of whether or not the IAF shot down an F-16 to rest for good".[191] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Topic banned for 3 months WP:ARBIPA on June 2020.[192]
- Blocked for violating the topic ban on June 2020.[193]
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- [194]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Note, that this account has only 107 edits. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [195]
Discussion concerning SpicyBiryani
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 SpicyBiryani
NOTE: Since the above request was modified after I made this statement, the numbering here may be slightly off. Refer to this diff to match the old numbers. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Infobox: See this diff.[1]
6: Here are some excerpts from the RSN discussion on GlobalSecurity.org, which is what I based my argument on:
It is a reliable source. It is used by the mainstream media as a source, it is cited in 240,000 books in Google books and by 17,600 articles in Google scholar. It has a page showing support from third parties[82] and despite its disclaimer for errors, bills itself as "reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security."[83] Its director is John Pike, a leading expert.
Examples from NYT of links to globalsecurity.org: 2014: An NYT "editor and researcher" selected reference to the site as a resource on Iran's Guardian Council, Also in 2014 as a resource on Pakistani ISI director Ahmed Shuja Pasha, 2013: globalsecurity "Iranian rocket expert" cited in NYT article, 2012: Cited as a "defense website" for historical information on a US military exercise. There are several other references that can be found by searching globalsecurity.org on NYT. Washington Post has used them more recently: 2016, 2015, 2014. Reuters has most recently used globalsecurity as a source in 2016, CNN in 2015 and Fox in 2016
globalsecurity.org is cited in:
Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War / Oxford University Press
Gulf Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars / Preager
Handbook of International Electrical Safety Practices / Wiley-Scrivener
John Pike, one of the founders, "directed the Space Policy, Cyberstrategy, Military Analysis, Nuclear Resource and Intelligence Resource projects" [1] at the Federation of Atomic Scientists. In terms of reputation and expertise it appears better than the average RS.
[81] Edwards Air Force Base usage of source
In short widely used by reliable sources, and by a US government agency.
1/6: As for Aman's source, last I checked, according to WP:HISTRS, a single news article from nearly a century later is not considered as a reliable source. If it is, then I don't see how GlobalSecurity, a prominent defence website widely cited by mainstream media and thousands of articles and books on military history, is not. The rest of what he said is completely WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS so I'm not going to bother with that. To me, his refusal to accept sourced content and belief that his personal opinion carries more weight looks like a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Aman countering original research with his own original research resulted in me, assuming good faith, reminding him that that his WP:OR is not considered RS either. Obviously, the wording will be somewhat similar, since you can only phrase "Original research does not carry the weight of a reliable source" in so many ways.
POW count: See this diff.[1]
China-India Skirmishes: See this diff. [1]
Other: See this diff.[1]
SpicyBiryani (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
All sections except those still under discussion have been removed to reduce the wordcount. See the previous diffs to view their content. SpicyBiryani (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Previous replies: See this diff. [1]
- @El C: I've collapsed everything except the GlobalSecurity section of my statement to reduce the wordcount and make it easier to refer to. Since you asked specifically about GlobalSecurity, here's what happened: The infobox contained Indian claims for the casualties of both sides, and these were presented as neutral claims. So, I started this discussion on the talk page to find neutral figures, and cited two sources, the Researchgate one, and the GlobalSecurity one.
- Researchgate turned out to be unreliable. I had no issues with this. It didn't give any figures anyway, just stated there were no reliable numbers. Aman claimed that GlobalSecurity is unreliable but didn't specify why. To prove it was indeed reliable, I headed over to RSN, and ended up at the same discussion which he has only now decided to link. In the above statement, I already quoted excerpts from the discussion which concluded that GlobalSecurity is reliable, so I'll post them here in collapsed form.
- @El C: I've collapsed everything except the GlobalSecurity section of my statement to reduce the wordcount and make it easier to refer to. Since you asked specifically about GlobalSecurity, here's what happened: The infobox contained Indian claims for the casualties of both sides, and these were presented as neutral claims. So, I started this discussion on the talk page to find neutral figures, and cited two sources, the Researchgate one, and the GlobalSecurity one.
Quotes from RSN discussion on GlobalSecurity
|
---|
|
- As you can see, the discussion concludes that GlobalSecurity is a reliable and widely cited source run by experts. So unless Aman didn't read past the first few paragraphs where people were confusing it with other random websites, I don't see why he is citing RSN. Additionally, the GlobalSecurity article also cites these sources:
- So, even if GlobalSecurity's credibility as a source is under question - which it shouldn't be, considering the points made in the RSN discussion - in this specific article it is further citing other neutral and reliable sources. Therefore, I believe GlobalSecurity qualifies as WP:RS, especially in light of the RSN discussion. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- @El C:
- 1. Aman calling GlobalSecurity unreliable[4]
- 2. My response [5]
- I did insert these diffs as links above but for some reason they aren't appearing on your end. Maybe it's a formatting error or something.
- SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c d e https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1009112517#SpicyBiryani
- ^ Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert L. (1996). India : a country study. Washington, D.C. : Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.
- ^ Sarkar, Bhashkar. (1999). Kargil War: Past, Present and Future. New Dehli: Lancer.
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1003156922#Casualties_claims
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1008484498#Casualties_claims
@Aman.kumar.goel:, User:El_C stated they are no longer following up over here.
Instead of claiming that others have comprehension issues, you could try reading the vast amount of quotes I cited here to prove GlobalSecurity's reliabliity, which were sufficient enough to be termed excessive
. Or, you can go ahead and tell NYT, Reuters, and the authors of more than 20,000 articles and books that their work is unreliable because of that seven line discussion (which took place before the RSN discussion concluded GS is reliable) you just posted. If you still insist on resorting to WP:ICANTHEARYOU by ignoring all of the things I cite, then I can't really help you.
As for the thrilling story of an F-16 being shot down by a MiG-21: Almost every neutral source I know of, even prominent scholar Christine Fair who is renowned for her harsh criticism of Pakistan's military, has rubbished this claim. (Fair specifically termed it "dubious," said it doesn't pass the "Rubbish test,"[1] and called the IAF narrative "deployed by politicians to win elections." )[2][3][4][5][6] This claim has only been propagated as credible by Indian officials and media. Hell, the pilot of the MiG-21 himself stated he got shot down while looking for a target[7], and never that he downed an F-16, even after returning to India. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning SpicyBiryani
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Barely 100 edits and already having been subject to a 3-month IPA TBAN and blocked for violating it? That's not good. There are valid concerns relating to the misrepresentation of sources, some fairly innocuous, but others less so. For such a fraught topic area focus that Kashmir and the 2020 China–India skirmishes represent within IPA itself, an indef BROADLY IPA TBAN is probably the only way to go here. Let this inexperienced user prove that they are able to edit other areas of the project productively and without incident. Then, after a considerable time period has passed, a convincing appeal may be considered. So, that is my recommendation. El_C 17:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- SpicyBiryani, two things. First, you are responsible for familiarizing yourself with the scope of any sanctions, otherwise, querying anything that is unclear. Secondly, charging that an user lacks editorial competence isn't necessarily a personal attack — see WP:CIR. El_C 13:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- SpicyBiryani, I'm sorry you went through that (truly), but with respect to editing, dispassionate detachment is expected in any and all mainspace submissions. Also, I'm not sure why you're going on and on about CIRNOT — I submit to you that it is a distraction from the matter at hand and isn't worthwhile pursuing further. El_C 17:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- SpicyBiryani, also, not intended as a CIR reproachment, but please sign all of your comments. El_C 17:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- SpicyBiryani, in your relatively short tenure on the project, you have already been sanctioned about the topic area before, so, though Aman.kumar.goel may ought to have engaged further with you (if they, indeed, had failed to do so), I don't think that annuls this complaint. Further, you are still going on at length on matters which do not seem that germane to this dispute — also with you having grossly exceeded the word limit at this point, so please trim accordingly to align with that requirement. Finally, as a followup to my first point, diffs are missing for some of the more important issues raised, like the GlobalSecurity.org matter (diffs, please), while quite a few others which seems largely irrelevant, are quoted at length. So, please be more selective with your submissions here, overall. Thank you. El_C 19:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- SpicyBiryani, way too lengthy, still, including quoting to an excess, quite unnecessarily so. And, the key matter of Aman.kumar.goel challenging GlobalSecurity is still without diffs, for some reason. I'm not sure how to articulate this better, but your response to this complaint is still highly lacking. I would recommend that you condense, a lot more. There's simply no need to expand in this much detail. Brief, concise summaries with a detailed collection of relevant diffs attached, that'd be best. As a side note, I'll point out that I, myself, had used GlobalSecurity as source for various military and weaponry -related pages for many years without incident. El_C 17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- SpicyBiryani, I'll leave the matter of the word count enforcement to the next admin to handle as they see fit, since I will not be following up on this or any other open AE complaint. But I will say that Aman.kumar.goel just saying that GlobalSecurity was deemed unreliable, without supporting that assertion with anything (whatsoever) — that does make me go hmm. Best wishes to all. El_C 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Casperti
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Casperti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Casperti (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, here: [196] based on the comments of a user (Aman Kumar Goel) on El_C talk page here: [197] because of my edit here: [198]
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- [199]
Statement by Casperti
Hi,I wanted to appeal my hasty ban that I recently got from Admin El_C and to lift it. Here[200] reported by Aman Kumar Goel Here [201], where the user did not tell all the truths, Within less than an hour I was permanently banned by the admin after this user reported this edit: [202]. Claiming that this edit was the same reason I was banned before, Which was not the case. Also, claiming that there was a consensus on the subject I edited here: [203], Which was clearly and clearly not the case (2 vs 3), me and the other editor who did not see the source as reliable asked for another source to be mentioned in the infobox. In short, where the discussion is about: in 2019, this source: report-khan-abdul-gaffar-khan-s-great-granddaughter-seeks-citizenship-for-phastoons-in-india-2584887 was added by user:Anupam as purpose for using it as source for the population count of Pashtuns in the infobox, this was in 2019 already discussed about: [204] and also in 2020 and also now in 2021 I saw a discussion on the talk page about the same source and it's reliability. to summarise this source it's an interview with a famous person who claims there are 3.2Million ethnic Pashtuns in India, this was used as source for the population count of Pashtuns in India while there is nowhere where we can verify this specific claim of this interview no ethnographic or census source backs this claim up. You can check the link up, it is an interview where in the interviewee (famous person) claims there are 3.2M Pashtuns in India...without any support of any census tools or papers (please check it). So this was basically where the discussion was about due to WP:DUE this subject was difficult to get a consensus on . We have never reached consensus to begin with so the claim of the user that I went against consensus is certainly not true which can be checked by anyone here. 9 months ago before I got banned for behavioural issues (which I admit was 1000% correct to be banned for) I opened a WP:RSN "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard " to solve the problem the result of that can be seen here:[205], the result was also clear: Delete the source. This is why I was banned for 6 months last time:[206], For edit warring mainly, which I could understand and it was my mistake and deep fault. But certainly it was not for editing this subject as Aman Kumar Goel claims on the report on El_C's talk page, so basically a false claim. Here is the report of 9 months ago: [207]. I have certainly made mistakes in the past by not properly edit constructively and how I should have engaged with others. But it seems to me that Admin El_C is now taking it a bit more personal even in September I got a 48h block from El_C because someone wished me and I wished back a "Happy Afghan independence day". I hope others can look at this as well and hopefully it is not personal from El_C side towards me. Anyways, I wanted to solve the dispute of 9 months ago around this source claiming there are 3.2M Pashtuns in India in a civil way so I though I will open a WP:DRN [208] because I did not want to have edit conflicts and I thought it is the most civil way to solve a dispute, and I edited after the advice of that Dispute resolution board So I was banned for this edit while I did not engage any edit warring or edit conflict with anyone and only did this 1 edit(s) and only because I took the advice of the DRN Board which was "delete the source and replace it with a reliable one". If someone approached me and said do you want to discuss this, I would have agreed but I got banned instantly with the claim: "you have been banned for this before" while it was not the case and I wanted to resolve this dispute by opening a WP:DRN and I edited after the advice of that Dispute resolution board for this issue/dispute. Quote:
- "This is a clear case. A quote from a person is not a WP:RS for census information. This information needs to come from official reports only. If there is some kind of controversy over the numbers- that can be covered separately in a section of an article as appropriate- but not in an info box. This was already explained at the WP:RSNB and the DRN is not going to overturn that consensus here. My recommendation is to remove the source and find a better one. But an Infobox is just that- a box with information. If you need to hash out details- do it in an article somewhere, not there. 21:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)"
After this on 11 February 21:18 I took the advice and removed the source on 12:00, 12 February 2021 at Pashtuns [209] and on 04:33, 13 February 2021 I was banned by El_C by the claim that I have been banned for this before. Which is not true + I wanted to solve this dispute that is what I had in my head. Why would I open a WP:DRN? I wanted to be civil in resolving the matter. Never there was a consensus so I assumed this was the right thing to do. the past 3 months since I have been unbanned for the topic I have contributed normally on this project with the aim to improve it not to disrupt it. For example a major edit what I have done in the past 3 months in this topic: is the addition of a 1700 years old Greek-Bactrian document that refers for the first to the word "Afghans". This document was unknown to Wikipedia before I added and very rare. It's the first time such a document was added to the project here it is if wondering: [210]. What my point here is that I am here on Wikipedia to work on this whole project of Wikipedia and I am certainly not here to destroy or disrupt it. I have made mistakes in the past (partly because I was not a very experienced user and personal mistakes). I wanted to show my good side but I didn't even got the chance. If I violate anything, any admin is allowed to give me a permanent ban on the whole of Wikipedia. Which sounds fair, but I hope I can go on the chance of being be back on this topic again because I have been banned wrongfully per evidence given and I hopefully further prove that I am not here for "Bad faith". Hopefully I gave enough information, Thank you. Kind regards, Casperti (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Answer to El_C's comment: I have shorten it now. Casperti (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Answer @El C:, Thanks for the comment but what do you want to say with that comment? This is different case so a different story. Let others see and comment, everyone can mistakes including you. I have been banned without any discussions (if there was I would constructively join it), any edit warring, any violations because of 1 edit that I did after advice of both a WP:RSN and WP:DRN. the user who reported me on your talk page wanted to see me permanently banned 8 months ago so naturally he did the report again based on non truths (never there was a consensus since 2019, 2020 on). There is no need to bring history up, since the ban of 6 months ended I have not been in any disruptions. Everyone can read and decide for themselves there is no need to bring up accusations, everything here above is on topic for the appeal. Even if you got 99 cases right there is always a possibility to be wrong in 1 case. Am I correct? Thanks for understanding and let people check it out Casperti (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
First, seeing this lengthy appeal, it does remind me of the sort of filibustering which prompted me to tell the appellant on my talk page that I expect better reading comprehension from them (having had to do so on more than one occasion). Regarding the reasons behind their (2nd, this time, indef) topic ban, I don't really have much more to add at this time beyond linking to the discussion on my talk page (here) and my sanction notification text itself (here). If any other reviewers of this appeal have any further queries for me, please don't hesitate to ask (and also ping). El_C 21:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Casperti, I mean this with the best intention, because I don't think your appeal will succeed (I'm basing that on the 7 or so AE appeals concerning my actions which were filed during the last month or so, all declined) — but your appeal seems emblematic of the same problems that editors had with you, in addition to your re-insertion of SYNTH data after it was clearly deemed as such by all of the other participants. That problem, again, is all of this filibustering and your overall tendency to WP:BLUDGEON, at length. I submit to you that so long as you are unable to condense your appeal to its salient points, it basically amounts to a collective waste of everyone's time. El_C 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Casperti, sure, sure. Not trying to badger you, really. What I am trying to say (still), just in a breath, is that condensing your appeal further to concise summaries (and paragraph breaks) supported by a detailed collection of relevant diffs, would be in your best interests. I'm basing that assertion on my ample experience in all matters AE. I'll stress that I don't mind being proven wrong, believe it or not (truly), so, if you do have a case, I'd rather see it presented skillfully than less so (i.e. rather than in a way that would contribute to it otherwise faltering).
- I'm just saying that, though it doesn't happen often, there are AE appeals that are declined virtually without comment, simply with a closing note that says: since nobody has shown interest in the appeal, it is declined. So, that has happened before, and I would rather it wouldn't here. I'd much prefer for it to be reviewed. Now, it's only been a few days, so hopefully, it doesn't. But maybe help even the odds by condensing and amending, is all I'm saying. One final note about something I just noticed. Above, you've written :
hopefully it is not personal from El_C side towards me
. I'd like to clarify that, not only isn't any of this personal for me, but I didn't even remember who you were (I don't mean that unkindly, I just didn't), and had to refresh myself with the background. I mean, I've blocked close to 8,000 users, I only remember the details of a very small number of them (obviously). El_C 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm just saying that, though it doesn't happen often, there are AE appeals that are declined virtually without comment, simply with a closing note that says: since nobody has shown interest in the appeal, it is declined. So, that has happened before, and I would rather it wouldn't here. I'd much prefer for it to be reviewed. Now, it's only been a few days, so hopefully, it doesn't. But maybe help even the odds by condensing and amending, is all I'm saying. One final note about something I just noticed. Above, you've written :
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Casperti
Result of the appeal by Casperti
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Casperti: The notice at your talk included "I don't know what you're thinking by repeating that 21,677 piece of SYNTH, even after it was explained to you by multiple participants at Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_20#Infobox that it was in error." That concerns your 12 February 2021 edit at Pashtuns which changed the Pashtuns population in India from 3,200,000 to 21,677. I find this incident to be very confusing but that seems to be the central issue. Your statement above lacks focus and I find it hard to follow. I think you are saying that the DRN close justified your edit because the close said that a quote from a person is not a WP:RS for census information. That might justify removing 3,200,000 (I agree that using an advocate's number is inappropriate in an infobox) but I see no acknowledgment of the WP:SYNTH problem, namely that the number of Pashtuns is not the same as the number of Pashto-speakers. Unless I am missing something in the rambling statement above I would decline the appeal because even if the edits were good, it is necessary that someone repeating edits in a contentious topic is able to communicate concisely and engage with key issues. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Flushing Girl
Flushing Girl is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 12:27, 27 February 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 Flushing Girl
This user came across my watchlist last year, making a series of POV edits related to Eastern Europe and particularly Kosovo. They were given a DS notice by Neutrality in January,[211] and I gave them a final warning earlier this month.[212] One of their main problematic behaviours (repeatedly on several pages) consists of removing Kosovo-related links from lists relating to Yugoslavia successor states, or removing Kosovo-related categories from articles that have categories of other Yugoslavia successor states.
They have been reverted by multiple editors, but continue to make the same type of edits, or repeat reverted ones. Cheers, Number 57 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Flushing GirlStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Flushing GirlOkay I will leave any articles about Kosovo alone. Thanks. Guys I will not edit Kosovo anymore. I just thought that it was something good because I didn’t really approve of Kosovo in these articles and then I got carried away. I will be more careful next time. I also removed the controversial symbol above as well. Anyway thanks. Look people I just didn’t like the fact that Kosovo was used in the articles about Yugoslavia. I just removed some things about Kosovo but I did because of my opinion that Kosovo is not an independent state. I should have left the articles alone. Anyway I will not change anything at all about Yugoslavia soon. Statement by (username)Result concerning Flushing Girl
|
ChandlerMinh
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 ChandlerMinh
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- ChandlerMinh (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 24 February: Falsification of source. The provided source makes no mention of a 'debate' or a 'fact'.
- 23 February: Same falsification of sources like above. Adds "
dated from 1st century BCE and 5th century CE
", as dating for "earliest reference to the story of the Ramayana is found in the Purananuru" but the cited source makes no mention of this dating, nor do the whole book. - 18 February Removes sourced content of 500 bytes + and marks the edit as 'minor'.
- 17 February Removes sourced content of 500 bytes + by depending on his own knowlege and repeats his revert[247] while making zero contribution on talk page.[248]
- Same edit warring on 23 January and no contribution on the talk page.
- 17 February "Any sane person would ideally prefer to quote Tesla’s own writing", see WP:NPA.
- 8 February violating WP:NOTFORUM even after he was warned for it just 4 days ago.[249]
- 2 February: Adding unsourced WP:OR he is himself unsure about.[250]
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- 2020, 2021
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [251]
Discussion concerning ChandlerMinh
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 ChandlerMinh
Statement by (username)
Result concerning ChandlerMinh
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Mb 9702
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 Mb 9702
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Mb 9702 (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Before alert
- 07:28, 22 February 2021: First edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources
- 07:31, 22 February 2021: Second edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources
- 07:33, 22 February 2021: Third edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources
- 07:40, 22 February 2021: Fourth edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources
- 08:32, 23 February 2021: Fifth edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources
- 10:41, 24 February 2021: Sixth section on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources
- 10:45, 24 February 2021: Seventh section (sixth edit request) on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources
After alert
- 09:31, 25 February 2021: Eighth section (seventh edit request) on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources
- 14:18, 25 February 2021: Ninth section on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources
- 16:57, 25 February 2021: Comment on User talk:Mb 9702 – "What do you mean by islamophobic? We as Hindus feel threatened by muslims in our own country India we have to live like prisoners without any aspiration and clarity of thought and expression."
- 05:03, 26 February 2021: Personal attack on User talk:Mb 9702 – "It's the truth that I am saying. Stop being not making any sense and being a hypocrite."
- 09:02, 27 February 2021: Disruptive editing on Love Jihad – replacement of "an Islamophobic conspiracy theory" with "a concept"; replacement of "developed by proponents of Hindutva,[12] purporting that Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam" with "developed for the sake of human rights and feminism which Islam is very unsupportive of. It states the truth and reality about how Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam". Edit was made against consensus on Talk:Love Jihad, had no edit summary, and was marked as a minor edit.
- 09:07–09:18, 27 February 2021: Addition of note that the source for the previous edit was "Article on 'Love Jihad' 1st paragraph Times Of India, Dated February 04 2021", with no link. A search on the TOI's website indicates that the note likely refers to the first paragraph of "Laws against 'love jihad': Wait for HCs to decide, says SC", an article that does not claim that the Love Jihad conspiracy theory portrays "truth" or "reality", or back any of the claims related to Islam. Further, an unclear citation of an article in The Times of India (RSP entry) is not an adequate counter to the high-quality academic sources cited in Special:Permalink/1009189726 § cite note-conspiracy theory-17.
References
References
- ^ "Christine Fair speaks at MilLit Fest 2019". Retrieved 27 February 2021.
- ^ Dogra, Chander Suta. "IAF Did Not Shoot Down Pak F-16 in Balakot Aftermath, Says US Scholar Christine Fair". The Wire. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
- ^ Marlow, Iain. "India Never Actually Shot Down Pakistani F-16 in Kashmir Clash, New Report Says". TIME. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
- ^ "U.S. count shows no Pakistan F-16s shot down in Indian battle: report". Reuters. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
- ^ Abi-Habib, Maria. "After India Loses Dogfight to Pakistan, Questions Arise About Its 'Vintage' Military". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
- ^ Seligman, Lara. "Did India Shoot Down a Pakistani Jet? U.S. Count Says No". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
- ^ "Wing Commander Abhinandan speaks about how his MiG-21 got shot down". Retrieved 27 February 2021.
- ^ Farokhi, Zeinab (2020). "Hindu Nationalism, News Channels, and "Post-Truth" Twitter: A Case Study of "Love Jihad"". In Boler, Megan; Davis, Elizabeth (eds.). Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means. Routledge. pp. 226–239. ISBN 978-1-000-16917-1. Retrieved 17 February 2021 – via Google Books.
- ^ Strohl, David James (11 October 2018). "Love jihad in India's moral imaginaries: religion, kinship, and citizenship in late liberalism". Contemporary South Asia. 27 (1). Routledge: 27–39. doi:10.1080/09584935.2018.1528209. ISSN 0958-4935. S2CID 149838857. Retrieved 20 February 2021.
- ^ Sarkar, Tanika (2018-07-01). "Is Love without Borders Possible?". Feminist Review. 119 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1057/s41305-018-0120-0. ISSN 0141-7789. S2CID 149827310 – via SAGE Journals.
- ^ Waikar, Prashant (2018). "Reading Islamophobia in Hindutva: An Analysis of Narendra Modi's Political Discourse". Islamophobia Studies Journal. 4 (2): 161–180. doi:10.13169/islastudj.4.2.0161. ISSN 2325-8381. JSTOR 10.13169/islastudj.4.2.0161 – via JSTOR.
- ^ [8][9]: 4 [10][11]
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Mb 9702
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 Mb 9702
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Mb 9702
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.