Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Result concerning My very best wishes: a few observations, since I'm one of the few admins with a passing (passing!) familiarity with this dispute Tag: Reverted |
|||
Line 528: | Line 528: | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*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 {{u|Mhorg}} citation of what I said to {{u|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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMhorg&type=revision&diff=1006939793&oldid=1006639016 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 {{u|Nicoljaus}} with in the course of this dispute ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANicoljaus&type=revision&diff=1006900579&oldid=1006600733 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:My_very_best_wishes/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1007397363 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. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:10, 18 February 2021
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Mclarenfan17
While the Mclarenfan17 account hasn't edited since June, they've since edited while logged out in contravention of the interaction ban. As such, their IPs are to be blocked on sight, at least until some form of communications is established. For enforcement action, please report these IPs upon their appearance, citing this report. El_C 09:13, 12 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 Mclarenfan17
Not applicable
On 30 March 2020 an indefinite interaction ban has been imposed on me and Mclarenfan17. About three months later the user stopped using their account for editing Wikipedia and has only edited while logged out since. They use IP addresses in the 1.100 range. Here is a recent example of Mclarenfan17 self-identifying from that range. They also regularly edited from that range in between using their original account, Prisonermonkeys, and creating their current one Mclarenfan17. Thus I believe the reply to my post came from Mclarenfan17 and that is a violation of the interaction ban.Tvx1 16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: could we put the question on the why they edited logged aside and deal with the violation of the interaction ban, which is why I posted this requested?Tvx1 22:05, 11 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 Mclarenfan17Statement by Robert McClenonThere is a simple explanation and a straightforward solution. The person who has been Prisonermonkeys and Mclarenfan17 may have lost their password for Mclarenfan17. They lost the password for Prisonermonkeys, and were editing logged out for a period of time. During that time, they had a formatting dispute with another editor, and I told them that they should create a new account if they wished to engage in dispute resolution, and then they did create Mclarenfan17. The current situation is almost the same as the previous situation, except that the person behind the accounts is the subject of the interaction ban. I recommend that the person be instructed to create a third account, and edit only from that account, and the account will be subject to the interaction ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Mclarenfan17
|
Solavirum
Solavirum has been indefinitely topic banned from the WP:ARBAA2 topic area, broadly construed. El_C 22:48, 14 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 Solavirum
I previously made a discussion about just Solavirum's denial of the Armenian Genocide on the incidents noticeboard. The discussion was archived without any resolution, and practically no input from any administrators. Most of the above diff edits have been made after that discussion. For anyone unfamiliar with the subject, here is a cited explanation on why what Solavirum said is genocide denial:
The "Armenian war crimes" category was created back in December by User:Saotura, who was recently indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for pushing Turkish nationalism and Armenian Genocide denial in articles. Solavirum made a comment in support of the edits that Saotura made: "when did someone's personal views became a basis for block?". 'Personal views' referring to genocide denial. After creating the "Armenian war crimes" category, Saotura began padding it with several articles that had no sources describing them as war crimes, of war crimes being charged, and that couldn't even be described as "warfare between sovereign states". Solavirum has continued to stuff the category with articles that have no citations for being war crimes. In just two months after being created, the Armenian category already has been padded with the third largest amount of articles on Category:War crimes committed by country, behind only United States and Japan. It is quite clear that Solavirum is also WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and engages in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POVPUSH edits that he defended. --Steverci (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC) References
Discussion concerning SolavirumStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SolavirumSteverci seems to failing WP: BATTLEGROUND and can't WP:DROPTHESTICK. A user with past long-running blocks, including a topic ban, he seems to wanting me outside of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic. I can refer to the diffs one by one, but it will take a long time, and we've referred to some of the in the previous ANI report concerning me. I'm really just sick of these baseless reports filed against me by Steverci, the last being not even a month ago. If you have problems with these edits, refer to the talk page, and, let me remind you, without behaving like you did here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by MJLBefore this gets started, I should mention that I was the uninvolved editor who closed the topic/site ban discussion in the aforementioned discussion. As I told Armatura, when that user posted on my talk page, it involved a serious amount of offwiki material as its justification. When Laurel Lodged challenged my closure, I explained to him that the possibility of a topic or site ban getting implemented were still open (if based in onwiki behavoir). Either way, the end result of that thread was no action being taken against Solavirum as mentioned by Steverci. However, it is worth noting that Armatura received a one-way IBAN regarding Solavirum by TonyBallioni. That is not nothing. Of the diffs presented in the opening statement, only numbers four through 8 have yet to be reviewed by the community. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by CuriousGoldenLooking through the given diffs, none of them suggests any serious behavioural issues and seems more like content disputes. And as User:MJL pointed out, 4 of them have already been reviewed and deemed as not serious enough in the previous ANI report. El_C also seems to think that the diffs don't constitute anything worthy of a sanction. The main point of the report has since seems to have turned into Solavirum's edit on the Maraga Massacre article. While I agree that Solavirum's edit was definitely not appropriate, it only takes little WP:AGF to see that the user, as they explained, tried to follow a format they saw in another article about a massacre which happened during the same war (which should also probably be changed to the civilian attack infobox template). Solavirum also seems to regret the edit and has apologized for it in one of their comments. I would say that that the user's single edit on the Maraga Massacre article does not warrant a sanction, especially considering that they understood what was wrong with it when told. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by AntonSamuel@El C: Looking at this report, his recent edit on the Maraga massacre article and back at my own earlier experiences with Solavirum - and taking the ideological differences that there seems to be between us into account - if I would try to provide a fair assessment: I would perhaps recommend that it would be a good idea for Solavirum to cool off and take a break from editing articles/material regarding the Nagorno-Kababakh/Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict for a while, and instead contribute to other topics on Wikipedia in order to gain some more experience regarding other topic matters in order to learn a bit more in general, since it seems he can have a hard time seeing clearly on a more basic level, and has some serious skill-learning to do and understanding to gain when it comes to editing Wikipedia neutrally. I have found that he has the ability to follow somewhat reasonable lines of thinking and has reacted relatively reasonably in the past when we've interacted or come into conflict, so I can still see how he would be able to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in the future. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by BuidheAs for Steverci's points about Armenian Genocide denial, they are spot on (it looks like he found them in the Wikipedia article, recently rewritten and brought to GA status by yours truly). There are multiple points of view as to how the "war crimes" category should be applied but a recent discussion concluded (before the cited edits by Solavirum) that it certainly should be avoided if there is no reliably sourced mention of "war crime" in the article, for basic WP:V reasons. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Jr8825It isn't easy to edit in highly contentious areas, and it takes an especially high degree of competence to contribute neutrally you have strong personal opinions on the topic. It's even more challenging if you're surrounded by a highly partisan media landscape which prints jingoistic propaganda completely free of journalistic integrity or respect for the truth. This is the difficult situation which Azerbaijani editors face in A–A, and while I appreciate the efforts some have made to adhere to NPOV, there comes a point where a complete break from the topic is necessary to protect Wikipedia's (already flawed) articles on the area, and also offers the best opportunity for an editor to grow their experience and editing skills. Solavirum's tendency to push article narratives in favour of Azerbaijan at the expense of Armenia has been been raised repeatedly (I left a diplomatic message on their talk page myself just under a month ago, and they've had plenty of more explicit warnings elsewhere) and I still see a clear pattern of sustained bias. Their latest article, the twice-previously deleted Agdaban massacre illustrates all of the above. It relies on unsubstantiated claims from biased, unreliable media sources and wouldn't have been created by an editor who was capable of carefully weighing the available sources against the basic Wikpedia policies of notability, verifiability and reliable sources. Solavirum's beliefs in this topic area affect their judgement to the extent that they're unable to do this. Solavirum isn't a new user, and the lack of caution and self-awareness about the difficulty of editing neutrally, exemplified by the chain of edits to articles on A–A massacres (one of the most emotive subjects of all), give me little hope that things are likely to change in the short term. Although Solavirum has invested a lot of time and effort in the area, I unfortunately believe these contributions may represent a net negative because of the constant insertion of bias. I'm supportive of a topic ban, with the hope that Solavirum will hone their judgement and skills elsewhere. Jr8825 • Talk 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Solavirum
*Solavirum, probably best not to use AA pages as examples. Especially for placing cats somewhat randomly. For example, I just glanced at a few pages listed on Category:Massacres of women, and guess what? Only two of them didn't belong: Khojaly massacre and your restored Agdaban massacre articles. That's a problem, wouldn't you say? El_C 08:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
|
NomanPK44
Indef BROADLY IPA TBAN imposed. El_C 15:11, 12 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 NomanPK44
These diffs come after he was blocked by El C for 2 weeks from Insurgency in Balochistan for violating 1RR and misrepresenting sources.[5] His talk page history shows he is unresponsive to the concerns raised on his talk page, as such this disruption needs to be stopped. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NomanPK44Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NomanPK44Statement by (username)Result concerning NomanPK44
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NomanPK44
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
- NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1006403252&oldid=1006403185
Statement by NomanPK44
I removed the edit from here [9] 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[10]. 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 [11] 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 [12] 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 [13]NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
The diff that I cite in the sanction notice as an example reads (in full): Undid revision 1004538012 by Georgethedragonslayer (talk) How can an INDIAN WEBSITE become a reliable source? LOL
(diff). Need I really say more? It doesn't matter about NomanPK44's contention in this appeal of there needing to be 3rd-party sources. Placing that argument aside, how difficult would it be to just say that, dispassionately? All that bluster about an INDIAN WEBSITE
in all-caps and the LOL
, that's simply too much for this fraught topic area. And that's just one example among several.
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)
- Perhaps it's worth noting that I regret being too lenient with disruptive IPA users in the past. An example could be seen here: User_talk:El_C#Casperti. And though that particular ban reinstatement happened after this appellant was sanctioned, it is nonetheless emblematic of this excessive leniency on my part (excessive not just in this topic area, but in general, though that is a tale best told elsewhere). So, the time to pivot is due. El_C 08:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Srijanx22
As 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 NomanPK44
Result of the appeal by NomanPK44
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Not seeing any actual argument for overturning here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think NomanPK44 would benefit from using the topic ban as an opportunity to practice identifying reliable sources and resolving disputes in less controversial topic areas. Independent publications are not automatically considered primary or unreliable due to the country they are based in, regardless of whether the topic is related to the country. If a section that cites Indian sources would benefit from available Pakistani sources, the preferred action would be to add those sources rather than to delete the existing Indian sources. Alternatively, one can tag the section for due weight and discuss it on the talk page. The explanation for editing against recent consensus in Special:Diff/1006082702 is unsatisfactory, since it does not admit error. Violating 1RR twice in the topic area in just over a month is another negative indicator. I recommend declining this appeal.
@NomanPK44: I noticed that you violated the topic ban by editing the List of wars involving Pakistan article at Special:Diff/1007087462 on 16 February 2021. Please refrain from making any edits about India-, Pakistan-, or Afghanistan-related topics, broadly construed, until your topic ban is successfully appealed. The standard time frame to wait before appealing an indefinite topic ban is a minimum of 6 months. During this period, please focus on less controversial topics, and review the reliable sources guideline and the guide to dispute resolution. — Newslinger talk 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Mclarenfan17 (follow-up IP report)
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 Mclarenfan17
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Mclarenfan17 (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/Motorsports
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mclarenfan17
- 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'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)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Mclarenfan17
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 Mclarenfan17
I 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 McClenon
I 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)
- User:GoodDay - They aren't being allowed to edit logged out. They are editing logged out. The last time that this happened, they said it was because they had lost their password. Either they have lost their password again, or they are choosing to edit logged out. One of the key aspects of this case is how to restrict them from editing logged out. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay
Clarification 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
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Tvx1, a lot of IPs edit those high-traffic pages. Is there a way that you're able to better connect the IP to the original account? Because I don't feel that I have that much to go on here, though possibly other admins are able to see what I'm missing. El_C 23:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Never mind, it is them — self identified, see: User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement. But seeing as communication has began, perhaps there will be a simple resolution that will spare any possible whac-a-mole worst case scenario. El_C 00:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Guerillero, for what it's worth, I've already insisted on that. El_C 01:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm very tempted to ask arbcom for an explicit one account restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am completely in agreement with Robert McClenon. There's no point in an interaction ban if it is to be gamed like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- And now he's edit-warring on 2021 World Rally Championship (history), currently up to 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: I wonder if we should range block 1.129.108.0/24 --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've partial-blocked the /24 from Article and Talk namespaces for a week. He can still come and discuss the issue here then. Didn't want to make it much longer than that because there is a (small) amount of collateral. Black Kite (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Guerillero Back on a different range? 1.144.105.189? It's impossible to block Telstra, it's a massive range and there's so much collateral. Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- And now he's edit-warring on 2021 World Rally Championship (history), currently up to 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Mr DipakSingh
Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 20:54, 14 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 Mr DipakSingh
Discussion concerning Mr DipakSinghStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mr DipakSinghStatement by (username)Result concerning Mr DipakSingh
|
Uhhibi
Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 22:24, 17 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 Uhhibi
Before alert
After alert
Discussion concerning UhhibiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by UhhibiStatement by (username)Result concerning Uhhibi
|
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 [14][15][16][17][18] mainly in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography",[19] 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",[20] confusing Wikipedia for LinkedIn. 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) and released hundreds of comments in the discussions in a polite manner (I hope) and 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.
- 03:51, 9 February 2021 Removal of controversial Narod movement (2007), accusing weak sources, instead of seeking RS, justifying it with "Undue weight" (RS [21] [22] [23])
- 16:51, 12 February 2021 Not collaborating: He questions Narod's existence and asks for the website url.[24] I gave him the archived website.[25] His answer: "This is internet garbage".
- 21:29, 9 February 2021 Removal of references to Navalny on Anti-Georgian sentiment (RS [26] [27]) for "Undue focus". Read the answer [28] from User: Kober
- 20:40, 15 February 2021 Removal of the Russo-Georgian war and racial slurs, (RS [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]) and the nationalist campaign, (RS [34] [35]) denying that the consensus for that part was reached in TP. [36]
- 00:57, 17 February 2021 Not accepting consensus, changing argument in front of evidence in the summary of the user's statements [37]
- 04:24, 11 February 2021 Deliberate distortion of the RS, to omit that Navalny declared himself a "Nationalist-democrat", as User:RenatUK reported [38]
- 04:27, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on the support to 2013 ethnic riots for "Undue weight" (RS [39] [40])
- 04:06, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on Russian march and nationalist campaign, including RS, for "Undue weight" (RS [41] [42] [43] [44])
- 21:01, 12 February 2021 Removal of controversial NAROD-Navalny's videos and accusing TheGuardian,[45] Telegraph,[46] NYTimes,[47] FinancialTimes,[48] Politico [49] having produced "defamatory content".[50]
- 23:06, 13 February 2021 Removal of any reference to the nationalists, despite what the RS says.[51]
- 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.[52] At the same time he supports the guilt of a user accused of sockpuppetry [53] 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, then self-reverts.[54] (For fun?)
- 17:15, 15 February 2021 wikihounding/defaming?: takes one of my first edits in 2015 and accuses me of sponsoring terrorism because I used two semi-primary sources of small fighting formations in the war in the Donbass to prove their existence.
- 21:49, 15 February 2021 wikihounding?: he reverts my old edits with RS, always on controversial content on Vitalii Markiv's trial for "Undue weight".
- 15:37, 16 February 2021 wikihounding?: he reverts my old edits, always on controversial content: Myrotvorets. Instead of adjusting the contents, he removes everything, even the RS.
- 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
In response to the accusations of WP:NOTHERE, of being connected to that site, they arose when I began to trace the movements that seemed to me suspicious about what was happening around that article [55]. Since then they begun to make personal accusations (User:Nicoljaus was already warned by admins [56]) to divert attention (such as the accusation of promoting terrorism or criminal acts... taking an edit from 2015)[57]. My edits are public, I invite you to tell me where I had disruptive and "promotional" behavior, tell me where I deleted parts of well sourced articles, or completely distorted articles, tell me where I engaged discussion for POV pushing. My behavior on Wikipedia is tracked and clear. Maybe I will not know all the rules of the English Wikipedia, maybe sometimes I will have used sources not really reliable (I got a culture with this battle on the Navalny's article). Accusing me of being a malicious user is very offensive.--Mhorg (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella I tried to open a Dispute resolution before [58], I was forced to ask for it to be deleted, because the My very best wishes user began to delete or question not only the Russo-Georgian war, but all the controversial parts of the article (and in my opinion he did it specifically to engulf the discussions). So, then the admin who kindly helped me to fill in the Dispute resolution request, suggested that for this kind of disputies it would be better to use "Arbitration Enforcement"--Mhorg (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC) - modified 10:47, 18 February 2021
- Since I understand that the strategy will be to discredit me personally, rather than answer for the unfair actions that are leading to the destruction of the Navalny article, I will do one thing I have not yet done, which is to investigate what users were doing before. User "My very best wishes" just removed yesterday (coincidence?) a clearly pro-Navalny statement in its sandbox last night.[59] I don't think having personal opinions on a particular politician is a crime, even for a Wikipedia user, I think it's normal. What is not normal is to act in a malevolent way, removing 7 years of positions considered controversial not by me, but from the RS from all over the world.--Mhorg (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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
Statement by Nicoljaus
I think it's enough to look at the "Top edited pages" of Mhorg [61] and the VoxKomm main page [62] to see almost a complete intersection by topics. Obviously, the user here is just WP:NOTHERE.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:05, 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)
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 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)