Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Request concerning Hemantha: Additional comments based on responses |
|||
Line 606: | Line 606: | ||
: {{U|RegentsPark}}, regarding the talk section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Karnataka_hijab_row#Removal_of_political_role_early_in_the_dispute #Removal of political role early in the dispute], the original editor took it to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NYT_a_reliable_source_on_2022_Karnataka_hijab_row RSN], where, I don't think he found much support for including the ''New York Times'' information. As an editor from RSN phrased it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Karnataka_hijab_row&diff=1072145873&oldid=1072145099 "was there a nuance missed by the NYT"]. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
: {{U|RegentsPark}}, regarding the talk section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Karnataka_hijab_row#Removal_of_political_role_early_in_the_dispute #Removal of political role early in the dispute], the original editor took it to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NYT_a_reliable_source_on_2022_Karnataka_hijab_row RSN], where, I don't think he found much support for including the ''New York Times'' information. As an editor from RSN phrased it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Karnataka_hijab_row&diff=1072145873&oldid=1072145099 "was there a nuance missed by the NYT"]. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
: Thanks to {{U|CapnJackSp}} for reminding us about the [[Tek Fog]] article. There also, the content analyser shows [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Tek_Fog zero content] contributed by {{U|Hemantha}}, despite arguing intensely on the talk page. This seems to be a pattern with this editor. We need him to become a builder rather then a wrecker. Otherwise, he is just draining the energy of the content contributors. |
|||
: In his long response he highlights my statement, "[[Special:Diff/1072386826|I understand]]". But the very next day, he started [[Special:Diff/1072523290|arguing for the ''New York Times'']], which ''didn't understand'' the very same point, in effect arguing against himself! What purpose is being served by this needless argumentation? |
|||
: Even when he deletes content (which is about the only thing he does in the mainspace), it is not done in a manner keeping Wikipedia's interest in mind. For example, in [[Special:Diff/1072030378]], he removed the names of two organisations (Campus Front of India and Social Democratic Front of India) being introduced, without any cognisance of the fact that those organisations appear in the rest of narrative. The same kind of insensitivity was repeated [[Special:Diff/1072531898|yesterday]] in removing "school management committees (SMCs) and college development committees (CDCs)" from the introductary paragraphs. The very next sentence mentions "CDCs", which is now without a reference! -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
||
Line 612: | Line 616: | ||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
===Discussion concerning Hemantha=== |
===Discussion concerning Hemantha=== |
||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
Revision as of 13:18, 19 February 2022
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}}.
|
Grandmaster
Grandmaster is indefinitely topic banned from AA2 signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 18 February 2022 (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 Grandmaster
Grandmaster has veteran experience of POV-pushing with extensive history of blocks in Armenia-Azerbaijan topic in two Wikipedias. The provided diffs are just a few recent examples to show he has not changed but learned how to avoid bans by WP:CPUSH-ing as shown in diffs above. I think he is there not as much as to build encyclopedia, but to advance official Azerbaijan' positions on Wikipedia, in a nationalist mood, prohibited by WP:ADVOCACY. He is apparently unable contribute neutrally in topics he has ethnic conflict of interest with, hence I believe a topic ban from AA area, broadly construed (including Turkey and Turkic world), for at least 1 year, is required to help to sober him up, while allowing him to edit in topics he does not have conflict of interest with. I was advised by admins Rosguill and Robert McClenon to take the case from ANI to AE, and so I did. UPDATE 25.01.2022 Grandmaster worryingly changed his replies here
When this violation of talk page guidelines was noted by an opponent, he resented till another user notes the violation Worryingly, Grandmaster now glorifies Epressa.am as a reliable example of Armenian media, to prove a point, despite what he refers to is not even an article by a journalist but a text of an unknown person' Facebook rave with an attention seeking FRINGE title “Did we (Armenians) drop hydrogen bomb on Agdam and Zangilan?”. Not sure about 2014 award, but that website is apparently hacked and vandalised, everyone can see the sheer random nonsense posted there: 1 2. --Armatura (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC) UPDATE 29.01.22 Grandmaster, when the source is so obviously poor, it does not merit a discussion at WP:RS/P. WP:QUESTIONABLE sources are unsuitable for citing contentious claims (in article or talk page - does not matter) and minimal WP:COMPETENCE is required to see the obvious. The fact that you do not / choose not to see it after being on Wikipedia over a decade, your continued defence of that source even here, against all the evidence, is a sign of incompetence or inability to remain neutral in editing/discussing I am afraid. And what you call a "witch hunt" was a transfer of ANI discussion to AE, as advised by admins, that's all. --Armatura (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC) UPDATE 02.02.2022 Many thanks for time and effort spent on evaluating this case, Rosguill and Ealdgyth. Are you happy to close it per your concensus? Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Notified on talk page by standart alert. Discussion concerning GrandmasterStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GrandmasterThis is already 4th report filed on me by Armatura. Such persistence in filing frivolous reports one after another indicates that this user is engaged in WP:Witchhunt. Previously Armatura joined now banned user Steverci to accuse me of various things, but that report was dismissed as retaliatory. [2] Then he filed a 3RR report on me [3], which was dismissed without action, and he did it when I reported a banned IP user, so it appears to be another retaliatory report. After that he filed a report on WP:ANI, asking to ban me: [4] So this is the report # 4, which for the most part repeats the report at WP:ANI. Regarding Agdam, one can see that Armatura started the latest discussion by bringing up a BBC report that has no relevance to the city of Agdam, to support his claim that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" is used as propaganda by Azerbaijan (BBC says nothing like that, btw). But as was demonstrated by myself and other users, the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is used not just by Azerbaijan, but it was coined by British journalist and political analyst Thomas de Waal, and is used by mainstream international media such as Euronews, France24, AP, The independent, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. I quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too. I did not propose to include it into the article. In fact, Armatura's claiming that the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is propaganda after it was demonstrated that it originated outside of Azerbaijan and is used by media all over the world is tendentious editing in itself. Then he accuses me of removing claims of an village head about late president of Azerbaijan allegedly concealing his place of birth for political reasons, but how qualified is a villager to make judgements about the motives of the Soviet leadership? Even if it is reported by a reliable source, it does not make the claims of a man in the street reliable or notable. But I only removed that line once, and when Armatura restored it, I left it at that. There was no edit war, or anything of the kind. I just tried to attract attention to questionability of that claim, per WP:BRD. Regarding my blocks in en:wiki, as you can see, they are from 15 years ago, and incident at Russian wiki is from 12 years ago, and has nothing to do with en:wiki. Per WP:Boomerang, I think the admins need to look at Armatura's own activity. Armatura repeatedly violated WP:AGF and WP:Civil, making personal attacks and incivil comments every time I try to have a polite discussion with him. For example, in his report at WP:ANI, he accuses me of having a "narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys"", which clearly is a bad faith assumption. In this report here, he accuses me of "advancing official Azerbaijan' positions on Wikipedia, in a nationalist mood", with no credible evidence whatsoever, which is again not in line with WP:AGF. How civil is it to write to another editor: do not test the patience of other editors with nonsense, it may be viewed as trolling? Here he told me: Because you simply refuse to understand when I explain anything, in a nihilistic fashion Bad faith assumption like this, when he accused me of not reacting to another user's erroneous closure of RFC, even though Armatura was explained by a Wikipedia admin that he cannot hold against someone not doing something: [5] Another bad faith assumption at the same page: [6] Here he demands from me "repentance", which he would "perhaps accept"? [7] As was noted by an uninvolved user at WP:ANI, Armatura WP:BLUDGEONs the discussion by arguing with my every vote and every comment, [8]. You may wish to check Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement and Talk:Agdam#RfC_for_"Hiroshima_of_Caucasus" to get the full picture of my interactions with this user. Previously, Armatura was placed on interaction ban with another user: [9]. In sum, Armatura has difficulties with keeping it cool when engaging in discussions with other editors, which is why admins may wish to see if editing such a contentious topic as Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is something that he should be allowed to do. His behavior creates nervous and unhealthy atmosphere. Rosguill, please note that I only cited epress.am once, at the talk page of Agdam. I made no further reference to that source. Every other mention was in response to Armatura, who brought it up again at his talk page and ANI. Also, the article was not nationalist, quite the contrary, it was critical of those people who made racist comments about Azerbaijani people and justified destruction of Azerbaijani cities. Armatura takes words out of context, but context is important. The author does not endorse racist attitudes, but protests them. Also, Wikipedia has no censorship, and profanity is not forbidden. Regarding epress.am, it is certainly not a nationalist publication. Some information about them could be found here [10] [11] And here is an interview with its chief editor, who says that his publication is against nationalism, militarism, homophobia and violence. [12] It won Free Media Awards in 2014. [13] If you check English Wikipedia, it is used a lot in Armenia related articles. Grandmaster 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Once again, epress was not proposed to be used as a reference in the article. It was only linked once at the talk page in the discussion, as an example of a term usage, and that news-site is used as a reference in dozens of articles about Armenia in Wikipedia. If it is not acceptable, the issue should be taken to WP:RSN, to designate it as deprecated, and stop its usage in Wikipedia. I don't think that a simple mention at talk is such a big issue as to demand someone to be banned or sanctioned. I changed some of my comments here to save space, as I was advised I need to keep it short. Grandmaster 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Additional comments.
Grandmaster 17:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni, you forgot to mention who brought up that source time after time at various places. Certainly not me. Grandmaster 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni, it was actually me who suggested to stop arguing about that source right there, at talk of Agdam: [15] But Armatura kept taking it to various boards, and brought it up even at his own talk page, when I tried to discuss with him a technical issue. Grandmaster 16:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Admins may wish to look into ZaniGiovanni's own reverting activity today. He removed Didier Billion: [16], claiming that he was a genocide denier, even though the article has nothing to do with genocide, and Billion was interviewed by France24, major French news outlet. Normally, if you question general reliability of a source, WP:RSN is where you discuss it, and reach consensus with the community. Then he removed RFE/RL, which is a reliable source, claiming that he sees from photos that the mosques' roof is there: [17], when it clearly is not. If you compare photos #4 and #5 in RFE article, it is obvious that the metal hip roof is gone, plus he engages in WP:OR. Clearly POV edits. Grandmaster 16:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni, it is clear from this picture taken before occupation that the triangular shaped metal roof is gone. Plus, you cannot engage in WP:OR and decide, what was and what was not removed. RFE/RL is a reliable source, and cannot be removed just because you disagree with it. Grandmaster 16:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Rosguill, topic banning an editor for just posting a link to a talk page discussion is too harsh. And I don't think I held up author's "Armenian ethnicity as somehow equivalent to speaking for Armenians or Armenian sources". I just responded to the claim that the source was "ultra-nationalist", and tried to demonstrate that it was not. I edited Wikipedia for many years, and made tens of thousands of useful contributions, created many new articles. I don't think it is a proportional punishment for whatever I did wrong. Grandmaster 19:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Rosguill, I think you do not understand why that argument was made. Armatura argued that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" was used only by Azerbaijani propaganda. But it was demonstrated by many users that it is used by mainstream Western media as well (please see comments at RFC there). I also pointed out that it was used by an Armenian reporter from IWPR, who cannot be engaged in pro-Azerbaijani propaganda. That is the only reason why the nationality of the reporters was mentioned, to demonstrate that they could not be a part of Azerbaijan's propaganda. I also pointed out nationalities of other sources, to show that the term originated and was used beyond Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 20:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Rosguill, it is not about ethnic identity, but rather the fact that the source originates outside of Azerbaijan. I also mentioned nationality of British journalist Thomas de Waal, for example. But I did it just to show that the term used by sources outside of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 20:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Rosguill, regarding epress, it was never used as a reference in the article, not it was proposed to be used. I only linked it once at the talk page discussion. I understand it could be a problem when unreliable pieces are used as references, but it was never my intention. I take the point that it is not a good quality source, and I will never make any mention of such sources anywhere. But a person can a make a mistake occasionally, I think. We are all human, after all. I don't think it is a adequate punishment to ban a log time editor with thousands of contributions for just one link posted at talk page. Grandmaster 20:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni, once again, I did not defend epress, I only demonstrated here that it is not a nationalist source, as it was claimed. Grandmaster 20:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by Dennis Brown(clerking only, no comments on the merits)
Statement by ZaniGiovanniSince the ANI discussion, I was thinking wheter the suggested AE case would be opened or not, as there are other diffs of Grandmaster's POV pushing that weren't discussed. I believe as an involved party with the previous case, I should add my input. Some recent edits by Grandmaster that I believe weren't posted in either of noticeboards:
I'm not an admin, I don't know what appropriate measures are against users in such cases. As someone involved in the ANI discussion, I wanted to share the problematic edits of Grandmaster I've noticed recently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning Grandmaster
|
Ypatch
There are no saints here. Closing without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 12 February 2022 (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 Ypatch
Ypatch ought to create consensus for removing the old content, but instead of that, he is railroading other users by beginning a wrong RFC and I told him this. The user has reverted other users three times while he only commented once in talk about the dispute. AFAIK, because the content has been there since 2019 and the user adding the content had no problems at that time, Ypatch needed to make consensus before removing the section. Instead of that, he says inserting the content needs consensus. He has opened a RFC for insertion of the content while the RFC ought to be for removal of the content. Mr @Vanamonde93:: But the first line Wikipedia:Silence and consensus reads that "Consensus can be presumed to exist until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." That content was there for 2 and a half year. More than one month later after Kazemita entered the content, Stefka (now banned) only changed the title of the section. So the consensus existed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I informed/notified the mentioned user Here
Discussion concerning YpatchStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by YpatchI really don't want to get involved in this, but even those in favor of having this content in the article are saying the content needs improvements. Ypatch (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Vice regentVanamonde93, I agree that consensus is achieved through discussion, but I don't believe Ypatch's behavior has been constructive.
Other examples of Ypatch's recent unconstructive engagement:
Ypatch's behavior is demoralizing. I spend hours in crafting a thoughtful response (researching, wordsmithing proposals etc), only to be ignored, reverted and stonewalled.VR talk 17:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by AquillionIt is true that Ypatch shouldn't edit-war, but participation in a single brief edit war that hasn't breached the 3RR isn't sufficient to bring to WP:AE, especially when the filer also participated. It is also true that the text is longstanding; it was created (shortly) before the editor's other account was banned, so WP:BANREVERT doesn't apply, and we don't automatically revert someone's contributions just because they were later banned. But the article is extremely low-traffic, so even though the text has been there for a year it's also reasonable to conclude that it doesn't have a strong consensus behind it - at least not to the point of rushing to AE to defend that extremely low level of implicit consensus. Also, it is absolutely not the case that text is required to be left untouched while discussions or an RFC is ongoing, so Ypatch's reverts are at least not a violation of the specific RFC moderation sanction mentioned. But honestly everyone would benefit from worrying less about conduct at this stage and focusing more on content and the underlying dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Bahar1397VR and AA edit warred too, but it seems that if one doesn't agree with VR's version proposals then to him that's something that should be brought to AE. That seems like "civil battleground mentality", which apparently he has been warned to stop doing already[36]. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ypatch
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Iskandar323
Duration of topic ban is hereby reduced to "time served". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 13 February 2022 (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).
Diff notifying the imposing administrator. (NB: They are now inactive Statement by Iskandar323I would like the length of my topic ban to be modified on the basis that the enforcement process was interfered with by Icewhiz socks. While I understand and accept my fault in the matter, I think the length of my TBAN is worth reconsidering in light of the latest round of Icewhiz SPI revelations (those involving Eostrix), which subsequently saw the account that launched the enforcement appeal, 11Fox11, and the two supporting accounts, Geshem Bracha and Free1Soul, blocked as Icewhiz socks. Upon my appeal to Callanecc, the administrator who imposed the TBAN, they agreed that based on these SPI revelations there may be scope for a modification of the ban's length. In their last active edit on Wikipedia, Callanecc noted their willingness to reconsider the length of the ban
Statement by CallaneccStatement by ShrikeQuestions to Iskandar323
Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Iskandar323Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Iskandar323
|
Mzajac
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 Mzajac
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Mzajac (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
- 8 February 2022 Quote: "After the main article was renamed Kyiv, a reactionary group of editors voted to use the spelling “Kiev,” “in historical articles.” " (to be fair, after protests they crossed out the word "reactionary".
- 11 February Quote: Ymblanter, I don’t think you have the moral authority to threaten me publicly... (as a response to a suggestion that AE might be in order).
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive277#Mzajac Topic ban from everything related to Kiev/Kyiv for a year
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- previously topic-banned.
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
- Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
- Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Mzajac was topic-banned from everything related to Kiev/Kyiv in December 2020 after the AE discussion, where I demonstrated that they lack an ability to edit the topic area productively and were not capable of accepting the community consensus that the city in the historical context must be referred to as Kiev and not as Kiev. They probably were the only topic-banned administrator during this period, though I am not 100% sure. In December 2021, the topic ban expired, and not later than in February 2022 they resumed the same behavior - pushing their POV that the city must be referred to as Kiev in all contexts, replying to all opposition until people stop responding, and ignoring all arguments that do not support their views. I recommend to read Talk:Kievan Rus'#Kyivan or Kievan Rus' and Talk:History of Kyiv#Consistent spelling of the title term in the text, these two discussions are not long and give a good impression of their style. In addition, in the second discussion it looks like that they do not think they have done anything wrong but they apparently believe I have some kind a personal vendetta against them and consider a suggestion I may ask for AE sanctions about them as "public threats". I know that nobody wants to deal with Eastern European topics, and certainly nobody wants to deal with an admin, but I see now the same pattern which in 2020 made this already toxic area completely unbearable, and I think some action is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- previously sanctioned
Discussion concerning Mzajac
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 Mzajac
Re: User:Paul Siebert, composing a reply to this enforcement request will take more of my time and attention than individual article edits in spare moments. I hope you can appreciated that this is serious and not something I can just rattle off. —Michael Z. 04:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Paul Siebert
First, to save space, I just provide a link to this my post [50]. I don't think calling other users "reactionary" should be considered a serious violation. However, I propose to take a look at that from different perspective.
- First, that statement was made not by an average user, but by an admin.
- Second, this admin demonstrates poor familiarity with our policy: the articles about historical topics can (and usually should) use historical names, especially when they are more frequently found in a special literature.
- Third, this admin seems to be active: he made several edits [51], [52], [53], but he haven't bothered to respond on this page. Does it means this user believes admins are "more equal" than other users?
In connection to that, I am wondering how can all of that be consistent with admin's status?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Michael, if you have no time to respond, it seems polite to leave at least a short message where you explain when exactly you are going to post a full response.
- In general, I don't find any serious problems with your behaviour as a user: according to my (internal) classification, your behaviour meets criteria of a relatively moderate POV-pusher, which is hardly sanctionable per DS (majority of us are, to some degree, POV-pushers). However, the problem is that you are an admin, and your behaviour is expected to meet higher standards. Being an admin, you are not supposed to demonstrate partisan mentality (divide users on "reactionary" and "others" based on their opinion on some quite innocent subject), demonstrate poor knowledge of our policy (historical names convention), and show respect to your peers (respond promptly at AE).
- Again, I see not much problem with you as a user (in that sense, this request may be seen as frivolous), but I am not sure your behaviour is consistent with your admin's status. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Mzajac
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- "Reactionary" was not a good choice of words, a bit of aspersion but it was struck as soon as somone complained. Some heat is expected in any debate, but I didn't see anything worse than this single word. Ymblanter, you are obviously on the other side of the table from Mzajac on several points, and I'm wondering if that is clouding your judgement. This is based on reading just the material you have linked. I'm not sure about his claim of you using personal attacks against him previously, then at ANI (I remember an ANI discussion, perhaps Mzajac can link it). As it stands, with the given evidence, there is zero chance I would recommend action at AE. I'm wondering why it is even here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:AE is a good place for one admin to drag another admin to "calm the waters", however. Normally, WP:AN is the place to go, so a larger audience can be had. Frivolously filing at WP:AE, to me, is a problem in and of itself. An admin would expected to know this isn't actionable, just as an admin should know not to stir the pot with aggressive tone and actions. Neither action is sanctionable, both are disappointing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, although the discussion from Mzajac didn't use any overtly nasty words beyond "reactionary" - the tone of the discussion was quite battlegroundy and very definitely toeing the line. I certainly wouldn't find the discussion to be aimed at trying to find consensus, I found it very much of someone coming in to try to right some wrong and feeling like they needed to do battle. Your milage may vary, but I can certainly see with the past history that Ymlanter was better to come here to see if outside voices could calm the waters, rather than endure the undertones of battleground on the talk pages. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- We are getting close to the time where we need to walk over to ArbCom to have a serious discussion about Mzajac's continued access to the admin bit. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've read through the two discussions Ymblanter linked. I don't love Mzajac's tone, but I don't see anything sanction-worthy, especially given that they struck the worst comment. If there's more evidence of misconduct, I would like to see it. I do disagree with Dennis Brown above: AE is a far superior venue to bring this sort of fraught political dispute; an ANI discussion would rapidly turn into a wall of text detering participation from anyone uninvolved. Guerillero, I recognize the oddity of an admin with a recent TBAN, but do you know of any other reason why ARBCOM needs to get involved here? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody's coming out of this smelling of roses. I find the request quite trivial. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL
Those involved are reminded to moderate their tone, and to refrain from edit warring. While no further action is necessary at this time, it could become so if those issues continue to be disruptive. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 19 February 2022 (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 Venkat TL
I got to read about this all after the notification made by this editor on a familiar noticeboard. With so much disruption in an entire day, I think this editor is unfit to contribute to this contentious topic area.
Discussion concerning Venkat TLStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Venkat TLTLDR: A list of minor stuff and content disputes have been grossly misrepresented and editorialized by User:Abhishek0831996 in his report to make them appear as though they are 'chronic, intractable problems'. The attempt is to paint a sinister picture. All this because, I believe User:Abhishek0831996 did not like the article I created. Full response: User:Abhishek0831996 has published this list of diffs on a mobile, I think it is not easy to do this on a mobile, so credits to Abhishek0831996 for his dedication, time and efforts. I have never come across this user Abhishek0831996. So this report by him came as a surprise and looks very odd to me. Before bringing this to the admin page, Abhishek0831996 never discussed his concerns with me on my user talk page, where I could have explained and resolved every concerns he had about me and my intentions. Straightaway bringing this to the Admin Arbitration page for admin action, makes me suspect that, Abhishek0831996's intention here is not to resolve the situation or find a solution but the intention is to snipe me, using gross misrepresentation of the actual facts. Why? I have no idea, but my guess would be probably because he did not like the article I had created. Whatever the case may be, here is my side of the story.
I conclude saying I have acted in good faith with best intentions and contributed constructively. I will be happy to elaborate more if any further clarification is needed from me. Please ping me when you ask the question. Venkat TL (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by CapnJackSp@RegentsPark and Stifle: But see how Venkat TL has failed to justify the misrepresentation of source as evidenced on diff no.1.[70] He claims that the CNN source supported his statement when it didn't. See the discussion at Talk:Bulli Bai case#February 2022. I would also mention that just 4 days ago Venkat TL was reported on edit warring noticeboard, where he was asked to stop with personal attacks[71] and the report evidenced that he was undoubtedly edit warring. The diffs cited on this report came after this yet another recent episode of disruption. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by usernameResult concerning Venkat TL
|
Iskandar323
Maybe a 1RR violation, maybe not, but regardless, Shrike is cautioned against filing reports here that serve as the first rather than last step in the WP:DR process. (Hep'ly ever after.) El_C 01:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Iskandar323
Discussion concerning Iskandar323Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Iskandar323I count one revert and one mountain out of a molehill. Shrike has presented a series of edits, none of which remain in place or are being edit warred over, and the most recent of which is under active discussion (started by me) on the talk page as part of a healthy WP:BRD cycle. The second edit Shrike has presented is not clearly a revert. It was a different edit, making a different change and with a different premise, as explained in the edit comments. It has not been labelled as "Tag:Undo" and the edits before it has not been labelled as "Tag:Reverted", so clearly it was not enough of a revert to rile any bots, but, in any case, in the face of opposition from other editors, the matter was promptly dropped and everyone moved on. ... except for Shrike, who has notably not been involved in any of this editing, has not participated in or engaged with the discussion, did not raise any issues with me on my talk page, and appears to be only here for the drive-by attempted elimination of another editor (over edits that for everyone actually involved are dust on the wind). Four other editors were editing the page at the same time, and none of them see the contrived picture that Shrike now presents or have raised any issues on my talk page. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that AE was a recourse of last resort for raising serious complaints about disruptive editing, not raking over non-existent edit conflicts that have already being resolved by the parties involved. At this point I would like to note that Shrike has been fairly relentlessly in pursuing me from a disciplinary standpoint the moment I set foot in the IP area, giving me my ARBPIA warning, raising an AE against me, being the only editor to turn up to object to my TBAN appeal (after just 15 minutes with a long list of grievances combed from my talk archive) and now here, having combed my recent edits. Aside from Icewhiz socks, Shrike is the only editor who has taken up major issue with my editing, despite our interaction outside of these enforcement actions being almost non-existent. I would like in turn to request an interaction ban between myself and Shrike so that this can end. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by NableezyA user editing in good faith would leave a note to the user saying they believe there was a 1RR violation and ask them to self-revert. This is a blatant example of attempting to use AE as a weapon and it should result in a boomerang sanction for bad faith usage of this board. nableezy - 19:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by DaveoutThis escalated a bit too quickly imo. I agree with Nableezy's suggested course of action (which should be the default procedure): when an editor is acting in good faith and not too disruptively (which I think is Iskandar323's case), it is best to talk to them directly, and ask them to self-revert before filling an AE complaint. (this happened to me before: I broke 1rr and editors, including nableezy, offered me a chance to self-revert and I appreciated that). - Statement by (username)Result concerning Iskandar323
|
Hemantha
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 Hemantha
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Hemantha (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
- 15:16, 15 February 2022 In his first edit to the page, deletes content claiming it to be WP:OR
- 15:35, 15 February 2022, 16:26, 15 February 2022; More of the same
- 17:05, 15 February 2022 More complaints about "unsourced" claims, and when an editor reworded it, tags them with silly tags (04:18, 16 February 2022)
- 06:56, 17 February 2022 Yet more claims of WP:OR the next day
- 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)
- Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The user created his account in 2013 but started any serioous editing in only November 2021. He came to the page on 2022 Karnataka hijab row on 15 February, roughly a week after it was created, and started contesting bits of existing content, claiming it to be WP:OR. In all cases, the sources do support the content in some form, even though they might be open to interpretation. Wholesale deletion would be uncalled for.
For this little bit of contribution to the main page, he made some 32 posts on the talk page between 15 February and 17 February (and apparently 8 more posts today). As an example of how this discussion goes, we can look at the discussion concerning diff 4 above, where it is apparent that content was supported by the cited source from the beginning, but the editor is not satisfied despite being shown several quotes from the source for support. Rise in student numbers is a commonplace phenomenon worldwide, and is in no way central to this dispute. No good faith editor should be arguing such details. (By the way, a later paragraph in the #Background section gives statistics for the rise in numbers, along with a comprehensive source.)
He has argued about the spelling of a Kannada word, despite the fact that spellings stated were as in the cited sources.
After having argued till yesteray that negotiations happened in December, today he started supporting the idea that ban was decided in January. If the ban happened only in January, what was being negotiated in December? It wouldn't make sense.
He has even edit-warred over where a reflist-talk box should go on the talk page! And there was discussion on it on my user talk as well.
Ever since he came on the scene, all new writing of content has stopped, despite new developments taking place practically everyday. We are having to spend all our time arguing with him.
His overall profile shows a similar trend, with low contributions (37%) to the main space. His top edited page in the mainspace shows only deletions, no new content. His other editing is similar as well.
Despite being clever and quite capable, this editor is showing only tendencies of WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- RegentsPark, regarding the talk section #Removal of political role early in the dispute, the original editor took it to RSN, where, I don't think he found much support for including the New York Times information. As an editor from RSN phrased it, "was there a nuance missed by the NYT". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks to CapnJackSp for reminding us about the Tek Fog article. There also, the content analyser shows zero content contributed by Hemantha, despite arguing intensely on the talk page. This seems to be a pattern with this editor. We need him to become a builder rather then a wrecker. Otherwise, he is just draining the energy of the content contributors.
- In his long response he highlights my statement, "I understand". But the very next day, he started arguing for the New York Times, which didn't understand the very same point, in effect arguing against himself! What purpose is being served by this needless argumentation?
- Even when he deletes content (which is about the only thing he does in the mainspace), it is not done in a manner keeping Wikipedia's interest in mind. For example, in Special:Diff/1072030378, he removed the names of two organisations (Campus Front of India and Social Democratic Front of India) being introduced, without any cognisance of the fact that those organisations appear in the rest of narrative. The same kind of insensitivity was repeated yesterday in removing "school management committees (SMCs) and college development committees (CDCs)" from the introductary paragraphs. The very next sentence mentions "CDCs", which is now without a reference! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Hemantha
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 Hemantha
About the diffs reported here:
DIFF | Issue in brief | Sources claimed to support the mainspace text I removed | My commentary |
---|---|---|---|
17:05, 15 February 2022 | claims of "complicated picture" and "apparent" revelations | Filer later said "I understand". He reworded the text without those words, using the ref I'd added. The rewrite, while still a bit inaccurate, reflects what my original edit said. | |
16-Feb-2022, 09:48 | Tag "Later" and "it was revealed" as CapnJackSp restored previous text | ||
15-Feb-2022, 15:35 | claims about CFI/SDPI | [76], [77] (or see this comparison in my sandbox for only relevant parts) | Text under dispute for three days before my involvement. I removed it as it was reproducing political leaders' claims in wiki-voice. The text is no longer present. |
15-Feb-2022, 16:26 | Partial mistake from my side | I was wrong to rm the statement about Ansar Ahmad. Combining two sentences on PFI wings into one seemed logical to me, but was reverted. I haven't insisted upon either anywhere again. | |
15:16, 15 February 2022 | Insiders' claim about Udupi Muslim Federation | [78], [79] (or see this comparison) | Federation members' claims (sources for their membership in talk) are repeated in wiki-voice. I've argued this at length on talk (referred to by RegentSpark as well) because it's a self-serving claim that can't merit inclusion, especially in wiki-voice. |
17-Feb-2022, 12:26 | uniform adoption | [80] (see this comparison) | A quoted statement from the neighboring district's Pre-university department official and a claim attributed by journalist as "Sources said" are extrapolated and repeated in wiki-voice. Discussion after I was reverted by filer, where I suggested a modification with proper attribution, but have been stonewalled till now. |
Rest of the screed by filer shows more about his own behavior than requiring any serious response from me. I note only that he is synthesizing two sources when he connects statistics about student numbers to the claim that "a rise required uniforms".
While I wouldn't see these as nitpicks, I agree with Tayi that these weren't major on Feb 15th. But then, I was reverted on each one of them with no basis at all. Apart from the one on CFI/SDPI, I had no idea that any of my edits touched the filer's contributions until I was reverted.
My vocalness on talk (though do note, filer himself had 40+ posts in the 4 days before my involvement) stems both from the stonewalling and from a previous discussion (possibly the roots of this filing) where the filer's disdain for Wikipedia sourcing policy and his attitude of making up his own rules was made evident to me(diff) The objection to NYT in this instance on flimsy basis also shows how he regards sources not aligned with his POV and the talk shows the lengths to which he will stonewall minor corrections. If I were to take an opportunity to present diffs (some samples) of filer's own (as well as WP:OWN) behavior in this instance, should I file a new report or can it be done here? Hemantha (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- CapnJackSp has axes to grind. Nothing to reply in his bluster and fantasy filled tirade, so characteristic of the name. Hemantha (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Venkat TL
TLDR : Misuse of 'Arbitration Request' by OP to snipe an opponent of content dispute, instead of trying Dispute resolution.
I have been involved in multiple debates/discussions/disputes etc with Hemantha on article talk pages and Wikiproject pages. I have always found Hemantha to be a productive contributor who provides constructive feedback and engages in discussion in good faith with an aim to steer the discussion towards consensus.
The article being discussed in this dispute is a very controversial article that is still progressing as more facts are coming out as days progress. It is understandable that the participants will have objections and disputes. The discussions on its talk page are a clear indication of the controversial nature of the page.
On this article, Kautilya3 has not been acting as a saint either. Kautilya3 has already used Admin boards inappropriately in an attempt to snipe his opponents and get rid of them as a way out of content dispute. Few days back he had filed an inappropriate and made up Edit war report against me combining diffs of Copyvio reverts and already resolved disputes in trying to misrepresent the situation and painted a grim picture. Unfortunately for him the admins did not buy his claims and the report was closed as No action.
This Arbitration Request also appears to me as a second exercise with a similar goal to snipe a content dispute opponent. Instead of going for Dispute Resolution to resolve content disputes, Kautilya3 runs to admin boards and file complaints like this. Perhaps it has worked for him in past. I suggest the admins to also evaluate the behavior of Kautilya3 on this article before making any conclusion on his reports. Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hemantha, in response to your Q. An admin might be able to better answer the question. I would have posted my diffs here itself. If an admin complains about word limit, you can split it into a new case. Documenting is more important than the bureaucracy. Venkat TL (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Tayi Arajakate
I've headache by now and my interest in their dispute is mostly gone. Long story short, it started with a dispute over using an NYT article where Kautilya won't budge on using it which was followed by Hemantha essentially trying to nitpick some of Kautilya's other edits over which neither of them wants to budge. But yeah, this should just be kicked back to the article's talk pages considering there isn't any serious conduct issue from either of them. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by CapnJackSp
I’ll split my remarks into two separate sections, one for my opinions and one for some issues raised by editors.
Personally, I would by and large agree with Kautilya3 here. Hemantha has been arguing over minute differences in terminology, with suggested rewordings being rejected outright. To me, often it seems the case of “my way or the highway”. Rewordings of the source are tagged as OR, and if written in a manner similar to the source it’s CLOP. Leaves little space for editing, especially in an ongoing matter.
This pattern was experienced before as well, during the creation of the Tek Fog page, where Hemantha raised irrelevant issues and ground to a halt any attempts to make constructive edits, demanding a consensus on every edit and then stalling DR on the talk page with WP:BLUDGEONING [a]. Till the intervention of editor Kautilya3, the article maintained a version grossly violating NPOV, with OR and SYNTH encompassing large parts of the material.
As for the remarks made by Venkat TL, I find them rather distasteful. Instead of the issues at hand, Venkat has somehow dismissed them on account of his personal opinions. His statements here appear extremely misleading - The edit warring notice against him was closed on a technical point, since he had stopped edit warring post filing of the report. Edit warring is clearly visible from the diffs provided. Venkat falsely accuses the OP of filing illegitimate reports. Venkat’s own report on ANI against me as well as his repeated misleading statements can be accessed here[b]
TLDR- Edits made are not generally aligned with the good faith expected of editors. Sanctions left to the discretion of the admins.
- ^ Objections stretched what should have taken a five minute cursory reading of RS, over a week to reach conclusion. First discussion,Second discussion
- ^ Venkat inserted duplicate templates into an article (Split page template, linking to an AFD. No idea how that works). When I came across the page a few days later, I removed one of them. Venkat dragged this to ANI, where his report can be accessed [here]. His statements [[1]] and his reply below it were made in a manner insinuating that both notices were removed, apart from unfounded allegations of edit warring
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Hemantha
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Confusing. I read this and thought "what the heck is Hemantha going on about" but then I read this and was "what the heck is Kautilya3 going on about". Clearly, this is an issue that is inflaming passions in less than productive ways. I suppose we should hear what @Hemantha: has to say and what @Tayi Arajakate and CapnJackSp: and others have to say, but it looks like we should just kick this back to the article talk pages. I don't see wikipedia benefiting from topic bans or other AE action here. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)