Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive297
Jafaz
[edit]| Jafaz has agreed to abide by the existing consensus regarding how these transliterations should be done. Provided that this is done, no further action is required. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:32, 17 November 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 Jafaz[edit]
Two blocks in September 2020 for disruptive editing
Ds alert a week ago, I also gave them one a year ago.
This is a generally problematic user who does not speak English well but still attempts to edit articles on Ukrainian topics, usually to introduce POV. They have been blocked two times last year (once by me) since they were moving articles from Kiev to Kyiv against consensus (consensus currently is to use Kiev for the 19th century or earlier, and they were moving articles pertained to that period). This time, they decided to add non-standard Romanization of Ukrainian to the articles. The universal consensus of the editors is documented in WP:UKR, and it is explicitly against using this non-standard one. They were warned by Mzajac [1] and asked to revert; their reply was [2]. Mzajac asked them again to revert [3], they did not reply, and today continued adding this transliteration as if nothing happened, and even edit-warred with Mzajac (see the diffs above). I am afraid the user is not competent to edit Wikipedia at all, and certainly not anything related to Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Jafaz[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jafaz[edit]Yes, yes, I am guilty of using the historical Ukrainian Latin alphabet in the Romanization tabs.. —user:Jafaz Jafaz. 20:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by Mzajac[edit]Jafaz is certainly capable of bettering Wikipedia if they can respect the guidelines: their contributions include a number of substantial new articles translated from Ukrainian Wikipedia. I hope they can find a way to continue. —Michael Z. 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by blindlynx[edit]Jafaz's preferred transliteration method is incredibly obscure, to the point i had to look it up to make sure it wasn't wp:or. Even so i can't find any references with more than a passing mention of it. The use of this transliteration method is wp:undue, except for possibly a tiny number of cases. There is absolutely no reason to us it at all in most articles, never-mind replace the contemporary transliterations in dozens of articles as they have done—blindlynx (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Jafaz[edit]
|
Agent raymond232
[edit]| Agent raymond232 blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:24, 17 November 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 Agent raymond232[edit]
Discussion concerning Agent raymond232[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Agent raymond232[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Agent raymond232[edit]
|
Echo1Charlie
[edit]| Echo1Charlie is topic banned from discussing or editing anything related to India-Pakistan, broadly construed, for a period of 90 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 21 November 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 Echo1Charlie[edit]
Hello, several editors on Wikipedia are having multiple problems with a highly problematic user and we are at a point where administrative action is now required. These problems have lasted several days—and after having assumed good faith—we are all at the end of our ropes. Echo1Charlie has been exhibiting a history of multiple problematic behavioural issues when it comes to not listening to consensus (often disruptively going around and around in circles without refusing to actually listen to others, and then issuing false threats when this doesn't work). He also has a history of filing false reports in an effort to mislead others (particularly administrators) in an attempt to push POV. Users have engaged with him on the talk pages of the articles of concern, but he absolutely refuses to listen to consensus simply because he is not getting his way. He is additionally attempting to push POV through WP:CANVASSING now (yet again) through multiple avenues across Wikipedia, despite having been warned not to do so. Furthermore, and now more worryingly, is that he is now bringing race and ethnicity into the matter in a poor attempt to whip up racial and ethnic conflict to try and discredit the users who have been so patient with him and who have been trying to reach consensus with him. He is now clearly accusing me and another editor (Cipher21) of being Pakistanis simply because we disagree with him (I do not know the ethnic background of the other user, nor of Echo1Charlie, and I find it absolutely ridiculous and insulting that he is even attempting to brand me with an ethnicity I do not belong to). At this point he is being nothing but disruptive to the project, and thus some urgent help would be appreciated.
Notified 18 November 2021, 21:09 (UTC)
I moved your comment up here, where non-admin comments are supposed to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Discussion concerning Echo1Charlie[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Echo1Charlie[edit]Statement by Cipher21[edit]Echo1Charlie's behaviour has been troublesome: [1] Racist attack on a user [2] Assumes nationality of editors disagreeing with him - textbook hyper nationalist inanity, "everyone who disagrees with me is Pakistani" [3] Racial profiling: "
[4] 1RR violation, refuses to self revert even when informed (they were already notified when they edited the article). Instead copy-pastes my message onto the article in question's talk page, ignores everything I said before. [6] Throughout this discussion they demonstrate deliberate refusal to get the point despite being explained to multiple times - WP:IDONTHEARYOU - as well as:
Some glaring WP:CIR issues here, especially their refusal to accept consensus or WP:RS and attempts to paint disputes in ethnic colours (during which they make no secret of their obsessive hatred of Pakistani people). At the very least I'd suggest an indefinite topic ban. Cipher21 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hemanthah[edit]Some other recent instances of Echo1Charlie's questionable behaviour in Saffron Terror
--Hemanthah (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Result concerning Echo1Charlie[edit]
|
Hijiri88
[edit]| Hijiri88 blocked for a fortnight for interaction ban violation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 27 November 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 Hijiri88[edit]
I was informed by e-mail of a series of recent IBAN violations by Hijiri88. According to Wikipedia IBAN policy, IBANed users are prohibited from making "reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". However, the links show that Hijiri88 has repeatedly made clear reference to me directly and indirectly. There are three BANEX exceptions: "asking an administrator to take action against a violation, asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, appealing the ban". However, none of these exceptions apply to the talk page posts or arbitration committee elections that I linked above. Furthermore, directly linking to the IBAN in question and repeatedly describing it as being the result of "one way harassment" is an inaccurate personal attack. The Arbcom case presented dozens of diffs and incidents of Hijiri88 harassing me and stalking me to articles.[9][10] Hijiri88 was also later found to have repeatedly evaded the IBAN by explicitly asking other users to make IBAN-violating edits for him.[11][12] Furthermore, Hijiri88 has been subject to six IBANs over the last decade, all of which were two-way. All these points above are proof that Hijiri88 should not be allowed to openly describe this as "one way harassment" as he repeatedly did above. I have never needed more than one IBAN and I have never been sanctioned for violating the IBAN, whereas Hijiri88 was at one point indefinitely blocked for mentioning the IBAN in essentially the same manner he is again doing right now. I have been told that the admin Wugapodes noted just a few months ago that Hijiri88's older IBANs "would be unremarkable if not for the continued imposition of IBANs and the repeated inability of Hijiri to abide by them." TH1980 (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hijiri88[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Hijiri88[edit]It was my understanding that asking (potential) arbitrators about their receptivity to a future appeal of this IBAN was, by definition, covered by WP:BANEX. The last diff referred to by User:Dennis Brown as being problematic is elaboration in response to an apparent misunderstanding from the candidate. I am sorry that I was unable to report the hounding in 2016 via the proper fora, but I felt the need to explain the context of why that was the case in this situation; if it is the consensus that mentioning it on-wiki in a form like the above diff is itself a violation of the IBAN, I will not do so going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Hijiri88[edit]
|
AmirahBreen
[edit]| AmirahBreen blocked 72 hours for 1RR violation. Filer blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 27 November 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 AmirahBreen[edit]
This user has been edit-warring against long-standing consensus, without waiting to gain new consensus in talk page for his or her radical changes, despite being reverted by multiple editors in the span of less than 24 hours. Also I believe there are additional restrictions about this topic that the user is not respecting.
Discussion concerning AmirahBreen[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmirahBreen[edit]Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish[edit]There have been long term issues with her editing, including possible COIs in the horn of Africa topic area. There has been at least one BLPN thread and at least one ANI thread related to her editing in that topic area. Unfortunately, I'm stuck on mobile for the time being, so pulling diffs and such is going to be difficult. The diff below shows insertion of WP:SYNTH and edit warring. The history of that article around that time, and a bit before shows a pattern of NPOV editing and edit warring with no discussion, or ignoring previous discussion. Due to their editing, and lack of any resolution of behavior issues, I just removed any articles they edited from my watchlist. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive325#Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]General note - a brand new account (initiated 11 days ago[25]) with 30 edits to his credit [26] not permitted to edit the Israel-Palestine conflict area (see -->[27]) but is loosely allowed to post enforcement requests here concerning the above-mentioned topic? This loophole needs to be corrected by ArbCom eventually. PS - @HJ Mitchell - please, keep in mind the standing of the filing person while deliberating further sanctions such as page ban and/or longer-term partial block against AB. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier[edit]I agree with the block (and there are way too many tags on that page), I also echo the concerns of GizzyCatBella, I would not normally expect a very new editor to be filing a complaint like this.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Bob Drobbs[edit]Yesterday, AmirahBreen put a warning on another user's talk page about the 1RR in place on that page[29], so they were well aware of the restrictions. Today, they engaged in two reverts an hour apart[30] in addition to earlier reverts they had done. I don't know if any action beyond the 72 hour block is appropriate or not, but knowingly violating the 1RR does seem more serious than an incidental mistake. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]This entire report is invalid, a violation of WP:ARBPIA which disallows new editors from editing in the WP namespace about the A/I conflict topic area. When a user with 34 freaking edits shows up to AE understanding discretionary sanctions, maybe stop and think hey should I be concerned with obvious sockpuppetry in a DS topic area? nableezy - 23:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion[edit]While a 1RR violation is straightforward and needs to be enforced when it comes to light, I broadly agree that 30/500 restrictions should bar people from making AE requests. Beyond that I would argue that AE requests from accounts that seem likely to be throwaways should generally not be allowed (though this gets tricky, of course, for WP:BITE reasons.) One only has to look at the recent incident with Icewhiz to understand why - identifying all but the most obvious sockpuppets takes time, since they need to produce enough edits to make patterns obvious. As a result, "well you can bring any charges against the filer if you want" isn't helpful - obviously we can't usually do that if someone's entire edit history are a handful of trivial edits and a single AE report. The result of allowing reports like that, coupled with a refusal to automatically reverse the results of AE filings made by blocked sockpuppets when they are caught, is to allow socks of banned users to spam AE with reports against people they disagree with and want to remove from a controversial topic area (worse, we can't go after them for making frivolous reports or demonstrate a sustained effort to abuse AE, because, again, the use of socks makes it impossible to establish a pattern.) Maybe there's a more precision-targeted solution that still allows new users to submit valid reports, but we do need some way to deal with the problem. Note that I'm not accusing the filer, specifically, of being an inappropriate sockpuppet (though I think it's reasonable to at least assume that this isn't their first account), the point is that allowing AE enforcement to follow from reports like these inevitably means that all banned users will be able to file AE reports freely via sockpuppets, and often accomplish the things they want to accomplish, without there being any particular recourse or way to discourage them. --Aquillion (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by (other editor)[edit]Result concerning AmirahBreen[edit]
|
Interfase
[edit]| Interfase blocked 72 hours, ZaniGiovanni blocked from Uzundara for 72 hours, both for edit warring. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 28 November 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 Interfase[edit]
I believe this user's topic ban should be reinstated. For starters, their talk page is full of warnings, notices and whatnot, like multiple edit-warring notices (diff) and 3RR warnings (diff). Yet the user has no problem with edit-warring and breaching 3RR without even giving a valid explanation for most of the time. The user has been previously banned for edit-warring (see block log), and they have been topic banned from AA area, including for edit-warring (see previous enforcement case). Their topic ban has been lifted since, but the user doesn't seem to have changed much at all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Interfase[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Interfase[edit]Here user ZaniGiovanni threats me that if I am going to add another source that was biased for him it will be disruptive, and he'll have no other choice but to report me. But in case of another biased source he returned it back several times breaching WP:CONS. As per this rule if he didn't agree with the further edit (in this case it was revert) he should seek a compromise and only after that implement an edit. But user ZaniGiovanni tried to return this exceptional information based on unreliable source and violating WP:WEIGHT to the article by force. This text was reverted with the comments and there were the arguments on the talk page. Actually these edits[35][36] of ZaniGiovanni is clear POV-pushing attemt. It seems that user ZaniGiovanni thinks that the rules of the Wikipedia does not for him. He can threat other user and tell him not to add disputed source to the article, but adds another disputed source himself. --Interfase (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Actually I gave proper explanation on a talk page regarding the revert. As per Wikipedia:Consensus, when an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. In this case it was reverted, and user ZaniGiovanni should seek a compromise as per WP:CONS instead of continuously POV-pushing. To be honest I did not pay attention that I did 4th revert in the article. I promise that next time I will be more attentive and in case of any POV-pushing will not do 4th revert and warn the user, who broke the WP:EW and WP:CONS, and report him if he continues POV-pushing and WP:CONS breaching. --Interfase (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]A request for moderated dispute resolution has been made at DRN by User:Interfase. This conduct complaint appears to have been filed by User:ZaniGiovanni a few hours after the DRN filing, and ZG was aware of the DRN filing. I can try to mediate the content dispute if the editors will drop the conduct complaints, or I can fail the content dispute because there is also this conduct dispute. A case is not handled at DRN if there is a dispute in any other forum. I will fail the DRN case unless the parties agree to dismiss this conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Interfase[edit]
|
AmirahBreen 2
[edit]| AmirahBreen blocked for a week and banned from the article Gaza flotilla raid for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 6 December 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 AmirahBreen[edit]
Right after returning from the user have edit warred again This content was previously removed by him as part of big revert "Five of the activists who were killed had previously declared their desire to become shaheeds (martyrs)" [39]
Discussion concerning AmirahBreen[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmirahBreen[edit]I made one reversion today and one yesterday. I am not clear is a 24 hour period counted from midnight to midnight or from one reversion to the next? I have made no further edits to the page today. I have opened discussions about it on the article talk page and am participating in those discussions to reach consensus. Please also consider that the information which I removed was defamatory and original research. The sources were clear that their primary motive was to bring aid to Gaza and to cherry pick from the sources what they said may happen as an alternative if they failed and to place that in the text with the implication that it was their primary motive is defamatory. Although this is not a BLP and those people are not still alive, there are still people alive who were part of this aid mission who it can effect 'by association'. GizzyCatBella wouldn't it be clearer if the warning said 'editors who revert this article should seek consensus before further reverts, and must refrain from from reverting the article again for at least 24 hours'? IMO there should also be warning there that if Wikipedia policies are not followed it could also lead to a block due to discretionary sanctions. I am not one to go straight for arbitration, but reverting my edit in a rollback with no explanation in the edit summary as to why, as was done here [42] and then reverting it again for no other reason than that the editor considered it a 1RR violation as was done here [43] despite the fact that I had still not been given any explanation either in edit summary or on talk pages as to why it had been reverted in the first place, is that really in line with Wikipedia policy? If there was more emphasis on adhering to Wikipedia policies in the warnings then this shouldn't have happened in the first place. Editors should give clear edit summaries and particularly when making reverts on an article which is under discretionary sanctions. You are enforcing 1RR yet you are not enforcing Wikipedia policies. What is more Daveout actually contravened the 1RR in one fowl swoop with a rollback of two completely separate edits with an edit summary which explained only one of them, but did you see me running straight to AE? He's also made a 3rd revert which is only just outside the 24hr mark and he's had talk page warnings for similar behaviour. Daveout also broke the 1RR by doing this [44] and this [45] which resulted in me getting blocked after being reported by a sock-puppet of a banned editor. I warned him about edit warring on his talk page. [46] and yesterday morning he went straight back and started another edit war, by reverting my edit with no explanation or edit summary, immediately followed by reverting another editors edit, for which he gave an edit summary but it turned out to be invalid. I've certainly learned a thing or two in all of this myself, but has Daveout learned anything at all? Has his username even been mentioned in this or the previous discussion in which I was not allowed to take part? When he reverted my edit yesterday with no explanation in the edit summary I actually thought he'd probably made two reverts, one immediately following the next, by mistake, being that his edit summary only covered his second revert. I reverted back asking him to provide an edit summary (or discuss on the talk page), not with the intention of starting an edit war, but because I thought he had mistakenly rolled two reverts into one, and the edit he'd provided an edit summary for had absolutely nothing to do with my edit as far as I could see. I hadn't even questioned the reliability of the source, I had questioned the way in which the source had been cherry picked. WP:WAR Referring to 3RR - 'Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring.' Is this any different for 1RR? According to WP:1RR it isn't. WP:1RR also says that 24 hours may be replaced by 'a week', 'a month' etc. If it's talking about the time between one revert and the next then why not arbitrary figures such as 6 hours, 18 hours etc. If a revert was made this month then it implies that a revert made next month would not be within the month, even if it were made on an earlier day of the month. A month is not a set number of days, so how can you count from revert to revert if a month could be 31, 30 or even 29 or 28 days. How do you know which length of month to choose? The length of this month or next month? I'm not saying that I don't understand now what has already been explained to me, what I am saying is I still feel that the policy pages don't explain clearly enough and that I should be believed when I say I did not fully understand if it meant 24 hours from the time the first revert was made or if it meant 'on the same day'. WP:3RRNO Point 7. also says under exemptions 'Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.' Due to the comma after 'unsourced' but no comma after 'poorly sourced', I would read this to say that libelous, biased, and unsourced, may also refer to articles other than BLPs. I still maintain that the text I removed was libelous and biased in the context it was placed and in the way it was picked from the source which distorted it's meaning, it also turned out to be poorly sourced. If I am not reading this correctly, then a comma should be placed after 'poorly sourced' in point 7 to make it clearer. Cullen328 I don't even understand your comment, at the start of this discussion I was not asking if 24 meant 24, I was asking 'is it counted from midnight to midnight or from edit to edit'. Anyway, I have exceeded my wordcount now. Perhaps you will take into account that I was not allowed to make a statement in the last discussion, if you are counting the results of the last discussion against me too. Amirah talk 02:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]
I would say that a 1RR violation is obvious @AmirahBreen The warning was posted and visible here --> [48]
Statement by Nableezy[edit]Whats the first a revert of? Did anybody ask the user to self-revert? Did you try to engage on the talk page? With the user on the user talk page? Curious. nableezy - 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Here Shrike, I tried to help you out with the whole not using AE as a weapon thing. Maybe see for example User_talk:Bob_drobbs#1rr for how a user might try to engage another and ask that they correct their actions prior to escalating things here even if they oppose their edits. nableezy - 21:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
HJ, nobody has tried to engage this person with anything besides threats at all. This was the sequence of the first block. Notice. AE report (by a since blocked sock). Sanction. Those are consecutive edits to their talk page, and not one person stopped in between to give her (I think from username?) even one chance at learning how to correct the issues. And here, again, no request to self-revert. You have one user reverting their edit so they could not self-revert, and another reporting them, and nobody offering a chance at a self-revert. And all the while, users are violating WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:ONUS. That is, um, sub-par. nableezy - 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by User:力[edit]Nobody is covering themselves with glory here. I'm not sure how several of the regulars don't understand the dummy links ("difflink3") in the reporting template. I'm not sure I believe that AmirahBreen doesn't understand the 1RR rule after being blocked over it a week ago. I'm not sure why Nableezy thinks this filing is inappropriate after that block and after this talk page disucssion that suggests AmirahBreen thinks they did nothing wrong. As far as what should be done, a week-long page ban from Gaza flotilla raid (but not the talk page) seems to me to be both gentle and justified. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Bob Drobbs[edit]1. A polite notice of 1RR violation was put on AmirahBreen's talk page.[49]. There was no request to self-revert because someone else did it for them. AmirahBreen didn't accept this, but instead doubled-down with seeming annoyance and frustration. And this was immediately after a 72 hour ban for the same violation. It would appear that for whatever reason, AmirahBreen is unable or unwilling to follow the rules. 2. Digging a deeper hole. In the latest edit[50] AmirahBreen tries to argue that we should excuse this additional violation of 1RR, because it was their opinion that this text was problematic. That's not how 1RR works. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC) 3. While I appreciate the wide variety of human experience, the simple fact is that we all have to work together abiding by the same set of rules. AmirahBreen hasn't just slightly exceeded the 500 word limit in here, they've more than doubled that. It's another example, that at this point in time, this user isn't following the rules. They pointed out their own rule violation, yet they did not correct it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning AmirahBreen[edit]
|
Inf-in MD
[edit]| Inf-in MD blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100. Maxim(talk) 16:24, 10 December 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 Inf-in MD[edit]
N/A
Inf-in MD, after having previously accused me pompous ignorance only to redact it when told he would be reported, has several times now accused me of lacking competence to edit here. The basis of this is my saying that a group known as "Jewish Human Rights Watch" There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing. Inf-in MD did indeed find that it was a registered corporation in the UK under a slightly different name, but has claimed that I what I wrote "is completely false, nonsense by an editor who hasn't done even minimal research on the topic". One part of what I wrote was incorrect, that it does not have a board. The rest remains completely true. Regardless, claiming that I lack competence is inflammatory and uncivil, and if Inf-in MD feels I lack competence to edit here then the correct thing to do is raise the issue on an administrative board. Not drop a CIR link, four times, in article talk pages. As I had previously asked Inf-in MD to not make such personal attacks, and they have seen fit to ratchet that up substantially, I ask that he be restricted from participating in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions.
That's a pretty blatant misreading of my question, I was asking if it was a competence issue for me that I did not find the group listed under Jewish Rights Watch. Because I looked for Jewish Human Rights Watch and came up with zilch. I was asking that if I did not find it under a different name does that mean I lack competence. Not turning the question around. nableezy - 02:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The response is incredibly disingenuous. He does not doubt my good faith in the first paragraph, but its time somebody put a stop to me in the second. Doesnt have any idea about anybody was doing in years past, but offers this commentary about long-time editors supposedly being unsanctionable. Also, linking to a website I dislike is a very peculiar framing for linking to a website that outs several editors and attempts to out several more. Im already on record as to what prior accounts would have informed these views over the years, but I find the game in which one pretends to be assuming good faith in me in one paragraph so that they look like they arent doing what they so obviously are doing and in the next paragraph retreating to form to be disingenuous. nableezy - 15:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Inf-in MD[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Inf-in MD[edit]As I explained on that page, WP:CIR says "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up." - that seems to be the case here. I don't doubt the editor's good intentions but he's simply not up to the task as demonstrated by his editing. He did not perform the most basic of research that would have shown that what they claimed ("this is not an organization in any meaningful sense. It is a Facebook group and a Twitter feed. There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing.") is false. As the links I gave him show , it is a registered corporation (a PLC) in the UK, with a board that is named, with an address etc.. He further did not understand that 'Jewish Rights Watch' is the legal name for "Jewish Human Right Watch" (and seems to still not understand this, per his comment above), despite the fact that I gave him a link that made that connection explicit (and then he had the audacity to accuse me of failing CIR for confusing these entities which he incorrectly assumed were different ones - [51] "your link to the UK company information services is to "JEWISH RIGHTS WATCH", not Jewish Human Rights Watch. Is that a competence issue?" the same thing he's accusing me of doing here!). He thus created work for other editors (me) who had to do this basic research , and more work to explain this basic stuff to them and clean up the wrong and misleading stuff they posted. This user has a habit of trying to weaponize discussion boards like this one (or even Afd! -[52] "sanction the creator" , or this, same AfD [53] "you should be blocked and topic banned per WP:POINT and WP:TE") to sanction people who disagree with him. It's time someone put a stop to this behavior. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC) User:力 , I provided links to their corporate registration and filings. There have been 3-4 employees, since 2014. Not that it really matters, many organizations are sole proprietorships or two partners, that does not make them any less of a real organization. But I take your point about invoking WP:CIR not being a good idea. Inf-in MD (talk)
I accept that invoking CIR was wrong , and have struck those references out .Inf-in MD (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC) With that said let address some of the other comments:
Statement by User:力[edit]Bringing up WP:CIR on an article talk page is almost never a good idea, especially with editors who aren't new. Also, I'm not convinced that "Jewish Human Rights Watch" is anything more than a doing-business-as for an individual activist or two, based on the talk page discussion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]Accusing a 14-year-old veteran of lacking competence is a bad, bad, bad idea. Particularly when it comes from somebody who initiated a journey with Wikipedia 4 months ago Let's study it all a bit closer... - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion[edit]First, per WP:ONUS, nobody is required to do your research for you. That means that even if nableezy had been completely and unequivocally wrong, it still wouldn't have been appropriate to accuse him of WP:CIR issues - he's entirely within his rights to evaluate a source based solely on what has been presented by the people who want to include it. Inf-in MD's complaint that nableezy made them do the work of researching the source that Inf-in MD presented is not appropriate, because that work was always Inf-in MD's responsibility. But on top of that, nableezy's argument wasn't even obviously wrong! Arguing that the source is WP:UNDUE because Statement by Shrike[edit]Nableezy complain that editors weaponize AE but he doing the same such filing were at AE multiple times and maximum what happened is mild warning that editor comments are not "ideal". It would be strange if there would be different outcome --Shrike (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]To editor Shrike: Counting has never been my strong suit, so apologies if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell this filing brings Nableezy's count for 2021 up to 3. In the same time period, your count is 4. Maybe you should withdraw your "multiple times" remark. Zerotalk 08:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Inf-in MD[edit]
|
Nableezy
[edit]| Bob drobbs topic-banned from Israel/Palestine content for six months -- Euryalus (talk) 23:19, 12 December 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 Nableezy[edit]
Repeated calls in an AFD and article talk pages calling for me to be banned IMO cross the line into intimidation and harassment violating WP:CIVIL:
This is especially true as he continued this behavior after I asked him to stop. "Please stop making threats - if you're going to report me, then report me. But I think your accusations are groundless. Stop making threats implied or otherwise" [60] David Collier (political activist) has personally attacked Nableezy (I cannot share the link), and I believe Nableezy knows this, but he denies that he has any COI in regards to the person who attacked him. Below is how Nableezy refers to Collier. This might violate WP:COI or WP:OR among other things. The RS which are being used generally refer to Collier as an "independent journalist" or "researcher", though a few mostly older sources do refer to him as a "blogger". His blog is never mentioned in anything more than passing, but his reports on antisemitism are covered in depth in RS. Nableezy's personal opinion that material covered by RS is "wild claims" should play no part in these discussions.
Regarding COI, I recognize something of a Catch-22 if anyone with a wikipedia page can attack a wikipedia editor, and then that editor can no longer edit their BLP page. But on the flip-side, if a notable or possibly notable person attacks an editor, that editor must be extra careful editing their page or pushing for exclusion of their work. Nableezy seems to be completely failing there. Finally, this isn't any sort of "gotcha" trying to silence an opponent. I repeatedly told Nableezy that I felt these calls for me to be banned felt like threats or intimidation and asked him to stop[61][62][63] He refused. Then I asked if he'd join me in a mediation process.[64][65] Again he refused.
He just filed a report: [66]
Regarding WP:POINT, ... As for edit warring, Huldra systematically went through wikipedia removing every mention of Collier[67][68][69] outside of his page with the exact same edit comment: "WP:ONUS and WP:DUE and WP:RS...". I did put much of that text back at one point or another while making good faith efforts to engage in talk pages. And in at least one case, she was right so I undid part of my revert[70]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Huldra:: AR was completely the wrong venue, a mistake which I acknowledged[73] and corrected with a move to ANI[74]. And yes, there was zero result, but here's how two non-involved editors described your behavior:
Johnuniq made an early comment in that ANI, but for whatever reason did not weigh back in after those comments. I've been editing on and off, for 10 years not just in the IP area. I may get permanently banned for daring to question an admin, but Johnuniq's call for a permanent ban, when I've never even been reported before, feels like an attempt to silence one side of these discussions. I'm imperfect, but so is almost everyone who edits IP pages. On the positive side, if you look you'll find examples of me making real effort to work with the "other side" including Nableezy [75][76], and when I misgendered Huldra, I apologized profusely.[77]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC) @Huldra: I did not systematically go through and add everything possible about Collier. I carefully evaluated things and only added content which I felt was well supported by multiple sources. The Amnesty International text, for example, has two solid sources. When there was only one source, or a bad source, I did not include it. When you pointed out things that were badly sourced, I agreed with you and removed them [78]. I treated you with real kindness once. You are under no obligation to return that favor. But I'm going to ask you to speak up on my behalf anyways, so we can work together to make pages better in the future, fairly representing all sides. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Nableezy[edit]David Collier is a blogger. That is how he is referred to by the BBC. The US State Department describes him as pro-Israel blogger. Do I think Bob should be sanctioned for violating WP:POINT? Yes, I do, his creation of the Collier article, really a hagiography, was on the heels of a dispute at NPOVN about using some material from Collier. He, after creating the article, wrote on NPOVN that David Collier is notable now. He very purposely created an article as part of his push to include material in other articles, material that a consensus at NPOVN found should not be included. COI? Because Collier called me a terrorist? How does that make it so I have a conflict of interest with him? I dont give half a shit what some random person on the internet thinks of Nableezy. That somebody thinks I am a terrorist is their problem, not mine. I have never engaged with Collier in any way whatsoever anywhere, and the idea that one can make up some wild claim, and yes I am going to say the idea that I am a terrorist is indeed a wild claim and a ranting on a blog, and can then disqualify that person from editing their article is asinine. OR? What edit to an article have I ever made that was not cited to a reliable source directly backing it up? Yes, there has been an incessant push to include Collier's claims, in which he demonstratively fabricates material as documented here, carried out by Bob and the now blocked latest reincarnation of NoCal100. And yes, I do think that is a problem. A content problem that I am addressing on talk pages. Warning Bob that if he continues to violate WP:ONUS and edit-warring (not 1RR as he claims above) is what we are supposed to do. We let people know what they are doing is against policy before reporting them. Such as when I gave him the opportunity to self-revert previously. Bob seems to be under the impression that if he does not violate the 1RR that he may edit-war to enforce his position, as he has done here, here (and again same article same revert), here, and here. Every single one of those is a violation of WP:ONUS, and yes every single one is part of an incessant campaign to include a bloggers view in our articles. nableezy - 20:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Collier has attacked a large number of editors here, claiming that we are antisemites, terrorist-supporters, literal Nazis. The idea that somebody can disqualify a set of users so that only those users whose views align with his own may edit material about him is so silly that I cant quite put into words how dumbfounded I am that somebody would seriously suggest it. By Bob's standards, only Collier's fans can edit material about him, and if I or anybody else does not want a blogger quoted at length in encyclopedia article then we fail COI. I have no external relationship with Collier. I have no financial relationship with Collier. He has tried to out me, he has tried to out others. That does not mean I have a conflict with him. I very literally do not give a shit about David Collier, or anything he has ever written or said. I do care about our articles, and I will continue to make sure that they remain encyclopedia articles and not filled with unimportant trivia like what some blogger thinks. nableezy - 21:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Bob, I can honestly say I dont care what you think about my views of Collier or his reports, and no I will not be excusing myself from discussions about them. But I will try my best to only warn you on your user talk page. If youd prefer I just report you for edit-warring I can do that too if you like, but I always appreciated a heads up that a report was going to result if I did not correct some error; if you do not then no worries I dont need to give them. nableezy - 23:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Add another ONUS violation and instance of edit-warring here, having previously reverted multiple times (here and here. nableezy - 00:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]
Statement by Selfstudier[edit]I will not directly address the complaint filed but rather discuss issues I raised on complainant's talk page, if I may. Re the BDS article & Approaching Inf-in_MD & The "one last chance" refers to the discussion mentioned by "FFF". Complainant has a tendency to overreact when things are not going the way they would wish & "I have a busy day and don't have time right now to figure out how to do it myself" The whole talk page may be read to get the gist of my argument, it's not that long and elements of it explain in part why Nableezy is justifiably exasperated. There are other issues around use/misuse of dispute resolution procedures that I will address if needs be. Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Huldra[edit]Just this month, Bob drobbs first reported me to arbcom; link Then he reported me to WP:AN/I; (see link); both with zero result. And now he reports Nableezy here. And we are still only the 10th of the month. If you don't topic-ban him; can you please at least ban him from filing more "reports"? Far, far too much time has been wasted on this. And just the idea that if people are harassing you off-wiki, then you are disqualified to discuss them on-wiki? This is 100% absurd, IMO. (Alas; it would of course be wonderful for the harassers iff it was true) Huldra (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nableezy[edit]
|
Bringtar
[edit]| Not actionable --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:19, 18 December 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 Bringtar[edit]
The above diffs are recent and they show that the user does not understand that who is alive and who isn't, what the sources say, what is a personal attack, what is a WP:LINKVIO and the importance of WP:SECONDARY sources. While the user shows a clear lack of understanding of WP:BLPCAT on the mentioned articles above, he happens to be strict about the policies when the article's main subject happens to be opposite.[82] This shows intended POV pushing. The user is an WP:SPA with whom, together with several other editors, I have already tried enough to guide on the basics of Wikipedia for months[83] but this user is unwilling to learn. Given the continued display of WP:CIR and battleground mentality, I have zero hopes with this user. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Bringtar[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Bringtar[edit]Statement by Vice regent[edit]I don't see how this is an India-Pakistan issue. There have been some problematic editing at List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, where all sides have made bad edits: some have added insufficiently sourced content while others have removed sufficiently sourced content. If you click on those histories, you'll see half a dozen additional parties to this dispute (besides OP and Bringtar).VR talk 19:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Bringtar[edit]
|
The History Wizard of Cambridge
[edit]| Blocked for 1 week -Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:21, 18 December 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 The History Wizard of Cambridge[edit]
I explained the discretionary sanctions and asked The History Wizard of Cambridge to self-revert the 1RR violation prior to filing this AE report, deliberately declining to revert it myself or to take any particular stance on the underlying content, but The History Wizard of Cambridge refused to do so. The History Wizard of Cambridge previously deleted content in two non-consecutive edits on 5 December ([88], [89]) although those edits were not reported here because it was ambiguous whether they qualified as reverts and whether the user was then aware of the discretionary sanctions in effect at Mass killings under communist regimes (notwithstanding the prominent notice that displays whenever editing the page). Under the former account name of BulgeUwU, which was considered obscene and had to be changed, this user was the subject of an ANI report by Pudeo detailing what other users called
Discussion concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The History Wizard of Cambridge[edit]Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]I myself noticed this edit war, and I posted this warning on the talk page. There is a clear 1RR violation here, but before making a decision, two considerations must be taken into account.
My opinion is that this article has a very bad karma, but we currently are starting to work productively and collaboratively on fixing its problem. Thus, a dispute resolution is currently in progress, and Nug is an important participant in it. I think that AE sanctions will bring unneeded drama, which will immediately create a very toxic atmosphere. However, if admins decide that sanctions are needed, then both warring parties must be sanctioned. In my opinion, a final warning to all parties would be the most fruitful solution. @RegentsPark: I think you are absolutely right, but in addition to that, I propose to look at the problem that I partially discussed in my previous statement. This article is a focus of interest of two warring groups of users. The 1RR restriction does not prevent an edit war between the groups, as each user in the group only makes one revert in 24 hr. It is easy to see that this type edit war has already begun. The reverts made by The History Wizard of Cambridge are just a part of the long series of reverts and re-reverts made by the two opposing parties: the full history is this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this).
As we can see, we have a full scale edit war between two parties.
Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]Does the filing party really think that the best way to improve this article, which was the subject of the largest AFD in the history of Wikipedia, is to identify an editor or editors who have violated 1RR and sanction them? I don't think so. I suggest that we warn the reported editor, and advise the reporting editor that this sort of enforcement by clock isn't useful either. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved) IP editor[edit]I don't know if uninvolved persons are allowed to comment..if not, my apologies. @RegentsPark: and @Seraphimblade:: I strongly urge you both, as well as any other admins that may happen to review this, to thoroughly read the statements by the editors directly above and carefully consider the entirety of the whole situation here; first of all, 1RR is clearly failing to prevent disruption on this page. 1RR does no good if there are a tag team of 10 (or whatever many) editors each taking their turn to revert once a day! To block one editor for reverting twice against a tag team of editors - who were adding unreliably sourced (per RSN consensus) material, no less (which is not just some frivolous content dispute, mind you, and is a violation of WP:V), is not reasonable. On a final note, I remind all admins reviewing that WP is intended to not be a bureaucracy, that IAR is a core policy intended as a safeguard against situations when the enforcement of the letter of the rest of policy would result in a broken system, as well as a countermeasure against editors, or groups of editors gaming the system. And that's all. Do the right thing! Peace! 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:C2:BB5:D65F:F72A (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge[edit]
|