Loveall.human
[edit]| Loveall.human is warned to be more careful in their use of sources. Also noting for the record that the conduct of other users in this area has been found to be problematic, but no action against anyone else at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:38, 15 August 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 Loveall.human[edit]
His overall unhelpful presence on this page started from 04:15, 24 July 2021, when he started to derail a conversation about a 13th-century commander by talking about "Muhammad Ali or Michael Jackson or Cat Stevens", "constitution", and more unrelated subjects. He then ignored a request by another editor to "stay on the topic"[2] and doubled down with derailing on every single message. This all happened after he was already cautioned by multiple editors about WP:BLPCAT, WP:V and other relevant policies per his talk page after he had added names to an article by relying on unreliable sources and WP:CIRCULAR.[3] But he still does not understand any of those policies. During his unblock request, one admin had noted Loveall.human to be WP:NOTHERE and he would "end up blocked again for POV-pushing, edit-warring, or something along those lines".[4] I think it could be true, given the continued display of incompetence and battleground mentality. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC) @Toddy1: I don't see any justification for the behaviour that is prevailing since September 2020 with this account. CIR, together with battleground mentality is the last thing we would want for any subject. @Trangabellam: That edit was correct as it removed unreliable sources and improperly sourced entries. What Black Kite restored has nothing to do with earlier version per his own statement since he used new sources for the entries he restored.[5] 09:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Loveall.human[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 Loveall.human[edit]See my responses in italics. General layman comments, if anything violating some Wiki jargon (no intention), let me know. Rest assured, the statements below are with evidences to back. "05:39, 24 July 2021: Falsely claims ..". - Sanjjana Galrani was not FALSELY claimed. It was in the context of that account doing mass reverts on many articles without any discussion in talk page/relevant article page. "08:07, 24 July 2021 After being correctly.." - I have given evidences of the pattern where 'multiple' article reverts were made without communicating/discussing it which I presume is vandalizing. I stand by "unhealthy mob bullying pattern that is being observed in pushing far right wing POV" with enough evidences here. To be specific, the convert from Hinduism to XYZ article lists only are almost barred from growing for more than 4 years with consistent mob bullying patterns that is observed. "His overall.." - How is 'unhelpful' presence decided? How is talking/discussion in the relevant page regarding criteria for conversion is 'derailing', especially with that account to understand why he was doing mass reverts without discussion? "He then ignored.."- I did not ignore the request or derail on the 'topic', I remained on topic, evident from the link you have posted itself. The further discussions continued, precisely it was relevant. "This all happened.."- Was cautioned only ONCE by ONE editor, even that editor who did not communicate back multiple times despite I gave him proper source who had done mass reverts without verifying. Before and after caution, I have not added any row without proper source or research. Context is I had added more than a dozen names, after careful research with proper sources being cited. WITHOUT any discussion or pointing out which row is having unreliable sources, the edits were removed en-masse. After the first mass reverting of my edits itself, I STOPPED doing any edits to those articles, and I was trying to have the folks who do mass reverting to communicate in article's talk or user talk page why and which specific entry of its source is inaccurate (instead of communicating, I was filed with reports to block me). "But he still.." - Indeed, am still learning. Which specific policy and evidence to claim this statement. And which I was warned for not understanding and have violated? "During his unblock request.."- That was his prediction/prophetic 'opinion' commenting on a sock report which turned out to be false (like another TWO sock reports on me). Why is that there is no discussion on topic/talk page due to relentless sock reports and blocking efforts on me with wiki jargons keeping wiki users busy with answering such reports instead of learning/collaborating/discussing/editing? And I am accused of "battleground mentality" for asking to discuss/communicate. If anything, I could also probably claim I am being wiki-bullied relentlessly abusing wiki admin processes, just to maintain far right wing POV only with overwhelming evidences from the reporting pattern on me and others. It's evident, how wiki process is abused, is I am spending now more time on relentless reports on me based on false accusations, than actually contributing to Wiki. @Vanamonde93 - I was given unfair judgement mistakenly by the admins in the first sock report action on me, which took months to prove that crafted shared interest sock reports is not enough evidence to the admins. With or without warning, I have been careful to contribute only with proper sourcing. Admins to take note, not a single edit has been made by me WITHOUT citing any verifiable source. If so, the onus is on the one who is accusing and am concerned too of Wiki having any stain of inaccurate or false information. Careful reading of above with evidences provided by the one who raised himself shows the complaint had blatant FALSE accusations. All are equal here with different roles in Wiki. It is expected for admins with privileges entrusted to be role models to behave neutral/academic. For Aman Kumar Goel, he is observed with repeated and consistent bullying patterns of abusing wiki processes to maintain far right wing POV (Hindu Nationalism type) as discussed here. A different view is healthy, but enforcing only far right wing POV by choking others without even discussing by abusing processes is taking wiki processes and admins for granted. And the articles, I edited was with competence with careful research invested. I am even doubting with similar pattern observed in another user's page that if there is competence by the folks who are doing such mass reverts without being specific to help identify which one is inaccurate. Loveall.human (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Toddy1[edit]Regarding the first diff that Aman.kumar.goel complained about, Aman.kumar.goel wrote above: On this diff he is also throwing WP:NPA by falsely accusing other editor of vandalism: "Is this vandalism?". The inference that the diff is evidence of a personal attack by Loveall.human is not reasonable. If you accept that posting a message saying that an edit was vandalism is a personal attack then anybody who uses standard warning templates such as Template:Uw-vandalism3, Template:Uw-subtle3 and many others at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace is guilty of making a personal attack. In the diff Loveall.human is asking the basic question - what are the criteria for inclusion in religious categories and lists. The answer for living people is WP:BLPCAT - which was given in Talk:Malik Maqbul Tilangani#july in response to Loveall.human's question. It does not seem reasonable to bring Loveall.human to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for asking the question on a relevant article talk page. Both sides need to calm down. Aman.kumar.goel is one of a number of editors who are doing a good job trying to impose some discipline on these lists of religious conversions. I understand his/her frustration. But please try to understand, you too get it wrong sometimes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by User:TrangaBellam[edit]I request AKG to explain this edit. Some of the entries have been already restored by User:BlackKite. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Statement by XYZ[edit]Result concerning Loveall.human[edit]
|
Shakespeare143
[edit]| Shakespeare143 is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed (WP:ARBIPA). Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Shakespeare143[edit]
No previous sanctions, but reams of warnings on talk page.
Shakespeare143's edits are replete with unsourced content, terrible sources, and a generally flippant attitude towards WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Shakespeare143[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 Shakespeare143[edit]Not every sentence on Wikipedia needs a citation (Wikipedia describes this in detail). Am I correct? Regarding claims about Indo-Aryan Migrations and Indo-Aryan Peoples: I'm merely suggesting improvements to articles on the Talk page (I consider myself to be helping to reduce bias on Wikipedia, not promoting fringe. I provide evidence for suggestions). Hinduism in Arab states claim: It's in the body and so is the source. I was just improving the intro. List of wars etc claim 1: It belongs in multiple categories. I posted on the Talk page months ago and achieved consensus. It's a book so I thought it was relatively reliable, especially because I found the author on Google Scholar. Page 148: "The Persian historian Hasan Nizami, in his Taj-ul-Ma 'sir, records of Muhammad Ghauri’s conquest of Ajmer that ‘one hundred thousand groveling Hindus swiftly departed to the fire of hell and the invaders ... ‘". I didn't include the page number previously because I couldn't find it earlier. claim 2: That Wikipedia page is asking for high and low estimates, and I don't think 400 million is a fringe claim. I got consensus before posting it. claim 3: I don't understand his/her claim. HSS claims: There are many sources backing up my edit. I didn't include the source in the first edit because I thought that it was a noncontentious edit and I see pretty much every Wikipedia page filled with unsourced material, so I thought although sourced is preferred, unsourced is not preferred but okay sometimes (only if there actually are RS sources to back it up of course). Furthermore, even governors and mayors of cities have made statements supporting my edit. I apologize if I made a mistake in not including an RS originally. More fringe pov-pushing claim 1: Please explain how. This is the Talk page, and I thought it was not fringe. claim 2: This is by Kak himself, so I thought it was okay to include. And I thought it was relevant because it discussed Wikipedia. Summary: I don't think I have flippant attitudes toward WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. I've read about those policies and one of the reasons I edit on Wikipedia is to make Wikipedia less biased. To reiterate: I like the WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV policies, and I 100% welcome and like any and all criticisms and hope to improve based on those criticisms, because this makes me a better editor. Thank you Vanamonde93 for suggestions, and I sincerely apologize for any mistakes I've made. I'll be happy to explain any other edits I've made. Question: Is it ok if my statement is more than 500 words? It isn't now, but just asking.Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Bilorv[edit]Just dropping in to answer Shakespeare143's question Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]I agree with Vanamonde93 and support a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Shakespeare143[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Azuresky Voight
[edit]| Appeal declined. In addition, the user has been indefinitely blocked without talk page access as a normal administrator action due to an WP:OUTING violation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Azuresky Voight[edit]Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I find it absurd and unfair to be blocked from editing Wikipedia for six months due to a certain topic ban on Biography of Living Persons. The admin who imposed the ban is User:HighInBC. The first ban is the result of me getting in a dispute against another editor about the offensive content (specifically hateful anti-LGBT content) at the BLP article about RJ Nieto. I have created petitions to block the editor who added such hateful content from editing the article, but instead of investigating the content added, I was the one sanctioned for "my behavior". I have also unearthed the previous violations of that editor but it was considered "a personal attack". I was ultimately "topic banned for six months fom BLP articles" and have been blocked from Wikipedia 2 days ago. After which I went on editing non-BLP articles (specifically, Rappler and Fake News In the Philippines, Mocha Uson Blog) which are not BLP articles. So I was surprised that I was blocked again "based on an arbitration enforcement" about BLP, with the sanctioning admin citing the edits I made on the articles about certain companies and topics. How was that fair? BLP topic ban, in my understanding, is a ban against editing BLP articles. If it extends to not being allowed to editing articles that merely includes names of living people, like the founder of a company, isn't that abusive or misusing an admin tool? How am I supposed to edit an article whose details about its founder was already there, if that too is considered a BLP violation? It's absurd. It doesn't make sense. If I am to avoid editing all articles that involves even a single name of a living person, it should have been told clearly in the sanction notification. And in the first place, if such is the case, the imposition of the topic ban is oppressive and unjust. In another edit I made, I have added the name of a journalist who wrote the article I have used as a citation—this too has been considered "a violation of a topic ban on BLP", even if the article I have edited is not a biography. I am quite confused how a topic ban on BLP extends to merely editing articles names of living people, or adding content that contains names of living people on non-BLP articles, even when and especially when such edits do not cause harm to such people, or the purpose of the edit is not focused on their biography. In the first place, I am quite confused how I got blocked in the first place for raising an issue that BLP articles contain anti-LGBT materials simply because such materials have citations, when BLP policy on neutrality clearly states these are not allowed. To add insult to the injury, the editor who has added such content has not been sanctioned in any way. The editor has also tried to accuse me of using a sockpuppet with an account not on English Wikipedia, and this issue was raised on the Talk page of User:HighInBC, the admin who has imposed the sanction. I find it unjust and unfair for me, an LGBT editor, who is trying to protect biography of LGBT people from hateful content, to be the subject of this sanction. Based on the behavior of the editor I have been in dispute with, and on his conversation with the admin who imposed my sanction, I have reason to believe the two are friends and I have been the subject of an unfair decision, and that I have been the subject of discrimination. The content in question is this one I removed in this diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037294490 It was first added to the article by an IP account User:108.52.121.147 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/834416373 which has been the subject of several disputes regarding the article, has been removed several times for being properly identified as libelous and contentious, and violates BLP policy on neutrality, but the editor who I have been in dispute with insist on restoring the content, arguing that it has a WP:RS, and ignoring all protests that it was indeed contentious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/845363063 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/931927159 I have also suspicion to believe that the anonymous user that initially added this and the editor who keeps restoring it are the same person, because the editor and the IP have the same writing voice. Additionally, the editor also insists on adding the adjective "pro-Duterte" to the lead of the article re RJ Nieto. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038233612 In fact, before I revised the article to fix its contentious tone, all the problematic content were added by the editor. These include:
and so on in the guise that these are WP:RS. In fact, most these citations are merely opinion articles, and that despite having citation these should have long been removed for severe violation of NPOV. HighInBC completely ignored this and has been more focused on sanctioning me. Up to this point, the article about RJ Nito remains an attack page against the subject. This is also ignored by HighInBC. He is more focused on sanctioning me for editing non-BLP articles. The article about RJ Nieto has also been edited by a potential sockpuppet/meatpuppet of the editor, as indicated by these wikidiffs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038448712 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038523392 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038525120 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037871744 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037731466 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039042688 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037540674 These actions by the editor remains unsanctioned as well. I hereby appeal, in good faith, to overturn my sanction, and question the motives for the sanction altogether, why the sanctioning admin has focused more on blocking me while allowing the editor who has been maintaining an attack page against a living person, who is specifically an LGBT person, and the article discriminated him based on that, while also editing the attack article using at least two sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I am requesting explanation from the sanctioning administrator regarding this, as it has led me to believe that the BLP policy implementation is incongruent for different editors. It is ironic even that raising an issue about a BLP article results in sanctioning of the editor raising the issue, and ignoring the editor maintining the attack page altogether. I request the arbitration committee to reconsider my case, as I deem it both unfair and unjust, and also abusive, and also to reconsider the initial issue I have been raising, which is the problematic articles maintained by the editor, and also to investigate his sock/meatpuppets. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by HighInBC[edit]Started when I saw page marked as an attack page: Dennis Jose Borbon. While sourced it was in a negative tone and far from neutral. Containing no previous neutral versions I deleted it without prejudice against recreation in a neutral fashion. warned Azuresky about this, as did others: User talk:Azuresky Voight#August 2021. Their response was to insist that the BLP policy did not apply to articles that had sources. I told them that was just part of the policy. I pointed out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. I then realized that the article was deleted by another admin as an attack page earlier that day: Special:Undelete/Dennis Jose Borbon. They had just recreated it. I also noticed they had created the same article as a draft in the past: Draft:Dennis Jose Borbon. Given their continued insistence that BLP only applied to unsourced content I gave them a BLP DS notice: [9]. Next I hear from the edit they had posted private information on my userpage, I don't know what as it was oversighted[10][11] and also to an article talk page[12] and the BLP noticeboard[13]. This was the first I noticed a pattern of harassment towards User:Object404 in the area of BLP. I noticed that they were in an edit war at Mocha Uson. Their response to the edit warring warning was to accuse the other editor, Object404, of vandalism. I also noticed a post to Bbb23 attacking Object404 by bringing up a years old block and various accusations of bad faith[14]. A near identical post was made to the BLP noticeboard[15]. There are many misapplications of the BLP policy and examples of hostile behavior in the area of BLP but 500 word limit. The final straw was when they repeated their attack on Object404[16] and then applied the attack page template in response to a content dispute here[17]. Realizing that this user in incapable of working collaboratively in the area of BLP I issued a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions: [18]. They immediately violated this topic ban[19]. I responded with a 48 hour block, assuming good faith that they had not read it I made the block short. They proceeded to violated the topic ban on their talk page so I revoked talk page access and implored them to read and understand the topic ban policy. Explained ban applies to topic everwhere[20]. Checking in on them a few days later I found multiple violations: [21][22][23][24](there are more). I blocked for 6 months. They posted appeal shown here. @Object404: @Bbb23: HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC) @Materialscientist: HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Jackattack1597[edit]Noting that Azuresky also attempted to create the Dennis Jose Borbon article on the Simple English Wikipedia. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/simple.wikipedia.org/Azuresky%20Voight/allJackattack1597 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Object404[edit]Just read the full appeal statement at Azuresky Voight's talk page as of this version. The attacks against me continue. He now accuses me of sock/meatpuppetry via Crisantom, a person I do not interact with nor know the identity of. I had an issue before, was appropriately sanctioned and served my time, so I'm careful about that now. For the suppressed information, AV outed my real name multiple times on different pages on Wikipedia, something I do not appreciate as I edit sensitive topics and can constitute a danger to my personal safety. As for the BLPs, I don't believe I ever put "fake news peddler" nor "state sponsored troll" on the RJ Nieto page, so User:AV is making false accusations. As for the subject article RJ Nieto, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines itself calls him "a barefaced liar" and the NUJP says "That Nieto did all this under oath (during a Senate of the Philippines hearing on Fake News) should have earned him a perjury charge or a contempt citation at the very least,". Nieto's multiple false claims and spreading of misinformation are very well-documented by many major journalistic broadsheets and news programs in the Philippines as well as fact-checkers, so I don't think stating that Nieto "has posted fake news and misinformation multiple times on his blog and Facebook page" is a violation of BLP. It's merely stating a neutral fact, much like how Alex Jones's article states "Jones' website, InfoWars, promotes conspiracy theories and fake news, as do his other websites NewsWars and PrisonPlanet". I fail to see too how any of this is an LGBT-related attack as AV claims. As for AV's claim that Nieto's inciting violence towards journalists are merely sourced from opinion articles, this is also false, as the NUJP itself castigated Nieto for urging the Presidential Spokesperson to hurl a cinder block at journalist Pia Ranada on the national political radio talk show Karambola (not a lampoon show as AV claims). The NUJP made the statement '"We support our colleague Pia and will support criminal and civil charges she may decide to file against Nieto.' For the term "pro-Duterte", this is the term the largest journalistic news organizations in the Philippines use to decribe Nieto,123 and is not my term. Also, since when has the term "pro-__President_X__" been a negative term? Unless it is AV himself who thinks supporting the current Philippine president is a bad thing? Anyway, I also find that Azuresky Voight been quite disruptive in his edits and embarked on a campaign of deleting entire swathes of content that he does not agree with multiple times on different pages (in one case, blanking an entire article), despite being sourced by WP:RS. This, I believe has been tantamount to whitewashing of facts he perceive to be negative of subjects, despite not being violative of BLP policies. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Crisantom[edit]Hi, I'm here because Azuresky Voight cites some of my edits as evidence of me being a "potential sockpuppet/meatpuppet" of Object404. I would like to put on record that I am not anyone's sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I have made my edits of my own accord. At least two of the edits in question involve the article RJ Nieto: (1) I removed a passage saying Mr. Drilon "became infamously known as the 'sleeping senator'" since the cited source did not say anything of the sort, as per BLP and wp:verify, and (2) I also removed a sentence that said "NUJP's reactions demonstrate how exaggerations by the media hurts the credibiity [sic] of media", since the sources do not mention the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, much less characterize NUJP's statement as such (examples of exaggerations that hurt media's credibility). Azuresky Voight also notes a comment I left on the Talk:Fake news in the Philippines discussion where I expressed my opinion that the article should be kept, but I don't see how this can be construed as sockpuppetry. I hope this helps clear some things up. -Crisantom (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 4)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Azuresky Voight[edit]Result of the appeal by Azuresky Voight[edit]
|
Number 57
[edit]| No action taken. However User:Number 57 is advised that WP:1RR was broken and a similar breach must not be repeated. Further, User:Onceinawhile is advised that a contested move must be discussed, particularly at an article under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Number 57[edit]
Number 57 is an experienced (and excellent) editor. Per our discussion at User_talk:Number_57#1RR, he does not believe that a page move can be a revert. I gave him the opportunity to self-revert, but he does not wish to do so as explained at [25]
Thanks to all the admins for weighing in on this one. If we are going to clarify the rules, some work on the language at WP:RMUM and a rough consensus of what "a long time" means would be helpful. Although no-one has stated it explicitly, I assume from the comments that a number of admins don't believe one month on an article of this level of visibility is enough to constitute "a long time" as described at WP:RMUM. If so, what then would "a long time" be, and what is a good rule of thumb for figuring this out going forward? I ask this because I find the post mortem a little confusing - I want to have a clear idea of what exactly should have happened here. Number 57 moved what I considered a stable and consensual title to a prior title; if you believe one month to be "a long time" as I did, then my undoing of Number 57's move was entirely correct per WP:RMUM. To add to the uncertainty, the prior title Number 57 chose was also undiscussed and had only silent consensus, albeit for a slightly longer period (2-3 months). If one month is not "a long time" but 2-3 months is, then I can understand Number 57's point of view. If neither period is "a long time", then presumably the most correct course of action would have been to undo Number 57's first move but instead to a much earlier version of the page title which had been there for a much longer time. Any comments on this would be greatly appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Number 57[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 Number 57[edit]Hello and sorry everyone's time is being wasted with this. The ARBPIA4 1RR sanction is as follows: "One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content..." (bolding mine for emphasis). The matter being disputed here is a page move, not an edit made to content. The core issue here is the filer ignoring due process by reinstating an undiscussed and potentially controversial page move after the article had been moved back to the previous title. I asked several times for them to file an RM if they had an issue with the previous title, but instead they chose to bring the matter here. Cheers, Number 57 22:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@HighInBC: While I can understand the 'spirit' argument, if we want to include moves in the ARBPIA restrictions, 1RR doesn't go far enough, as it is in conflict with WP:RMUM. The restriction should be tighter than 1RR as editors should not be allowed to make a second attempt at an undiscussed move (except in limited circumstances of titles being obviously in error). If you apply 1RR, they may feel entitled to do so, knowing the other editor can't undo the move. If there should be a formal RR restriction on moves, it should be 0RR applied to the original mover - i.e. preventing them from trying to force through an undiscussed move. This would be compliant with WP:RMUM. There are also exemptions to the 1RR rule for edits, such as when the other editor has not met the 30/500 criteria). I would suggest that given the nature of the move process, if RR restrictions applied to moves, it would be sensible to have exemptions, and IMO one reasonable one would be for moving articles back to a previous title following an undiscussed move, because this is what should happen in the vast majority of circumstances (and you are saving everyone the hassle of a WP:RM#TR, which would almost always result in a move back). If people think there should be restrictions on moves within the ARBPIA rules, I suggest that the outcome of this discussion is that the matter is referred to WP:ARCA to seek a formal clarification/amendment to the ARBPIA rules, which at the moment have a clear definition of the restriction applying to "edits made to content". I would also suggest that we go for a 0RR rule on editors making an initial page move (i.e. if you move a page and that move is reverted, you must not move it to the same title again and should instead use the RM process). I will of course abide by any amended rules. Cheers, Number 57 02:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by selfstudier[edit]I assume from the commentary here and here that we are going to be on the receiving end of a lawyer's defense. Technicalities aside, this sort of thing strikes me as being less than helpful, particularly in view of the gracious attempt by filer to resolve the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Edit: Crossed in transit, said lawyerly defense now received.Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC) On the narrow point, the big red box says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." and that's a policy page. Even if technically not an edit it is certainly undoing other editor's actions which is what most people would construe as a revert. WP:PMWAR, an essay.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC) @Ymblanter: Not an RFC, OK? Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by GoodDay[edit]AFAIK, page moves aren't counted as edits. An RM to have the page moved, should've been the route. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by 力[edit]Somehow it's not entirely clear whether the 1RR rule applies to page moves, but it certainly should. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC) I think a violation did occur. As this is effectively a first offense for an editor primarily active in topic areas other than Israel-Palestine (no evidence of a pattern of behavior is presented, and I don't care what happened in 2010), a warning would be more than sufficient. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 09:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I also do agree with Number 57's argument that there ought to be a 0RR rule for page moves. If your page move on a controversial Discretionary Sanctions topic is reverted, you must not re-revert the article title without using the Requested Move process. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 09:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC) An ARBCOM case for wheel-warring is necessary here? Very funny. Very, very funny. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]Seems to me the wikilawyering is over WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Personally I think barely surviving one month on a page with 20 active watchers is hardly "settled as status quo" and minimal evidence that the parties were in agreement. Especially when we're talking about claimed neutrality concerns in a contentious topic area. A consensus discussion (ie, an RM) should be held to resolve the dispute (as per WP:DR), and the article restored to the status quo title (which is the current). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]I don't think Number57 would have done these things if s/he thought they were a 1RR violation, so I don't think that any sanction is appropriate. More to the point is the question of whether the page title is part of the page content. My opinion is that it would be really silly if editing a section heading could be a revert but editing the page heading could not be. The most sensible option is for changes to the title to fall under the revert rules. That is not 100% clear at the moment, so I propose that a good outcome of this case would be that the policy is tweaked to make it clear. Zerotalk 06:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hippeus[edit]Number57 broke technically broke 1RR, but Onceinawhile's unclean hands scream bloody murder. In reversing the move back to the stable title, Onceinawhile broke WP:RMUM ("if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again.") which is policy that applies to all pages, not just ARBPIA. The arguably broke RMUM with their initial move on 10 July as "It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move" is not met, particularly given Onceinawhile's previous disruption on categories in this very issue (see: Category:Nakba discussion). Onceinawhile was previously topic banned from ARBPIA, and in the beginning of the year was subject to a warning and final warning. The gall to make this request with such unclean hands should lead to sanctions against Onceinawhile.--Hippeus (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra[edit]
Statement by MJL[edit]@In actu, Guerillero, and Black Kite: See Wikipedia:Page mover#delete-redirect. Any user can delete a single-edit redirect in order to move a page that redirect currently targets. As far as I am aware, that has been the case for a while (before the Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Number 57[edit]
|
Plebian-scribe
[edit]| Plebian-scribe blocked one week for topic ban violation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Plebian-scribe[edit]
Notified of topic ban on 28 April
Discussion concerning Plebian-scribe[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 Plebian-scribe[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Plebian-scribe[edit]
|
Olden Creed
[edit]| Olden Creed blocked one week for topic ban violation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Olden Creed[edit]
Pretty clear-cut violation of a DS topic ban. Olden Creed did not acknowledge the ANI thread or topic ban and apparently has no intention of stopping their behavior in this topic area that led to the sanctions in the first place. DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Olden Creed[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 Olden Creed[edit]Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]This is a pretty blatant violation, but I'm also wondering if there's a serious communication issue here; I see they have made exactly 2 talk page edits, and 0 user talk edits, thus far. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Olden Creed[edit]
|
Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič
[edit]| There seem to be little interest in reviewing this complaint, which seems to have migrated to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič, anyway — and boy, is its OP long (kinda per usual, Pofka, which again, I think hurts your case more than helps it). Anyway, this appears to be a broader dispute among Belorussian and Lithuanians (or something). I've ARBEE-protected several pages pertaining to it since this report was filed (two at ECP level). Anyway anyway, not sure having this AE report remain open as a sort of placeholder is that useful of a thing to do right now. I'd give it a couple more weeks if I thought anything would come of it, but that seems doubtful. Dispute participants: please don't come to my talk page again with WP:TLDRs. I don't read these, anyway, and I've also reached my quota of suppressed revisions for the year. El_C 10:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič[edit]
User Kazimier Lachnovič is already well known for his national hatred against Lithuania and Lithuanians, so it is not surprising that he continues to perform disruptive edits in the Lithuanian topics. Here are his edits in which he called the Lithuanians as rubbish in a discussion concerning with Pahonia (1, 2, 3). He also recently performed an intensive edit warring before the Wikipedia:Consensus was reached (see edit history of article Pahonia from 3 April 2021). Also, Kazimier Lachnovič previously was warned that he is a full-time edit warrior already in 2010, and was even blocked for edit warring in Lithuanian topics (blocking message by an administrator ; report). Moreover, Kazimier Lachnovič was also blocked multiple times in the Lithuanian Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior (Kazimier's blocking history). Same with user Hugo.arg (see his blocking history).
I request to permanently lock article Pahonia in order to ensure the Wikipedia:Consensus reached by the Wikipedia community as nobody should be able to continue edit warring in the future in this disruptive article. WP:LISTEN.
Discussion concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič[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 Cukrakalnis[edit]One of the two nominated users, Kazimier Lachnovič, is a notoriously problematic user, whose behaviour has not changed an inkling following the DS applied to him. Instead of learning from them, he continues pushing his POV and personally insults those disagreeing. Instances of this are this, this and this, among many others. Looking at the evidence, it is clear that Kazimier Lachnovič should be issued a global block. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]I am deeply uninvolved with this dispute and just have some housekeeping comments. I believe that the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" should be Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. If that is the case at hand, then Kazimier Lachnovič is formally "aware", having been alerted in this April edit. I do not believe Hugo.arg is aware, because:
I hope this has been helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Kazimier Lachnovič[edit]First of all, as Belarusian I obviously have more important things to do now that to fight obvious absurd here. The deletion of the article about the national emblem of Belarusians is obvious vandalism and a clear manifestation of supporting the terroristic pro-Russian Lukashenko's regime by the English Wikipedia. So, many Belarusians are arrested and tortured by the regime for using Pahonia, that according to the English Wikipedia is just the emblem of the foreign state (Lietuva). Calling these people "traitors" is exactly what the regime does in its propaganda. So, thanks a lot for helping the Lukashenko's propaganda! Be sure, Belarusians will never forget such "help". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC) jc37[edit]Besides merely closing the RfC, to my knowledge, I have no interaction with any of this. As of coming my online just now, it doesn't appear that Kazimier Lachnovič has continued reverting. If they had, I would have issued an immediate preventative block. As I don't regularly handle Arbitration enforcement requests, I am fine with leaving that with whomever addresses this here. For whatever it may be worth, please consider me notified and having given my "explicit prior affirmative consent", per the top of this page. (Though of course if I see continued WP:DE, I may sanction (block/protect/etc) as any uninvolved admin might, to help prevent disruption, etc.) - jc37 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič - case opened by User:Pofka - jc37 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Ymblanter[edit]I will only be making a statement concerning the behavior of Kazimier Lachnovič, since Hugo.arg apparently have not been notified of discretionary sanctions, and also did not demonstrate long-term disruptive behavior. Concerning Kazimier Lachnovič, most of their recent contribution on the English Wikipedia is changing names of the files they have renamed on Commons, work a bot usually does, and outside of this activity they do not have so many contributions, therefore I will sometimes provide diffs from Commons, where their behavior is equally problematic. First, their statement, just above mine, clearly demonstrated battleground mentality. They participated in the edit-warring, leaving this edit summary (Vandalism based on illegal RfC closure, clear national discrimination of Belarusians), whereas the RfC was closed by a perfectly neutral administrator, and reverts were legitimate; this was their message at the talk page of the administrator. Indeed, in my observations, Kazimier Lachnovič only knows two methods of dispute resolutions: reverting forever (see this as an additional example to what is being discussed in this AE request) and insulting their opponents. Note them calling me Nazi in this Commons thread. When challenged against these insults, they first double down (like with this Nazi accusation), and then typically say that they only would be discussing anything with "reasonable users" (thus implying their opponents are unreasonable) and disappear, You can find the examples in the threads presenting by Cukrakalnis above. In the same threads, there is evidence of off-wiki coordination they participated in (which resulted in coordinated reverts on en.wiki). I have no opinion whether Pahonia must be an article or a redirect, but I know that this attitude is not compatible with the technical ability to edit the English Wikipedia, which, in my opinion, should be revoked.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Pofka (Kazimier Lachnovič sock puppetry investigation case)[edit]As already mentioned by jc37, following this report, Kazimier Lachnovič used sock puppetry to perform disruptive edits in the Lithuanian articles: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič. -- Pofka (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW
[edit]| Appeal declined. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by TillermanJimW[edit]For being unfair and overly draconian (a week?) if not punitive – particularly for a new user, and not taking into account a number of extenuating circumstances. While I will freely admit to having transgressed 3RR – mea culpa, shoot me at dawn – and will promise not to do so again (cross my heart and hope to die), I also think there are a number of extenuating circumstances that the blocking administrator neglected to consider. And first and foremost is that in the “notice of edit warring” posted by Crosstalk, he said “the editors removing his comment from the talk page were themselves in the wrong by removing a comment about content without justification”. While, as WP:GAB notes, two wrongs don’t make a right, those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts which seems rather unfair right out of the chute. But more importantly, the crux of the discussion – which was removed by those other editors including the blocking administrator – is that I had posted, as per WP:NPOVD, the requisite tag [POV] on the main page – which was reverted within 3 or 4 minutes before I’d even had time to complete the posting of the required explanatory section in the talk page called for in that NPOVD document. Which raises the question, regardless of my 3RR transgression, to what extent any of the editors who reverted my posts addressing the issue, including the blocking administrator himself, are justified in removing that NPOV tag. At least without some evidence of addressing the points presented – which did not happen at all. And particularly where Crosstalk himself acknowledged that “His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM." Had kinda thought – on some evidence (Five Pillars) – that the NPOV policy was more or less trump and that it would have been sufficient to at least temper the application of that sanction – as I had said. But I hadn’t even realized a sanction was in force as Crosstalk’s post only talked about “a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring” – not that a sanction had been applied. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that, but it should count for something. In any case, when or if you rescind my block – sooner would be better as there are other edits I have in mind on less controversial issues – I’ll look into the possibility of taking that NPOV dispute re the Hubbard article to the NPOV noticeboard. However, as the putative POV transgression took place in the Hubbard article that seems to be where the discussion should take place. To that end, it might expedite things if you were to revert that POV tag and my justifications for it - if that is at all possible. Maybe even add a page block or protections or whatever else you might think is appropriate in the circumstances. But I think that issue has to be addressed in one place or another. So would appreciate the earliest rescinding of my block so I can proceed as soon as possible accordingly. Thanks for addressing these points. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Gadfium[edit]I blocked under the WP:ARBGENDER discretionary sanctions because TillermanJimW is tendentiously arguing about the difference between sex and gender at an article about an individual. The issue here that TillermanJimW takes issue with is that the article Laurel Hubbard says "she transitioned to female". This is the accepted way to express a gender transition. If they want to persuade the community to change the usual terminology, they need to do so on an appropriate WikiProject or policy talk page. My involvement here is as an editor on New Zealand topics, and Hubbard is a moderately prominent New Zealander especially because of the recent Summer Olympics. I'm not involved in transgender issues as such, so I'm not sure which would be the best place for TillermanJimW to express their views; perhaps one of the talk pages of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject LGBT studies, or WikiProject Gender studies. I'm sure a brief and polite question on any of those talk pages would get a response advising of the most appropriate venue. The appeal does not give me any confidence that they understand the reason why they were blocked or that they intend to change their behaviour.-gadfium 08:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Newimpartial[edit]I am involved in some sense, yes, but not in the reverts that led to Tillerman's 3RR. And I'm not weighing in here, either, except to offer convenient links for this editor's WP:IDONTHEARTHAT comments on their user Talk page after requesting this appeal: [32], [33], [34]. This doesn't seem promising. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TillermanJimW[edit]Result of the appeal by TillermanJimW[edit]
|
Solavirum
[edit]| Last chance saloon for Solavirum against violating the topic ban yet again, in light of them agreeing to avoid a much wider set of topics: "related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc." As I note below, the next violation is almost certain to lead to sanctions of considerable severity. Will record this in the log. El_C 14:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Solavirum[edit]
Solavirum has violated their topic ban for the 3rd of 4th time now.[1] The tban was from pages relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed. A historic ruler of an Azerbaijani province falls under the ban area. Previously, in one of their tban violation blocks, the enforcing admin Drmies blocked them for 2 weeks saying that “many will consider that relatively mild”.[2] Arb enforcement log of their blocks.[3] Previous ANI cases involving Solavirum’s tban violations.[4], [5]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Solavirum[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 Solavirum[edit]ZaniGiovanni, I don't understand, why is this violation of the topic ban exactly? The article's topic is about an Iranian statesman. I don't have a topic ban on Iran related articles. There was no "Azerbaijani province" back in the 1600s. The Turkic Azerbaijan in the north of Aras only emerged in the early 20th century, before that the only "Azerbaijan" was in north of Iran (see Iranica). The topic is also about a non-Azerbaijani. The article itself isn't even in Wikiproject Azerbaijan, and to prove the contrary, please provide some WP:RS, because what you're doing is WP:OR. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 17:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by MJL[edit]@Solavirum: Abbas Qoli-Khan was a beglerbeg of Ganǰa according to [36]. He's listed under Category:Safavid governors of Ganja. I agree that it is a bit silly that figures like Abbas Qoli-Khan (who's connection to the topic of the modern nation of Azerbaijan is rather incidental), but you really should've learned by now to be really careful regarding this kind of stuff.
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Solavirum[edit]
|
GoodDay
[edit]| Withdrawn by filer. El_C 21:10, 27 August 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 GoodDay[edit]
GoodDay has left notices at seven talk pages of articles that use Template:Infobox officeholder, asking editors to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#MoS_RfC_closure_challenge:_job_title_capitalization_in_infoboxes, a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that I opened. GoodDay has made clear they strongly object to the challenge ([37], [38], [39], [40]). Given that this template is transcluded on over 183,000 pages, I'm suspicious of how these articles were selected. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says: GoodDay says in the discussion that they
I reached out to GoodDay on their talk page to inform them of my concern and ask them to revert. They have refused to do so. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) @Shibbolethink: Thanks for this. GoodDay has said they expect editors at Australian and American bios to object to lowercasing. That covers most of the articles they left these messages on: Gavin Newsom, Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Kathy Hochul. WP:CANVASS doesn't require that the editors canvassed actually take the position the canvasser expects, only that the canvasser expects them to take a certain position. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GoodDay[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 GoodDay[edit]I've left neutral notices on seven highly profile bio article talkpages, concerning an WP:AN discussion which may affect them. There's absolutely 'no way', I can know which side of the argument, editors who frequent those bios, will chose. I'm not a mind reader. TBH, I find by filing this report, Tartan357 is over-reacting & breaching WP:AGF. PS - Why am I being reported here anyway? I'm not under any sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC) PS: I must confess. I don't appreciate Tartan357's hostile attitude, towards me. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC) If I remove the notices (which don't breach WP:CANVASS), would Tartan357 withdraw this report? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Indeed @Shibbolethink:, those supposed pro-capitalize editors can easily turn out to be pro-lower case editors. Tartan357, might be killing a chance that he'll get support from editors at those seven bios. He's the one who's apparently assuming that they'll all chose 'capitalization'. Not me. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC) FWIW: Tartan357 has 'mis-linked' my so-called refusal at my talkpage. My response was "Doubt it, as I have absolutely no way of knowing 'which' side those editors will take. I left a 'neutral' message on those 'seven' bios". If one's going to link to comments, they should do so correctly. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Again, Tartan357 gets it wrong. He's suggesting that I'm a mind-reader. If I were to say that "Donald Duck is going to get fired by Walt Disney Studios". How would I know that? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC) BTW @Tartan357:, you're suppose to respond to other editors in your own statement section. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shibbolethink[edit]I have no involvement in this dispute, and haven't interacted much with either of these editors, and have not participated in the RfC. However, I would like to lay out a concern I have after reading this discussion casually... The filing editor (Tartan357) states the following:
Tartan357, your argument has a hole in it. It would serve you well, in my humble opinion, to provide evidence of discussions on at least several of these 7 talk pages demonstrating such users who are en masse against lowercased professions in infoboxes, and thereby showing that this was actually CANVASSING. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not the packaging.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99[edit]I'm not involved in this incident but am generally dismayed that these disputes are still with us all these years on. There are unsurprisingly a heck of a lot of US and Australian biographies in the English Wikipedia. If there is a systematic preference among the editors of those articles to capitalize office names one way while the MOS says to capitalize another way, then it cannot be said that the MOS documents sitewide consensus on the matter. The "local consensus" being whined about is in fact local to the MOS, while the observable approaches of 1000s of articles all over the site are what is actually sitewide. Therefore, if the bias that Good Day supposedly imputes to the contributors of those biographies really exists, then he has found an error or misrepresentation in the MOS that should be fixed, with our thanks. If the bias doesn't exist then he hasn't canvassed. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning GoodDay[edit]
|
._%D0%9C%D1%96%D1%80._%D0%A4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D1%86%D1%91%D0%BB.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
Vanlister
[edit]| No action taken. Spirit if not the letter of 1RR was not broken in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 31 August 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 Vanlister[edit]
I asked them to undo their last edit here, or they would be reported. Alas, they seem not to want to undo it, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Vanlister[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 Vanlister[edit]I did revert one time, the first time was not reverting anyone prior. Huldra use of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement requests is done instead of collaboration and in practice to bypass dialogue which is highly prejudicial, and a provocation (sending a message without letting the time to answer, etc). My modification was essentially to remove a highly controversial statement from the lead that wasn't presented as such ( but was presented as such in the text), Huldra should therefore justify his agressive revert instead of reverting other's without expressing motivations. (Also my past block was linked to a dispute concerning Chomsky views and antisemitism in UK not about Kenneth Roth) --Vanlister (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier[edit]
Statement by Hippeus[edit]@HighInBC:, Vanlister's first edit removed something that was added three years prior on 5 March 2018. Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169. This complaint is vexatious and without merit, Huldra should know that reverting IP editors (from three years ago!) does not fall under the 1RR restriction that says: "Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion". As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here.--Hippeus (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The diffs by ZScarpia show some attribution being added and removed between 2018 and 2021 in front of the sentence. However, as far as I can tell, when Vanlister made their edit the sentence stood without attribution phrased almost identically to the blurb the IP added ([44] vs. [45]). I did not find any removal of this blurb prior to Vanlister's removal, so if this was a revert (of ages old material), it was a revert of the IP and no one else.--Hippeus (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]Hippeus's point would be more persuasive if Vanlister had used an edit summary noting that his revert was exempt on this basis. As things stand, it just looks like a removal of sourced material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia[edit]Hippeus: "Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169." Between being added by an IP editor and removed by Vanlister, the text in question has been edited by registered users (for example: [46][47][48]). Like Selfstudier, I don't want to seem to be seeking the sanctioning of a relatively new editor. However, I think it would be best to ensure that Vanlister understands that the first edit does count as a revert. Hippeus: "This complaint is vexatious and without merit. ... As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here." Incorrect and hyper-exagerrated. ← ZScarpia 16:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shike[edit]Its frivolous filing.Its long time practice that we don't count removal of long standing material as revert but an edit[49] --Shrike (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Vanlister[edit]
|
Davidbena
[edit]| Davidbena blocked for one month for the issue reported here. Plus an additional five weeks for other issues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:19, 3 September 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 Davidbena[edit]
The canvassing occurred between 15:49 and 19:40 on the 27 August to "like-minded editors"
At Davidbena talk page refers. Regardless of the outcome here, it would be desirable to amend the tban so as to clarify that the tban applies in the case of articles where it is clear and obvious that "...pre-modern Levantine history and modern Levantine politics are inextricably linked" or "geopolitical features such as borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute" applies, discussions formal and informal at City of David, Silwan /King's Garden refer.
Discussion concerning Davidbena[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 Davidbena[edit]Yes, it is true that, while in a discussion on whether or not to merge the article King's Garden (Jerusalem) with Silwan, I sought a wider feedback from other editors, and which violated the policy of canvassing, for which I am sorry, but which have since rescinded each message, and have promised not to do this again. In fact, what I did was clearly a misunderstanding on my part, as I wrote asking for an opinion, without telling them how they should vote, but giving them the option to accept the merge or decline the merge, thinking that this was permissible, so long as I didn't tell them which way they are to vote. When I was informed of my mistake, I immediately rescinded each message and stated that I would voluntarily put myself under a month restriction from editing any Wikipedia page on main space, as a punitive measure (see here), so that this action will never be repeated by me again. If I might add, too, while the proscription of canvassing was explained to me back in 2014, as you can see here, what may have misled me was the editor's words: "While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view." (In this case, I think that I actually kept everything quite neutral). Background: I am an editor who has been active on promoting accurate coverage of biblical sites on Wikipedia, among other subjects of universal interest, and seeing that the article King's Garden (Jerusalem) is one of those important biblical sites, with a viable and notable history of its own, I strongly felt opposed to any merger with Silwan, for the reasons given in the Merge Request (see here). My mistake was to seek a broader feedback from other editors about either the necessity of a merge, or else its redundancy and inessentiality, which I have since rescinded. It is important to recognize one's mistakes, which I do, and ask the community's understanding that mistakes on this venue are sometimes unavoidable, being that we are human. And, in case anyone here is wondering, I whole-heartedly respect all peoples who live in this country and I have no wish whatsoever to bring politics into my edits (which I think my accuser here may have been worried about). My view is and will always be that all peoples, nations and ethnicities (whether Jew, Muslim or Christian) have their special place and role in Israel/Palestine. This has been my personal guideline and it will always be. I see no reason to be put under any topic ban, as I have not breached any imposed topic ban. In my humble opinion, it would be disproportionate to punish an editor found guilty of canvassing with a ban on editing all scientific articles or a ban on editing articles of Biographies of Living Persons (BLP). I will remind my fellow editors here that, occasionally, editors will disagree with one another, but even so, there is a place for handling content dispute. So far, my accuser and I have not resorted to that venue, and, hopefully, we will never have to do so.Davidbena (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Davidbena[edit]
|