Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312
USaamo
edit| USaamo's topic ban expanded to cover all of WP:ARBIPA, appealable no sooner than six months from now signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning USaamoedit
Apart from 2 of these diffs, he has also violated his topic ban on August 2020,[3] and also on May 2022.[4] Both times he was clarified that the topic ban is broadly construed. I hadn't reported either violation, only asked him to back off, but both times he was not understanding how he is violating the topic ban. When he violated it last week, I reported at User talk:EdJohnston#Continued topic ban violation by USaamo, where he again failed to accept the topic ban violation. WP:IDHT again. Few weeks ago, I already provided my comment just above at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Aman.kumar.goel that why USaamo needs a broader topic ban himself, given his long-term inability to edit in this area. These recent topic ban violations just prove it further. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: A topic ban violation is a topic ban violation. Why a warning? This is USaamo's 4th topic ban violation since he has been topic banned. He deliberately violated the topic ban on 6th October even after being told about it. You can take a look at his response here. He is still not accepting his topic ban violation and assuming bad faith with his WP:BATTLEy response. I still recommend extending topic ban or a block for violation at minimum. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Vice regent: With this falsification of evidence, you are complying with a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for which you were already warned by WP:ARBCOM during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#Vice regent warned. Contrary to your false claims, this report was filed not after "getting into content disputes" but a number of topic ban violations by USaamo because he is refusing to understand the definition of his topic ban. The content was added by a sock months ago. Not to mention the sources are weak and even cite unreliable ones. I made many attempts to describe USaamo a few times on his talk page but he was ignoring it.[8] To claim that "Aman.kumar.goel's edits violated policy" and "Usaamo modified the article text to match the sources", is absurd because it was already made clear to USaamo that Pakistan is not a regional power and it has been already extensively discussed but he ignored all inputs and continued to edit war, just like he did on 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and is now edit warring at Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault. This edit is not a revert, neither this edit is any BLP violation or undue. If you seriously thought that these diffs are going to divert from USaamo's behavior then your behavior is even more concerning. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning USaamoeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by USaamoeditA useless report and yet another attempt to drag me to AE to frustrate me out. I suggest AE should have a preliminary scrutiny for reports to be formally accepted for proceedings here. It will not only save their time but will also protect users from being dragged into baseless and frivolous reports. Update (Please allow it if it gets past 500 words) I really intended no edit war from start but somehow I was dragged into it as some editors with no prior editing history at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault (but significant interaction history with OP[19]) showed up and reverted me one after one but I shouldn't have involved in edit-warring from my side which I highly regret, perhaps I should have been more patient in the process. As to the new edit-warring allegations brought up by Aman.kumar.goel on behalf of one of those editors, I only meant to improve the RfC discussion at talkpage as I filed for RfC close after editors suggested for convenience of the closer and gathered relevant responses as the discussions have been quite long and messy over there per WP:TPG. As to the moving one of comment below I wasn't sure that RfC can be restarted after template was removed month prior and the editor who started it also viewed about summing it up month ago. I even asked about it from other editor whose comment was being moved. USaamo (t@lk) 17:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @EdJohnston:, @Swarm:, @RegentsPark:, @Hut 8.5: I showed my resolve to abide by topic ban and regretted edit-warring from my side but still if it's necessary to sanction me and that will make Wikipedia better, fair enough. But there's an important note at the top of this AE which states:
I don't understand even after highlighting the problematic behaviour of the OP from edit-warring to POV pushing, see VR's statement and report below for further illustration, there's not a single word from Admins, not even mere warning against him. Best of luck for AE's neutrality! USaamo (t@lk) 09:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Statement by VanamondeeditI recommend not expanding this to "pages that mention an India-Pakistan war"; that's a recipe for wikilawyering, and giving opponents a chance to play Gotcha. Is there a reason to prevent Usaamo from editing Henry Kissinger? If Usaamo is skirting the edge of the ban, I recommend broadening to an Indo-Pakistani conflict TBAN, or enforcing the ban with escalating blocks. If there's confusion about the edges of a TBAN, Usaamo ought to be aware that asking is better than assuming the TBAN doesn't apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by KoAeditVanamonde, I was curious to dig a little after seeing your comments, and your thoughts would directly contradict the topic ban. Here was EdJohnston's close That's not to comment on the merits of this request at all, but I am wary of DS sanctions being undermined by those claiming the DS are being weaponized, playing gotcha, etc. when the broadly construed boundaries of those sanctions were already laid out. This topic ban was pretty clear as day, and broadly construed sanctions like that are done for a reason. If someone is pushing the boundaries, that is on the topic banned person regardless of if they are being WP:HOUNDed or not. KoA (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenoneditI was quoted above (correctly) as having offered to mediate a dispute. I will only mediate any dispute between editors who are free to edit in the area in question. I will instruct the editors not to edit the article in question, but the editors must be in good standing to edit. The editor to whom I made that offer has been topic-banned, so that that offer is moot. I am again willing to try to mediate another dispute, but only if there are no topic-bans. So I was probably pinged above merely as a courtesy note. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Statement by Vice_regenteditIMO, admins should not levy any sanctions until the behavior of all users in this dispute has been examined. There is a pattern of behavior of Aman.kumar.goel getting into content disputes and then using this board to have their opponents sanctioned. In fact, Black Kite observed this pattern earlier: "
Statement by Oriental AristocrateditAKG's own conduct is questionable and they seem to be a serial disruptor. Let's take for example this revert they made. They call other's edit as disruptive editing without assuming good faith and make a revert that removes large chunks of long-standing text without giving any reason. I see that a WP:BOOMERANG is in offing as they clearly show a behavior of someone who's WP:NOTHERE. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Statement by Fowler&fowlereditI don't know anything about U Saamo, but I have just edited the lead of Two-nation theory and disabused it of its exceptionally deliberate and deep-rooted pro-India-POV, and by that I mean a pro-India slant that is nowhere to be found in the scholarly consensus. It was so deliberate and so pervasive that I was left aghast. Whatever U Saamo's antecedents maybe, removing POV from a toxic Wikipedia article should not be considered a violation of a topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning USaamoedit
|
Toa Nidhiki05
edit| Toa Nidhiki05 is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Toa Nidhiki05edit
Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC) More issuesedit
Discussion concerning Toa Nidhiki05editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Toa Nidhiki05editWhat a ludicrous report. There’s no consensus for this edit (numerous others have rejected it), as others have noted, and more importantly it isn’t backed up. I should be a bit nicer, but frankly my patience for regurgitation of base hyperpartisan talking points (which both FormalDude and Viriditas have insisted on making}} to justify inflammatory and unproductive edits is minimal. Repeated claims like “this is a fact” while citing to left-wing think tanks are not what I’d consider to be productive discussions. What's abundantly clear is that FormalDude either does not understand that partisan think tanks are not reputable sources of fact, or he doesn't care. And now it’s clear that, rather than actually present quality referencing or engaging, FormalDude just wants to remove me. This case should be summarily closed and returned to the talk page. For some examples of what's been going on on the page, which includes less-than-polite discussion from both sides.
All of this because some editors object to a hyperlink in a subheading. It's clear this discussion has become heated, but FormalDude's report here is simply not helpful. At all. I urge people to actually look at the edits FormalDude has posted and see what they are responses to. We're here to build an encyclopedia - not to regurgitate the opinions of left-wing think tanks as if they are the light and truth and all that is good and beautiful in the world. We would not use the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute or Prager University to claim that Democrats have bad policy, nor should we. All I ask is the same thing be applied both ways. Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Reading the arbitration remarks - and having cooled down a bit - I can't disagree that my primary issue in this topic area is reverting too often. I imagine this is frustrating for everyone involved. That being said, I have a long history of work in the AP2 area; my barstars include creating the 2010 United States state legislative elections article (a series I should continue), policing the Center for Immigration Studies and John Tanton articles (where racist trolls repeatedly attempt to whitewash ties to white nationalists and eugenicists), and "Herculean labours nominating ancient, ill-sourced articles on non-notable political parties and groups for deletion". I also engage in the creation of electoral maps, routine cleanup, and policing the addition of entries on endorsements, and all sorts of routine anti-vandalism efforts across a field where this is a frequent issue. If the issue here is edit warring, wouldn't a 1RR or 0RR sanction (with exceptions for vandalism) be more appropriate? This would enable me to continue the things widely regarded as productive, while cutting out the problem area. Toa Nidhiki05 01:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Response to FormalDude - Thie RfC was started at the behest of other editors, who suggested it would be a good idea. Multiple other users said it should be started, and anyone could do it - I chose to do so because nobody else did, and this should resolve this issue permanently, meaning an end to this lengthy discussion. I fail to see how this is disruptive, and several other editors seem to agree - in fact, already several other editors who had not previously engaged in the discussion already have. That's a good thing! Toa Nidhiki05 02:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Black Kite, I would recommend you read MOS:WEASEL. Wikipedia policy tends to point against broad, unsupported claims like "widely regarded as", especially when sources don't support them - so narrowing it to what the source does say is common-sense. The reason I did not include the claim about "voters" is that it's rather vague; "voters" is, broadly, too large a group of people. It's akin to saying that "people" like something, whereas "celebrities and activists" is more specific. If you disagree, you are welcome to change or modify it, or to discuss it on the talk page, and I'd invite you to do so. I'll also note that the source says negative things about Abrams that I did not add - it says, for example, that Republican critics regard her as divisive (who would have imagined that political opponents regard their political opponent in negative terms?), that some Democrats are uncomfortable with her personal ambition, and that some Black Democrats dislike her "disruptive" influence on the Democratic establishment in Georgia. I didn't add any of these to the article of lead - in fact, I didn't add anything negative about Abrams at all in my edit! I did not make this edit to prove that "'ordinary people' didn't credit Abrams" - in fact, I didn't make this edit to prove anything. I made the edit because the existing content was unsupported by the sources listed. I would invite you to assume good faith in the future rather than casting aspersions or assuming you can read my mind. Toa Nidhiki05 13:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Quick response to SPECIFICO - I don’t believe I’ve engaged in any edit warring on the Stacey Abrams article, and I’m extensively discussing it on the talk page while there are probably a dozen or so reverts going around on main over the last few days. This is an extremely contentious discussion, apparently, and I trying hard to keep my cool on the talk page. In the last 24 hours, however, SPEFICIO is at 3 reverts ([38] [39] [40]). I find it a bit frustrating to be accused of edit warring by someone who is more involved than myself. Toa Nidhiki05 22:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Some more context: Generalrelative, another user involved in the dispute there and who has commented here, is also at 3 reverts, and 4 or 5 over the last two days ([41] [42] [43] [44]). Once again, I think the situation on these pages is fairly volatile, and I'll do my best to bring the volume down. Toa Nidhiki05 00:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Black Kite, I am not edit warring and I would suggest you retract that statement. I have reverted exactly once on the Stacey Abrams page in the last 3 days - in fact, I've only edited the page 4 times this month, far less than the dozens of edits (many of them reverts) by other involved editors. The one revert I have made in the last three days was this edit, which reverted an addition by Generalrelative that synthesized reliable sources. This violates Wikipedia policy; you can't combine multiple sources to make a claim that neither makes. I did not revert Generalrelative's subsequent edit, as the content cited ("widely attributed") is reflected in the source itself; this corrected the issue I had, an example of a productive exchange that benefits the encyclopedia. The other edit you cite was not a revert; it was correcting a factual mistake and reflecting what the New York Times source actually says ("Celebrities, activists and voters across Georgia credited Ms. Abrams with moving past her loss). You are an experienced editor, surely you would agree that it is against Wikipedia policy to cite claims that sources don't make, to selectively cite only specific parts of what sources say, or to combine multiple sources to make a claim that neither makes? Additionally, I will once again note that Black Kite has not engaged in this discussion at all, either on Talk:Stacey Abrams or the BLP noticeboard thread, where I have engaged - and am engaging in - lengthy discussions on the page and policy in general. Toa Nidhiki05 13:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Last I checked, SPECIFICO, there's no policy that says BLPs can only present subjects in a positive light, especially for a subject as serious as election denial. Toa Nidhiki05 22:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by The Four DeuceseditThe edits that Toa responded to were outrageous suggestions, so their edits calling them that was an accurate response. For example, in the first example presented,[45] Toa was responding to a proposal that the lead for Republican Party (United States) should be changed to begin, "The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment." (Viriditas 03:32, 27 October 2022) While Viriditas may have been expressing a valid opinion that would be acceptable in some fora, obviously the tone and emphasis would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Even for articles about far right parties, the phrasing is more nuanced. Viriditas was trolling and Toa's replies should be seen in that context. There should be some way to stop that so that discussions remain constructive. While there's a vague line between legitimate edit proposals and trolling, Viriditas has crossed it and their edits should have been included in this report. Incidentally, RationalWiki is not a "fringe website," but a respected source that debunks pseudoscience and its supporters. TFD (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Comment by GoodDayeditWith the 2022 US mid-term elections just days away & the possibility of Trump becoming the 2024 Republican presidential nominee? Perhaps, administrators should keep a closer eye on the aforementioned discussion at the Republican Party's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Letting administrators know. I've advised Toa 'not' to edit Abrams' page & to concentrate on that BLP's talkpage, instead. I understand how frustrating these things can be & so I believe a gentler approach is best. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC) FWIW - Abrams' discussion has moved to the WP:BLPN board. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Recommend administrators hold off from any decision, until after November 8, 2022. The US is in the last week of its mid-terms campaign & emotions can get heightened. Again patients & a gentle approach is best. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC) @SPECIFICO:, The decision is up to the administrators, not me. They will decide on what is best. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by AndrevaneditI am involved in some of the disputes with this user but I must agree they are not consistently civil and frequently make borderline or outright personal attacks. "Two wrongs don't make a right." This user frequently violates WP:AGF and makes statements questioning the impartiality or competence of editors. This user exhibits an WP:OWNership mentality about their articles that they patrol or contribute to about politics, frequently reverting without discussion with an edit warrior mentality. Their rationales are often terse such as "not an improvement" or no reason given. This user should be sanctioned. Andre🚐 16:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by NableezyeditThe line The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment was not a serious proposal, and the person who said that said as much. That said, talk pages are for discussing the topic of the article, not bantering back and forth and seeing which one can make the silliest argument with a straight face. That this generated an equivalently absurd response reminds me of the adage on playing stupid games. Suggest closing this with a reminder to all parties what the purpose of a talk page is. nableezy - 16:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The edit-warring while at AE is mind-bogglingly lacking in awareness. Thats 1, 2, 3 reverts just outside of 24 hours, a few days after the edit-war in the same article on October 25. Certainly not the only user edit-warring, but the please do not edit war edit summaries while edit-warring is a bit too rich. How do yall not get the process here, edit is disagreed on stop and get consensus on the talk page. In the highly likely event that the people edit-warring cannot reach a consensus, open an RFC. In the highly likely event that the users involved do not agree on the consensus of the RFC, request a formal closure. Rinse and repeat. Edit-warring has always been a topic-bannable offense, doing it while at AE is just asking for it. nableezy - 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Statement by Black KiteeditI am not a regular editor in the AP2 area, but I am not going to post in the uninvolved admin section here either as I have argued with T05 before over their obviously POV editing. I have noted them having serious problems with Democratic female politicians of colour (see their very extensive edits to shoehorn anything negative into Ilhan Omar, Stacey Abrams and Karine Jean-Pierre - the latter article being one that they were blocked for personal attacks on other editors in June this year). Oddly, that problem doesn't extend to Republican female politicians (i.e. Mayra Flores ). A significant number of their other edits are bludgeoning debates, and not really caring about NPA whilst they're doing it [50]. A significant number of their edits are reverts, or have been reverted themselves, which suggests that they are not following WP:BRD. It is probably time that an AP2 ban arrived at this editor's door. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
More issuesedit
And still ...edit... edit-warring to get the most negative slant possible on the same BLP. [51] [52]. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by SpringeeeditI'm certainly involved in this debate. I think it would be best if everyone toned things down a few notches. Personalizing these debates isn't helpful and neither are the over the top comments that can come across as trolling. Tongue in cheek the best thing to do would be lock the page until after the 2022 elections in just over a week. Springee (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC) I do think some of the reverts should be seen in context. Until very recently there was not a consensus for the changes various editors are making. What we have is a conflict between Toa enforcing what they, rightly saw as a NOCON state of the discussion, and other editors deciding they were right in "winning" an edit war because there were more "supports" vs "opposes". Those supporting the change should have just waited until it was a clear CONSENSUS. That doesn't excuse excessive reverting but an editor who restores a new, disputed change without consensus is also violating policy. Toa needs to tone it down but those who were restoring when consensus hadn't been established should also note their own part in escalating this issue. Springee (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Vanamonde93, I think you might not be giving the 1RR restriction enough of a chance. You are correct, such a restriction doesn't prevent one from going to the talk page and saying, "You're a jerk Dent. A complete kneebiter." However, since the ability to actually change the article in question is curtailed it ends up creating two positives. First, no edit warring. Second, it does force one to think more carefully about one's arguments. Sure, you can try to bludgeon the discussion but others can simply ignore you since you can't "revert to win". If I'm frustrated with your newest edit, I revert it. You say I'm wrong and revert my edit and that's it. All I can do is plead my case. If my case isn't good I'm not likely to convince others. The intent of any sanction should be to pick the smallest one that fixes the problem. Hence, we have single page blocks now instead of block or no block. If is warned about civility and gets a 1RR block the message should be clear. I'm sure any ANI complaint after that would be happy to throw on an AP2 if things are still an issue. However, if the 1RR is sufficient and gets Toa to spend more effort on the quality of their arguments, or at least keeping things from being personal, is that sufficient? Toa, I will say, from my own experience, you should always avoid trying to personalize things in any way. Yeah, we all know that calling someone as idiot is not OK. Calling their arguments stupid is also a bad idea since it tends to escalate emotion. Another one which I have some trouble with but can be very powerful... don't use too many words, don't reply to everything (I'm sure some of the editors I've debated are snickering right now). But really, you will actually be more effective at making your point if you slow down and think it out rather than argue too much. I'm certain some will think that is rich coming from me but I'm comparing me to older me :D Springee (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by ValjeaneditToa keeps accusing other editors in a personal attack fashion of being partisan, but their own argumentation chooses partisan talking points and spin over what RS say. We are supposed to prioritize the latter, including wording. Toa is forgetting a founding principle here. "Verifiability, not truth" reminds us that personal opinions about what is "true" do not trump what RS tell us. We apply this every single day when we insist on writing "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" (which redirects to Anti-abortion movements). We do not adopt the deceptive talking points of those who advocate fringe positions. When RS describe the abortion stance of conservatives, they often say "anti-abortion", and so should we. The GOP talking points and spin are that their voter suppression methods are for the sake of "election security" (based on Trump's big lie of a stolen election). When they close polling places in minority areas, forcing people who don't even own a car to travel long distances to vote in white areas, that's voter suppression, and RS call the GOP's methods "suppression". The GOP knows that minorities tend to vote for Democrats, and that there are fewer registered Republicans than Democrats. If they can make it harder for legitimate, registered, minority voters to vote, they have a better chance at winning, so they do all they can to make it much harder for them to vote. They use myriad methods: gerrymandering, closing polling stations in minority districts, limiting voting hours, voter intimidation, rejecting ballots, and purging voter rolls based on last names that sound minority. The GOP makes minorities jump through hoops not required of their privileged, white, elitist base. We have articles about this, but Toa opposes we even wikilink to our properly-sourced articles. That's a problem. That's what started this mess. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Toa is continuing their edit warring right now. Also templating the regulars with spurious warnings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Statement by Jayron32edit
Statement by SPECIFICOeditToa Nidhiki05 is continuing to edit-war on Stacey Abrams. Also, I would have thought their talk page access would have been included in the block on Republican Party (United States). SPECIFICO talk 11:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Regarding Stacey Abrams: TN wrote above I'll do my best to bring the volume down. Meanwhile, it feels like he's been trolling me on my user talk page here. And he's continuing to deny the BLP problem on the article talk page. If there's a TBAN, it should perhaps be a ban from BLP in addition to AP. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: That can't be serious -- proposing that the stalemate, prolonged BLP disparagement and negative framing continue on talk/article/noticeboard pages so that our readers land on it when looking for information about election candidates and their positions? This matter needs to be wrapped up as promptly as possible. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by GeneralrelativeeditJust piping up to say that while there's nothing sancionable in this exchange on Talk:Stacey Abrams, it doesn't bode well if what we're witnessing is Toa Nidhiki05 on their best behavior. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Toa Nidhiki05edit
|
Saucysalsa30
edit| Saucysalsa30 topic-banned from Kurds and Kurdistan for six months |
|---|
| 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 Saucysalsa30edit
As explained in full at BLP/N, Saucysalsa30 reverted three times in less than 24 hours to accuse Vermont Democrat Peter Galbraith (who sought the gubernatorial nomination in 2016) of singlehandedly concocting ( Meanwhile, at Talk:Peter Galbraith (albeit prior to being notified of the AP2 sanctions), Saucysalsa30 made additional unsourced claims that Galbraith acted as a "controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially", which heightened my BLP concerns. Furthermore, Saucysalsa30 incorrectly labelled my own edits to the article as "vandalism" and "disruptive editing." To me, this behavior is unacceptable in any article that falls within a DS topic area. And, while I drafted this as an AP2 complaint, I doubt that the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area benefits by having an editor who incorrectly states that only 100 people died in the Halabja massacre (which is not consistent with declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents), or that the Anfal campaign was "made up" by Kanan Makiya (citing a source that directly, repeatedly contradicts this assertion).
Saucysalsa30 incorrectly states that this diff constitutes a formal warning to stop WP:HOUNDING him from EvergreenFir. However, the note, which does not mention HOUNDING, concerned a dispute at just one article (Racism in the Arab world), whereas
Discussion concerning Saucysalsa30editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Saucysalsa30editThe last paragraph is false accusations and he had also hounded me on Anfal page, where he spent days bludgeoning and attacking multiple users when consensus and sourcing was against him. His first edit in that Talk page was to attack me with similar misrepresentations/insults, which I and others refuted him on such as this[58]. TheTimesAreAChanging made this request right after an edit with personal attacks and falsities about me, including the very first sentence[59]: While he's WP:HOUNDING/attacked me in the past and an admin gave him a formal warning to stop doing so, in this latest instance, TheTimesAreAChanging followed me to an article where he had no prior activity, and engaged me in his edit summaries. He noticed on 10/27 I had activity on Peter Galbraith [60] in which I fixed failed-verification/OR/BLP violations, and explained my changes in the Talk page with sources. His edit summaries comprised false accusations/attacks and OR, which I refuted in the Talk page. Contrary to the claim, TheTimesAreAChanging started edit warring, with his first edit on the article being a partial revert, and made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours.
He did not bother to explain his changes in the Talk page, like I had, demonstrating an unwillingness to build consensus. This accusation by TheTimes is false: TheTimes' other accusation is wrong. I never said Galbraith "singlehandedly concocted it", and his embellishment demonstrates the deceptiveness of his request. Galbraith drafted a bill making the claim he championed before the US government. Saying "his claim" is correct. Here is a definition of "claim". Galbraith made a statement that something was true, with the addition of not being proven, and introduced legislation in the US government. TheTimesAreAChanging had been indefinitely blocked before on the topic of American politics[62] for disruptive editing and not gaining consensus, and in this case he did not seek consensus either. He was also blocked for violating the topic ban. He later requested for it to be lifted, and given his continued disruptive behavior on Peter Galbraith and other articles the the original topic ban was for, it appears justified to reinstate it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC) In his addendum[63], TheTimesAreAChanging admits to being warned by EvergreenFir to WP:DISENGAGE from me yet has still hounded and engaged me on Wikipedia multiple times since then as I proved. In fact, he had hounded me in that very situation in which EvergreenFir had to intervene. On Jan 19-20, 2021, TheTimesAreAChanging and another editor Qahramani44 stalked me, immediately following an unrelated content dispute, over to Racism in the Arab world and Ba'athism where I had just a few days earlier fixed copyvio and other issues. TTAAC had no prior activity on the first article/Talk page, and only previously had a few sporadic unilateral reverts on the second. Qahramani44 had no prior edits on either article/Talk page. Here is my initial diff on Racism in the Arab world [64]. Qahramani44's first edit on the page [65] and TTAAC's first edit [66] came only after mine, and they made a number of Talk page comments directed at me and edit warring following that. EvergreenFir had to intervene, removing TTAAC's last Talk page comment and telling him to "Stop the bullshit". TTAAC defiantly reverted it[67] calling EvergreenFir's actions "wildly inappropriate". EvergreenFir re-reverted this[68] and temporarily protected the article.[69] The story on Ba'athism is the same. I made my first edit [70]. TheTimesAreAChanging's edit[71] and Qahramani44's[72] stalked me to this article too, with more comments and edit warring to follow by them like in the other article. EvergreenFir intervened here too temporarily protecting the article[73] and EvergreenFir agreed with the copyvio I originally fixed when attempt to re-introduce it was made.[74] Uninvolved editors have politely asked TTAAC to stop harassing me and other editors, such as [75][76][77][78] In one example, admin HandThatFeeds had to correct TTAAC's false charges against an editor multiple times: "Why are you using the “tenacious hacks” comment to rebut GregKaye’s statement that (sic) you are the first person to accuse them of tendentious editing? Are you not understanding the difference in those words and conflating their use of them with your accusation of their behavior?" and "I think you’re misreading GregKay’s statements. ... Nothing in those quotes is worthy of sanction." In an attempt to defend himself in an ANI section about his conduct, he falsely accused me of making a real-world threat/crime in August 2022, claiming that I somehow know his address and sending him "fan mail" making a threat. He got the dates wrong in this ridiculous accusation too; his attacking me came in January 2021 (EvergreenFir intervention case), not March 2021 as he falsely states where I had only 2 unrelated edits[79][80], so his
Statement by RAN1editI'm only filing this statement since I DS-alerted Saucysalsa30 (in fact, my alert is the only one that appears in the DS tag search). I only became aware of Saucysalsa30's actions through TTAAC's BLP post. The post ran long, so I didn't look through any of the 10+ diffs in it, and assumed this was a recent development and that Saucysalsa30 hadn't been alerted before today. I researched the relevant citation, verified it and reverted Saucysalsa30 because they claimed the material failed verification before their edit summary war with TTAAC. I then alerted both them and TTAAC on the Kurds DS. I didn't think there would be a prior deleted notice if this was at BLPN, so I didn't see Saucysalsa30 had been alerted 3 months ago until after this AE section showed up in my watchlist. RAN1 (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Paradise ChronicleeditAs I have been mentioned I want to explain a bit. I gave the DS awareness note on Kurds and Kurdistan to both editors here and here as they appear to have an issue in the topic area and if only one knows about the DS the other editor might be surprised (blocked, TB'd) that there apply different rules for the topic area than in the "normal" wikipedia. That said I believe the issue escalated into an ArbCom case per email in which case some Admins might be more familiar with the issue between the two.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC) On the AE side for Kurds and Kurdistan. I also have noticed that Saucysalsa30 is rather doubtful of Kurdish victims during the Halabja chemical attack or during the Al Anfal campaign. For the Admins and also the reporting and discussing editors sake I'd say its more efficient to strongly warn (once more and a temporary block is in place) them for bludgeoning and disruptive editing as their numerous talk page edits are often of 1000s of bytes with a lot of text not really on the topic and to produce and read the diffs is rather a tiring work. At Peter Galbraith they are number 1 Here and assembled a 30% share of added content in 3 days. and at Al Anfal they are way off the top here with a ca. 2/3 share of added content in the entire existence of the article within less than 2 months. This is way more than all editors together in the top 10 combined.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning Saucysalsa30edit
|
InverseZebra
edit| InverseZebra blocked indef as a normal admin action. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning InverseZebraedit
TheTranarchist made a post on 4 October at Talk:LGB Alliance that includes Monque 2021 , a book discussion that the author explicitly states is not a summary, and Simon 2021, a master's thesis which concludes with a section titled "A Polemic on [Gender Critical Feminists]". A month later, InverseZebra replied and complained about those sources, and Newimpartial then disputed the complaint. After InverseZebra posted about Monque's use of the term TERF at 21:24, 11 November 2022, TheTranarchist made an off-topic post about the term at 22:39. InverseZebra then proceeded to make the first response, then the second response after TheTranarchist replied at 23:41, then the third after Newimpartial replied at 02:05 on 12 November.
InverseZebra has finally been indeffed, I agree with SideSwipe9th that this should be closed. RAN1 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning InverseZebraeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by InverseZebraeditStatement by ShibbolethinkeditSee below, obvious content dispute is obvious. This is an inappropriate use of WP:AE. RAN1, you would be much better served by bringing these things to WP:3O or WP:DRN in the future.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Sideswipe9theditInverseZebra has just been indeffed by RickinBaltimore ([112]). Can all three of these discussions be closed as moot please, as there doesn't seem to be a reason for them to be here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KeneditConsidering that the subject editor is indeffed, and CBANs and TBANs are under consideration at ANI, this report is totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning InverseZebraedit
|
TheTranarchist
edit| No action, report withdrawn by OP without endorsements. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TheTranarchistedit
I took the time to find Monque 2021 and read through it, and I'm withdrawing this. RAN1 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TheTranarchisteditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TheTranarchisteditStatement by (username)editStatement by DanielRigaleditI don't think it is really correct to describe that first diff as "starting an off-topic argument" as the argument is already in progress. Furthermore, I suspect that InverseZebra, who is rapidly sliding towards either an indef or a topic ban here, may be being intentionally disruptive and trying to provoke such responses. Of course, it would have been better if TheTranarchist hadn't risen to it but I can't help but sympathise with her for doing so. I don't think any sanction or action is required other than maybe advising her to try not to feed those who show signs of troll-like behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Statment by LokieditI think this filing should be discarded as obviously frivolous. Even if everything the filer claimed were true, it's not a violation of discretionary sanctions to argue about the content of a page on its talk page. The argument in question was about whether a source used a slur or not; it's relevant in that context whether "TERF" is a slur. Loki (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KeneditHow can starting an "off-topic argument" be a violation of discretionary sanctions involving the subject? That seems rather contradictory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by XOR'eastereditI don't see any way the first diff can really be construed as starting an argument. Nor is the argument so "off-topic" as to have devolved into a forum thread unrelated to the task of writing an encyclopedia article; it's an argument about whether or not to include a source. Perhaps it's veering off into obviously unproductive territory, but the most serious action I could justify would be hatting a chunk of the Talk page. This whole filing, if not frivolous, seems at least misguided. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by AquillioneditInverseZebra, the one TheTranarchist is responding to, was using their argument that they personally feel that Result concerning TheTranarchistedit
|
Newimpartial
edit| No action, report withdrawn without endorsements. OP is advised to reflect on this situation and the feedback they’ve received prior to submitting new AE requests. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Newimpartialedit
I took the time to find Monque 2021 and read through it, and I'm withdrawing this. RAN1 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NewimpartialeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NewimpartialeditThis filing seems more than a little bit bizarre. I would not have thought that my argument, that the editor in question was engaged in original interpretation (in fact, misinterpretation) of a WP:PRIMARY source, would be sufficiently controversial as to lead to an AE filing. Clearly I have been seeking attention in the wrong ways all these years, when all I had to do was to make this obvious argument. :p Newimpartial (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC) RAN1, your statement that I
Statement by ShibbolethinkeditI got the hell out of this space a few months ago due to how much disruption is present, but I would overall consider myself "uninvolved" in this dispute and do not remember how Newimpartial felt about any of the old disputes and don't think it's particularly important to look. I have an inkling that they and I have disagreed a few times in the past. I have never heard of RAN1 before. Regardless of that, this seems overall to be an extremely clear content dispute and thus inappropriate for AE. Nothing here is particularly actionable from an AE perspective. OP should be admonished for bringing an obvious content dispute to AE, and directed to pursue much more appropriate avenues like WP:3O, WP:RFCs, and WP:DRN in the future. This is a waste of everyone's time here. User:RAN1, if I were you, I would actually strongly consider withdrawing this.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Statment by LokieditJust like above, I think this filing should be discarded as obviously frivolous. Even if everything the filer claimed were true, it's not a violation of discretionary sanctions to argue about the content of a page on its talk page. Loki (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by DanielRigaleditI'm struggling to see what Newimpartial has done wrong except maybe allow themself to get slightly more wound up by an argumentative and disruptive editor than is advisable. I can't see how that is sanctionable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KeneditHard smelly trout for RAN1 for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by Red-tailed hawkeditOrdinarily, a master's thesis is not considered reliable, though some might be if they are particularly influential and widely cited in their field (like A Symbolic Analysis of Relay and Switching Circuits). But frankly I don't see evidence that the master's thesis that the filer notes as being one of these. While the existence of the thesis technically defeats WP:OR claims, it doesn't defeat issues related to WP:NPOV (since we only care about things written about in reliable sources under that policy). That being said, I have no idea what this thesis has to do with actions by Newimpartial, who does not appear to have made any contentious edits that cite that thesis. If you want something to examine about Newimpartial's recent history, I would point to a clear case where they inserted a BLP violation into an article on a journalist rather than following WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, but I don't think that alone is sufficient to warrant an AE complaint since they're not edit warring the BLP violation back into the article. It seems reasonable to close this thread without action. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by ColineditRemember when mobile phones had buttons and you could get an accidental call from a handbag. Muffled noise and then it cuts out. This filing makes about as much sense. Trout required. -- Colin°Talk 19:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by XOR'eastereditI do not think the description of the diffs provided above accurately reflects Newimpartial's argument, and I see nothing sanctionable in the complaint. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by AquillioneditThis is a content / policy dispute. You cannot drag people to AE for disagreements over policy unless their position is so clearly out of line as to break the presumption of good faith, which is plainly not the case here - the arguments that someone is using an WP:OR interpretation to decide whether to include or exclude content (and that policy forbids this), or that we are not allowed to second-guess our source's sources on a case-by-case basis, are extremely common ones. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Newimpartialedit
|
Colnago2253
edit| Blocked indef as a normal admin action. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Colnago2253edit
Discussion concerning Colnago2253editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Colnago2253editStatement by (username)editResult concerning Colnago2253edit
|
Tys90
editThis request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Tys90
edit- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Mako001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Tys90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa#Amendment (November 2021)
Fairly straightforward case here. New SPA goes around changing "Somaliland" to "Somalia" or removing it entirely, including in cases where the subject's name actually includes "Somaliland". Continued despite 4 standard warnings, a DS alert and a non-templated comment that their edits weren't acceptable (see their talkpage). Scored a 31hr block, but this probably needs to be upgraded to an indef AE block under DS:
- User talk:Tys90 large number of warnings and such
- 19 November 2022 Jumping straight in, second edit involved removing several instances to Somalialand with the edit summary "Fixed typo"
- 19 November 2022 same again
- 19 November 2022 DS warning given
- 19 November 2022 Edits after DS warning
- 19 November 2022 Additional disruption after DS warning
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Not applicable
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 19 November 2022
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Tys90
editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Tys90
editStatement by Ad Orientem
editThe respondent was last warned on the 19th instant. They were blocked for 31 hrs on the same day. I would likely have indeffed them as NOTHERE had I been the responding admin on the 19th. But that's water under the bridge. They have not edited in the roughly nine days since their block expired. If they resume their disruptive behavior the correct venue is WP:AIV or WP:ANI. As an uninvolved admin I urge the committee to summarily decline this requested case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
editResult concerning Tys90
edit- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Tys90 is currently blocked but should respond above once the block expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Give it a few more days, but I think this is an easy indef DE block -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)