Black Kite (talk | contribs) |
→Paddykumar: closing |
||
Line 404: | Line 404: | ||
==Paddykumar== |
==Paddykumar== |
||
{{hat|{{user|Paddykumar}} is topic banned from any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated peoples, broadly construed, for twelve months. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 20:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
Line 469: | Line 470: | ||
*{{ping|Lord Roem}} I was initially thinking that a one-revert restriction might be suitable but since there are other issues with Paddykumar's editing (eg BLP) in this area I agree that a topic ban would be appropriate. I think at least 6 months would be appropriate possibly 12 depending on their response to this AE request. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 09:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC) |
*{{ping|Lord Roem}} I was initially thinking that a one-revert restriction might be suitable but since there are other issues with Paddykumar's editing (eg BLP) in this area I agree that a topic ban would be appropriate. I think at least 6 months would be appropriate possibly 12 depending on their response to this AE request. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 09:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
* I think a topic-ban of either 6 or 12 months is called for, and I am leaning towards the latter given their persistent disruption and failure to respond to this filing. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
* I think a topic-ban of either 6 or 12 months is called for, and I am leaning towards the latter given their persistent disruption and failure to respond to this filing. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
==PreserveOurHistory== |
==PreserveOurHistory== |
Revision as of 20:37, 1 January 2023
Dev0745
Dev0745 is given a formal logged warning for poor editing practices including synthesis and use of poor quality sources, and that if these issues continue sanctions are likely to be placed. Dympies is reminded to be mindful of civility in communication with other editors. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:29, 31 December 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 Dev0745
Problem with all these 4 diffs is that the cited source,[2] does not support the wording that " This is happening even after long discussions at User_talk:Dev0745#Nagpuria_people, User_talk:Dev0745#November_2022, User_talk:Dev0745#Please_add_nothing_to_the_article_Dom_(caste)_without_modern_academic_sources. Now if I revert him, then he will edit war and if I discuss him then he will be simply choosing to double down on his incompetence.
Response: Dev0745 was already warned by Johnuniq that if he engaged in misrepresentation of sources then he will be topic banned from entire subject of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.[4][5] Below response by Dev0745 shows he engaged in WP:OR and he is still misrepresenting the source. How " This is why I believe that Dev0745 should be topic banned. He is just not able to edit in this area with this much incompetence. Dympies (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Dev0745Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dev07451.Source mention Y Haplogroup H* 18.18% and 9.09% H1 among Gujarat Bhils in table:1, which makes H haplogroup 27.27%.[8] So 27.27% is correct. The page Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of South Asia has also same figure. 2. Article title is " I think the user Dympies has some issue in explaining his/her point to other users as he/she may sometimes right but not always. Dympies's first point i.e terming 27.27% of Y Haplogroup among bhil as incorrect is wrong as according to data table it is correct. The second is my minor misinterpretation as in palce of muslim clerics, some muslim clerics should be added. So it is minor mistake of interpretation. I think there are chances of such minor mistake of interpretation by any editor. Also I had exam, so I have not read Wikipedia policy fully. I only know few basic policy. I will edit Wikipedia after reading Wikipedia policy fully. Response: Dhanbad district is in Jharkhand. So I think some muslims clerics in Jharkhand ban music and dance in weddings is not incorrect. Dev0745 (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
References
Statement by (Bookku)
Statement by Srijaxn22Dev0745 is very frequent with his misrepresentation of sources. It was was already called out on October - November 2022 at Talk:People of Assam#Tea Labourers. Instead of agreeing with the problem he was edit warring by terming another editor's edit as "please don't speard propaganda".[13] On Kol people he described "some grievances has been come out from the adivasi leaders that the Biharis used to call them 'Kol' which means pig, that in turn aroused bitterness and hatred against the Biharis" (from source), a lame slur as: "According to another theory, Kol means Pig."[14] But there is no "theory". He used completely unreliable source here on 7 November. I also recall Lohra (tribe) which he created on 30 October. Here, he has made yet another misrepresentation of another source by claiming " A topic ban from anything related to Indian social communities is the least I would recommend. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)References Result concerning Dev0745
|
Scientelensia
Scientelensia topic banned gender-related disputes and from people associated with gender-related disputes for twelve months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 29 December 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 Scientelensia
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I have never before filed a request for enforcement of discretionary sanctions, and am unaware if this is the best way to proceed in a case like this, or if I am filing it correctly, but this editor is not engaging article talk and is repeatedly adding sub-par content to a Featured article that saw a widely attended Featured article review this year. With the first two diffs, I understand the new-ish editor may not have been familiar with the FAR, and by the third diff, may still not have understood discretionary sanctions. But by the fourth diff, it appears some stronger guidance is in order. 3RR does not seem to be the appropriate place to seek admin intervention, as the content added has varied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Callanecc, Seraphimblade, and In actu: As of 24 Dec, Scientelensia is edit warring on another JKR- and gender-related article, and does not seem to be getting the message:[17] [18] there are too many diffs at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_Recognition_Reform_(Scotland)_Bill&action=history for 24 December alone to list. (I can come back with list when not iPad editing if needed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
(Nothing that Scientelensia is not the only editor who is edit warring who is already aware of DS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Notified, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Discussion concerning ScientelensiaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScientelensiaSorry, I take full responsibility, I did not really understand that you should use the talk page for featured articled but I will now. Scientelensia (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
References
Statement by (username)Result concerning Scientelensia
|
Vladdy Daddy Silly
Vladdy Daddy Silly given a logged warning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 27 December 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 Vladdy Daddy Silly
@Vladdy Daddy Silly: Did your read the summaries from [25]? Both summaries from that page cannot be true at the same time. You seem to completely lack any awareness that it is a book edited by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and published by Columbia University Press. Second removal was a mobile edit, but first removal wasn't ([26]). And it wasn't a WP:VisualEditor edit either. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC) @Vladdy Daddy Silly: Did not view the source correctly? Like four different times? After several people disagreed with you? After being warned of discretionary sanctions? You weren't using the WP:VisualEditor, so @Vladdy Daddy Silly: And you did not know that Pop is cited inside the article, while it is fairly straightforward to search a word upon a webpage? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Vladdy Daddy SillyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Vladdy Daddy SillyI did not view the source correctly, i've not many time to dedicate to wikipedia and i admit i was wrong. I have nothing to say more. Statement by (username)Result concerning Vladdy Daddy Silly
|
ZaniGiovanni
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning ZaniGiovanni
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- ZaniGiovanni (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 enforcement log/2021#Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 20 December Removes a source from a reliable website because the article was published in Baku (Azerbaijan).
- 21 December Reverts the restoration of the source again for being a
Baku based article
- 19 December Restores incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian newsletter without verifying (3rd point) the source.
- 20 December Making 6 reverts within a day on the same article (diffs provided within the linked report)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 2 February 2022
warned against edit warring and is expected to be more diligent in pages covered by the AA2 DS
- 15 September 2022
banned from the topic area for 2 months for battleground behavior, including highlighting the ethnicity of users they were in a dispute with
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15 September 2022 by Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
On the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, ZaniGiovanni repeatedly removed (diff #1 & #2) an article from JAMnews, a reliable third-party source. ZaniGiovanni asserts that the article is unreliable because it was published in Baku (Azerbaijan) and refers to it as a Baku-based article
. Aside from the problematic nature ZaniGiovanni assuming an article is unreliable solely because it was published by someone from Azerbaijan, another red flag here is that ZaniGiovanni doesn't apply the same standards when it is advantageous to their position. Here is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan (Armenia) to add a statement in wiki voice.
ZaniGiovanni was also recently engaged in edit wars on the same article (diff #4). The administrator confirmed that ZaniGiovanni's was edit warring and issued verbal warnings before closing the report as Stale. This is a direct violation of ZaniGiovanni's February warning by El C.
Reply 1
@Rosguill and El C: ZaniGiovanni is not a new user who made a single mistake and was reported, nor is this the first time they have been informed of their problematic behavior. ZaniGiovanni's behavior not only on the pages I've linked to, but also on this page, is a clear violation of WP:TE.
ZaniGiovanni made more than three reverts within 24 hours on the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, as the closing administrator informed them. However, they insist, even here, that their edits weren't edit warring. A textbook example of WP:TE.
Rosguill, your point about the validity of questioning sources would be correct if the actions weren't so blatantly one-sided, which reveals that this questioning isn't done to obtain reliable sources, but rather to protect one viewpoint over another. As evidenced by ZaniGiovanni using the same source when it supported their position ([28]) but questioning it when it did not (diff #1 & #2). (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH; WP:CPP: They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.
).
Furthermore, in another discussion, ZaniGiovanni was unconcerned with reliability when they referred to the propagandistic website panarmenian.net [29] or pre-election advertisement article by Rachael Rose Luckey on citywatchla.com[30]. A quote from the citywatchla.com:
Los Angeles now has a renewed opportunity to stand with the Armenian-American community of Little Armenia to pressure Los Angeles’ City Hall and the Biden Administration to declare the Republic of Azerbaijan a terrorist state.
When I challenged[31] the sources, ZaniGiovanni told me to familiarise yourself with WP:SEALION
[32] and Your "explanation" is just a collection of original remarks with which nobody concurs here
[33].
ZaniGiovanni has been warned or sanctioned in this topic area at least 3 times this year alone ([34], [35], [36]). Their topic ban expired a month ago, and they've already been reported for 3RR and at AE in that time. It is perplexing to see how ZaniGiovanni manages to avoid adequate punishment for their infractions repeatedly, despite the fact that no other editor in AA2 has received such leniency in the past. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 11:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- El C, Tamzin, Rosguill before filing this report, I gave the matter thoughtful consideration - I can assure you that the topic is entirely non-personal; rather, it is a plea for admin involvement in a pattern of behaviour that is incompatible with Wikipedia. I have something to add and feel compelled to add it, therefore I'm requesting an additional response, promising to be concise. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Last Reply
The below diffs isn't to debate whether ZaniGiovanni was right, but to demonstrate how exhausting it is when they repeatedly revert without thinking, and after search for sources to justify revert, resulting in them tossing irrelevant or low quality sources without examination. This frequently leads to absurd scenarios in which they reject your concerns and demand you to take the blatantly low quality sources (like pre-election advertisement article on citywatchla.com), which were brought up by them, to the RSN ([37]).
For instance: On 19 December 2022 ZaniGiovanni, without any comment or talk, manually undid ([38]) number of the edits. Including edit ([39]), which replaced partisan source with eurasianet.org and added missing attribution. When I protested that ([40]), ZaniGiovanni barely addressed any of their reverts: What's the exact disagreement here? BBC is pretty clear and casts alot of doubt on the so-called activists
([41]) and undid edits again ([42]). Then, while trying to justify their revert, ZaniGiovanni twice referred headlines of BBC article ([43]; [44]), then an unrelated tweet ([45]), then an opinion piece ([46]), and each time I had to explain that the source was either irrelevant or didn't support their claim ([47]; [48]; [49]; [50]). Finally, ZaniGiovanni brought up two sources ([51]; this I didn't comment on talk yet), one of which is Kommersant, which generally should not be used without attribution in controversial areas where Russia involved. ([52]). Should not we expect that user with over 7000 edits has enough competency and will to evaluate sources before bringing them up? It doesn't look like WP:CIR since it is evident that ZaniGiovanni is quite skilled at examining sources when they are not advantageous to their viewpoint, rather it is the pattern of tendentious editing. (WP:CPP; WP:TE) A b r v a g l (PingMe) 11:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning ZaniGiovanni
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by ZaniGiovanni
1) [20 December] Removes a source from a reliable website because the article was published in Baku (Azerbaijan).
– Since you haven't discussed this on the article talk page, let me explain that the content in question was making extraordinary claims (based on a single Baku edition article from "JamNews") that humanitarian aid passed through the blockade, which even to this day is highly doubted and at the time, wasn't reported to be true by any other sources. In fact, WP:RS clearly stated that supplies are running low or either are entirely lost due to the blockade. HRW, referring to some media reports, said trucks allegedly containing humanitarian goods were allowed to pass. So to say something like this at the time in Wikivoice no less using a single Baku edition article needed additional third-party to confirm per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:UNDUE, especially when multiple third-parties didn't confirm this at all and stated that supplies are lost or running low, and HRW reporting more than a week after blockade with "alleged" wording.
2) [21 December] Reverts the restoration of the source again for being a Baku based article
– Explained above, it's the same edit which was restored with complete disregard to WP:ONUS, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:UNDUE. I think my removal was well justified based on the above explanation, and you should first consider discussing content before reporting here.
3) [19 December] Restores incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian newsletter without verifying (3rd point) the source.
– The source was already cited in the article (not by me) and actually you added a source that's no better. But this is something that has been extensively discussed in the talk, which you haven't replied to for a week now. So why are you bringing up random content snippet from a discussion to AE? Also, a third-party source for Az soldiers blocking the road [53], just in case.
4) [20 December] Making 6 reverts within a day on the same article (diffs provided within the linked report)
– Didn't make "6 reverts" and the report is closed for a week now btw, in case you haven't noticed. This looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING with a closed report.
5) [Here] is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan (Armenia)
– This is neither extraordinary nor undue, it literally describes events from the blockade article so you're comparing apples to oranges here. Also, if you had a problem with that source (which I replaced btw just in case), why again am I learning about something like this first on Tamzin's talk page today and now in AE? I don't see any discussion on Lachin corridor or my talk.
- Abrvagl still comments on the stale report from a week ago and Lachin Corridor where they haven't even opened a discussion. They also bring up a snippet from discussion regarding stamp section on different article. The summary; I found additional 3 third-party sources that supported the current wording and presented on talk, Abrvagl raised issues regarding the sources, they later asked me to take to RSN, to which I replied if they think there are issues with third-party sources, they should take to RSN themselves. That's it. I haven't even used these sources in the article as I generally try to get consensus before adding something that'll possibly be contested. Abrvagl didn't reply for a week now (my comment being latest) neither they took to RSN.
- The stamp being rejected by Postal Union I show here with a source. Summary; it was part of the discussion and my reply to Abrvagl's "online hysteria" comment, I didn't suggest adding it to the article nor (again) I ever did.
[I can assure you that the topic is entirely non-personal]
- I don't think this is the case as evident by Abrvagl's repeated plea to sanction me. They've done a similar report on another user not so long ago, bringing up content issue to AE while neglecting to reply in the discussion for over a month. In the diffs here, most they didn't even discuss on talk, in one didn't reply for over a week now, and the other was a week-old stale report that they kept bringing up. In their 2nd comment, they don't provide an edit diff of mine and just take out-of-context snippet from random discussion they didn't even include in the initial report. At this point, I believe a WP:BOOMERANG should be applied for battleground behavior @Rosguill:, @El C:, @Tamzin:.- How does one keep choosing out of context snippets from the same discussion where we’re long past the point, didn’t reply to the discussion for over a week, and think they’d present said snippets in AE as diffs? Especially when they claimed they have “something to add”. I just don’t get this repeated behavior, they’re showing the same things which they either didn’t reply for over a week now or didn’t discuss at all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by KhndzorUtogh
Exactly how has Zani "returned to the same problematic behaviour that resulted in their original Tban" if they have not mentioned another user’s ethnicity since? And if the 3RR was deemed stale a week ago, why would that be any different now? It also appears that Abrvagl did not attempt any discussion first for any of these sources; instead they came straight to AE to request sanctions for the user they are disagreeing with. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning ZaniGiovanni
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This report seems unripe in the absence of prior talk page discussion of the edits exhibiting BATTLEGROUND or other inappropriate behaviors, particularly considering that both parties have been able to make significant constructive edits to the article at-issue since the first disputed diffs were made, and with nearly 100 edits to the page since the most recent diff listed here. Questioning sources for AA2-related topics on the basis of their country of operations is valid given the nature of press coverage of the conflict, and is distinct from the genuinely-problematic behavior of highlighting the ethnicity of editors or source-authors that has occurred in the past. signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Since I'm mentioned as the admin who'd previously logged ZG's warning, I agree with Rosguill above. Complaints on this board should be the last step in the WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION process, not the first. Please at least attempt to WP:ENGAGE the matter prior to filing reports here. Thanks. @Abrvagl, ZaniGiovanni, and Rosguill: courtesy pings. El_C 08:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Abrvagl: there's a 500-word limit on this board, which you've now more than doubled. Now, I don't really mind that as far as breaking that rule, but if you'd like for me, at least, to review your comments, you'll need to condense better. If not, I'll leave this to other reviewers who can spare the time for that excess (if such reviewers exist, which they may or may not). Thanks. El_C 12:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ZaniGiovanni: as I've noted on Rosguill's talk page, you, for your part, should not be circumventing AE's word limit by splitting the discussion on the talk pages of reviewing admins. El_C 13:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure if Abrvagl posted their query to Tamzin before or after filing this report, because they failed to sign + timestamp their OP here, so I had to look it up in respective revision histories. And they're not the only ones. For whatever reason, several OPs on this board are not signed + timestamp, which is a bit annoying. Anyway, my sense (from memory, mind you) is that Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni report one another on various instances in various venues, with some regularity. When it will end, no one knows.
- What, however, is clear from the log is that each have received a logged warning this year, ZaniGiovanni as mentioned by myself (in Feb), and Abrvagl by Rosguill (in June). Then, there's ZaniGiovanni 2-month TBAN in Sept, more on that... notion below. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I get the sense that Abrvagl may well have been similarly sanctioned, and that it's sort of luck and circumstances that ZaniGiovanni was and they were not (neither one is better or worse from the other is what I'm getting at). Still, it does give Abrvagl somewhat of an edge (a lead) in this perennial dispute.
- Anyway, much of this back and forth seems unfocused, with both seemingly determined to have the other removed from the topic area. Honestly, I've been feeling less and less inclined to look into these, in general, for some time now. As I've mentioned on number of occasions, I think WP:AA2 needs a full AA3 WP:RFAR case refresher, with wider evidence submission and parties. That said, if someone has the time to give this (these) in-depth attention, that'd be good (big if, though). BTW @Tamzin and Callanecc: it's my and many others' view that timed TBANS, which used to be the prevailing practice, nearly always fall short. Because we nearly always end up back here, but as a new report rather than through an appeal (one could still recommend to appeal in no less than 2 months, 6 months, a year, whatever). Just putting it out there. El_C 02:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni: since you're both saying the same thing, that it isn't personal, I'll answer both of you at once: give us some credit, no one here thinks this is primarily personal. Rather, we know it is ideological. As mentioned, an arb intervention, rather than an admin one, is due (overdue). I'll emphasize again that the overarching dispute goes beyond just the two of you, limited to narrow incident/s. Each of you seem to be expecting (hoping) that we'll side with respective you. But short of something truly and obviously egregious, that's unlikely to happen.
- So, whether or not either one of you are able to detach yourselves, even for a moment, so as to see this from this broader perspective — the reality is what it is, regardless. And what it is that going for piecemeal, with just the two of you, again barring a major slip up, is unlikely to go anywhere. Best to be blunt about this so as to avoid repeated time sinks, here and elsewhere.
- Abrvagl, I doubt you have some major revelation to add, because why wouldn't you have added it already, if it were to significantly bolster your case? You want an extra couple hundred words to say whatever, sure, okay. But I doubt it'll get us anywhere. Because, as noted several times above, mine and others' view is that anything short of a full AA3 arbitration case would be a waste of time for all involved, parties and reviewers alike. El_C 15:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- I referred Abrvagl here from my talk page because what they were alleging was not the sort of blatant disruption I felt suited to resolution by a single admin (unlike the past behavior that Rosguill alludes to above). I don't have a strong feeling at this time about whether admin action is necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Paddykumar
Paddykumar (talk · contribs) is topic banned from any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated peoples, broadly construed, for twelve months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2023 (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 Paddykumar
I think this demonstrates how Paddykumar has a fundamentally unsustainable approach to editing in the GENSEX topic area, which has persisted over half a year, including a block for edit warring. Some of these diffs would not be actionable on their own, but are part of the larger pattern, which comprises most of Paddykumar's contributions in this area.
Discussion concerning PaddykumarStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by PaddykumarStatement by (TheTranarchist)I want to reaffirm the previous statement, and also add that overall it is obvious from their edit history that Paddykumar is WP:NOTHERE. Their edits are frequently removing pertinent information, or adding irrelevant ones, particularly to articles related to trans topics. They have a focus on disparaging trans people, from their insistence on misgendering at Irreversible Damage and Sealioning about it, to their misgendering in Mermaids (which has a disproportionate number of fully deleted edits) and in the whole "rude" pictures debacle to their misgendering and edit warring at Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshul, despite being warned repeatedly in the past not to do, to name but a few highlights. I feel their continued presence on Wikipedia would not benefit the encyclopedia at all, only serving to make trans editors uncomfortable by accepting recurring bigotry and increasing the workload of editors forced to deal with them in general. The majority of their edits within the GENSEX topic area have been reverted. If possible, an indefinite general ban seems the best option, but an indefinite topic ban could also fit, as their edits outside the topic seem at a glance less ideologically driven. Statement by (username)Result concerning Paddykumar
|
PreserveOurHistory
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning PreserveOurHistory
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- PreserveOurHistory (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
- 1RR editnotice on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 03:17, 29 December 2022; Reverts another editor's removal of a bunch of images, with an outrageous edit summary, "
restored vandalized content
", implying that the editor had vandalized the disputed content. I then reminded them of the DS notice they had recieved, that they need to avoid such insouciant use of the expression to undo g.f edits, assume good faith, and discuss the matter on the talk page without reverting. - 16:43, 30 December 2022; Made a second revert, reinstating the disputed content, asking rhetorically on thier talk, "should I stop restoring content others remove without an explanation?",[54] despite the other editor clearly having said that they were removing the images because of NPOV issues.[55]
- 03:55, 31 December 2022 Reinstates the disputed content for the third time without any edit summary, contravening the 1RR restriction on the page, and after I categorically enjoined them to "stop reverting, period"...discuss the matter on talk page. The reversion came against the backdrop of an ongoing talk page discussion over the matter, after I spelled out the issues with their images to them, and momentarily after their terse response on the talk page that beat around the bush without even touching on the said issues (of non-compliance with MOS etc).
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- October, 2022 blocked for a day for disruptive editing, for he "refuses to acknowledge they’ve been harassing and insulting an editor and that sources are required".
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on September of this year by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- I reminded them again of the discretionary sanctions being in effect in the topic domain of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan on 30th of December 2022.
- Alerted about 1RR being in effect on conflict articles in September, 2022 by Doug Weller.
- Extant editnotice on the page about 1RR restriction in place.[56]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notwithstanding the efforts to get this editor to appreciate and observe policies of the site, they have shown they are more interested in wikilawyering. The foregoing context also shows that their approach to the matter has been domineering, and that neither the policies or other people's words seem to matter to them.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning PreserveOurHistory
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by PreserveOurHistory
Statement by (username)
Result concerning PreserveOurHistory
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Support sanctions, probably an indef WP:TBAN from WP:ARBIPA. This user exhibits consistent WP:BATTLEGROUND and for some reason believes WP:RS do not apply to them. See for example several excerpts documented by Doug Weller @User talk:PreserveOurHistory#October 2022 (permalink). El_C 19:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- The October block unfortunately didn't lead to any change in behavior. Agree with an indef TBAN given the earlier recent disruptive conduct and the 1RR violation (1 2). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with indef TBAN. I see no evidence the editor will change their behaviour. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)