Daveout
[edit]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 Daveout
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Daveout (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 17:07, 27 September 2022 "you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith"
- 17:26, 27 September 2022 restoring the above when removed as a personal attack, saying "will not be censored this time. this was not a gratuitous, it's a statement of fact that everyone can see for themselves."
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 16:37, 8 September 2022 warned for personal attacks in the topic area
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. (see current revision)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I really would rather not reporting this here, but this is a blatant personal attack, and then restored when removed. I think Daveout is the type of editor we need more of, and I say that as somebody who sees him as clearly being on a "pro-Israel" side of things, but he is reasonable and open to discussion and willing to compromise. But on topics that rile him up he goes wayyyy too far, and this is one such example.
- re I can't tell a user that he is lying when he is patently lying??? WTF???, no, no you can not. Even if he were and that were an established fact. You can report him for disruptive or tendentious editing, but no you cannot say you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith. You could probably call some statement a lie if you could prove it, but no, you may not call another editor a pov-pushing liar. nableezy - 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, as far as the pov-pushing bit, one should note that Daveout edited to insert two highly POV pieces, and only those links, the mirror image of what he claims is POV-pushing by others. Nobody said he is a liar or not editing in good faith or a pov-pusher. nableezy - 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Dave, like I said, I dont even want to be here reporting you. But you just said your edit was a WP:POINT violation. If you think something is wrong then say it is wrong and then raise the issue at the appropriate noticeboard if discussion proves to be unfruitful. Do I agree with Selfstudier's addition to the EL page? I dont really have a problem with them. Do I think an external links section should only have links in support of one POV? Obviously not. The solution there is to add other appropriate links though. But heres the important part. You cant just insult somebody like that. You cant double down on it. I understand this topic can be emotional for some editors. But if you get so emotional about it that you are incapable of participating like an encyclopedia editor then you should recognize that and walk away. I think you are, usually, a good editor. I think you edit in good faith. But that doesnt excuse that kind of attack, and then to double down on it? I would gladly withdraw this report if you self-revert your re-insertion and commit to not personalizing disputes and not violating WP:NPA and WP:POINT. nableezy - 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Daveout hasnt restored the offending remark since I again removed it, and that being the case I'd ask this just be closed with a warning on personalizing disputes and making personal attacks. nableezy - 23:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified nableezy - 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Daveout
[edit]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 Daveout
[edit](1) - (diff) I removed an external link and wrote the following summary: "rv, i think this should be discussed first. along with the other links"
(2) - (diff) To which Selfstudier replied "...the latest revert is free of any rationale, none was specified in the edit summary, just an unwarranted demand for discussion."
(3) - What is that if not a lie??? I can't tell a user that he is lying when he is patently lying??? WTF???
(4) - This is the *unwarranted* discussion that their referring to. The discussion, a good faith attempt to build consensus, was triggered by the fact that 3 external links were added to the Israel and apartheid article, all of them basically affirmed that there is an apartheid in Israel (which is a controversial matter and should be dealt with neutrality). The external links are as follow: "Inside Israeli Apartheid", The apartheid reports, DECONSTRUCTING ISRAEL'S APARTHEID AGAINST PALESTINIANS.
(5) - So look at the links and tell me that the discussion about neutrality is *unwarranted*, it's another L-I-E. There's no other name for it.
- Nableezy I was trying to make a point about one-sided external links. (and by the way, the pro-Israel ones were promptly removed under neutrality concerns, oh the irony). I'll admit that maybe the way I did it wasn't so obvious. Anyway, as I later explained on talk
I'm perfectly happy with no 'external links' section. Or it could have a balanced version
. Making clear that I didn't want a section with pro-Israel links only. - Hypothetically speaking, if you consider that
pov-pushing"less than neutral", do you agree that Selfstudier acted in apov-pushing"less than neutral" manner? –Daveout
(talk) 19:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: It was a comment on my perception of Ideological bias on Wikipedia, based on my own experience, I didn't mean to attack anyone. (do you have mind reading capabilities or are you failing to assume good faith?). I was indeed thinking about an event that I experienced, where I saw admins ignoring rules in order to vilify an allegedly conservative "free-speech" website. (I can provide diffs but I really don't want to get into that). And by the way I'm a Bernie suporter. –
Daveout
(talk) 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)- Daveout, as I said below, this was an "attack on our editors in general". I did not say that it was a personal attack on any specific user. But I am not violating WP:AGF by pointing out that
"Cannot say bad things about Dems in wikipedia, unfortunately. Everything bad about their politicians is just conspiracy around here"
is an uncivil remark. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Daveout, as I said below, this was an "attack on our editors in general". I did not say that it was a personal attack on any specific user. But I am not violating WP:AGF by pointing out that
- @Muboshgu: It was a comment on my perception of Ideological bias on Wikipedia, based on my own experience, I didn't mean to attack anyone. (do you have mind reading capabilities or are you failing to assume good faith?). I was indeed thinking about an event that I experienced, where I saw admins ignoring rules in order to vilify an allegedly conservative "free-speech" website. (I can provide diffs but I really don't want to get into that). And by the way I'm a Bernie suporter. –
- I will never take back or apologize for saying that Wikipedia is biased in favor of establishment Democrats. This is a well known fact, a constructive criticism, not incivility, nor "a direct attack on editors in general". (I say this as a progressive Bernie supporter.) (Wanna permaban me for saying that? Fine. Just do it. It will just prove my point.)
- I have a hard time being fake polite, and sometimes, I notice, people take my words harder than I intended. but I can try from now on, as a compromise, to force myself to sound softer even during disputes. For example, instead of saying
"Selfstudier, You're a liar!"
, I can push my hardest to say things like"Selfstudier, sweetie, we're talking about this exact issue on talk, as I mentioned in the summary. I didn't explicitly wrote WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:POV in there because I thought you were already well aware of those. But you clearly weren't, despite having over a decade of experience. It's thus obviously my fault for being so... cryptic. I'm really sorry. >.< "
–Daveout
(talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @GizzyCatBella: You forgot to say that, as I made clear, I restored positive and uncontroversial edits only. In many instances, including votes, I acted in ways that would let Yaniv displeased since I'm less pro-Israel than him, and I have the receipts. But since you're so committed at reverting every Yaniv edit, you might be interested in restoring this edit describing Sara Netanyahu as a cow, since it was corrected by Yaniv. (along with other edits that introduced crass errors in articles, some carelessly reintroduced by yourself) –
Daveout
(talk) 17:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)- ("Collapsing. Sorry for bringing it up here. Please note but ignore it, admins.")
- @GizzyCatBella: You forgot to say that, as I made clear, I restored positive and uncontroversial edits only. In many instances, including votes, I acted in ways that would let Yaniv displeased since I'm less pro-Israel than him, and I have the receipts. But since you're so committed at reverting every Yaniv edit, you might be interested in restoring this edit describing Sara Netanyahu as a cow, since it was corrected by Yaniv. (along with other edits that introduced crass errors in articles, some carelessly reintroduced by yourself) –
Extended content
|
---|
|
Statement by GizzyCatBella
[edit]collapsing (ignore it please)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Result concerning Daveout
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- RE:
you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith
(diff) — yikes! El_C 17:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Daveout, a couple of things: 1. Please sign + timestamp any and all comments. 2. Attributing a possible error to a
lie
fails to exhibit good faith on your part. Also, even if you were able to somehow prove that it was alie
(singular), that does not mean that they are aliar
(habitual). 3. Maybe tone down the the excessive bold (have mercy on our eyes) and other heated exclamations. Those do the opposite of of advancing your position, because they serve as distraction, one which does not come across as representing the dispassionate discourse expected for this topic area (and doubly so here, at WP:AE, where one's related conduct is placed under scrutiny). Thank you. El_C 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Daveout, a couple of things: 1. Please sign + timestamp any and all comments. 2. Attributing a possible error to a
- Clear personal attack and I don't see anything here which could possibly justify it. It seems to me that these editors just have different perspectives on this revert: Selfstudier pointed out that the edit summary doesn't contain a rationale for removing that specific link (which is true), and Daveout felt that a previous post on the talk page justified the removal. Neither is a wildly unreasonable perspective to have and certainly not justification for insulting people. Given the prior warning, and the fact that Daveout's comments here double down on the original comment, I think some sort of sanction or at least a stern logged warning would be appropriate. Hut 8.5 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- We also have this newly made edit with incivility and an attack on our editors in general in the American politics arena. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Since it does not appear that this editor is improving their behavior much if at all, I would not be opposed to a topic ban, or more than one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wow. This is a two for one deal? We have WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE and WP:INCIVIL behavior in American politics and Palestine-Israel. Doubling down on such behavior above? I think ArbCom wants us to tend away from indefinite TBANS, so one each for American politics and Israel-Palestine would be nice, but they were not DS alerted for American politics. So six months TBAN for Israel Palestine. However, I see a trend that makes me believe a site ban may become necessary. The general WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is the opposite of what is required in a collaborative work environment. As the behavior escalated, I think a warning will not be effective. If anyone wants a limited duration site-wide block from editing, that would be my second choice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Time-limited sanctions are counter productive for anything other than petty vandalism or edit warring. I'm not up to date regarding Arbcom's latest effort to hamstring discretionary sanctions, but if there is any time that an indef topic ban was required, this is it. If that's now not permitted, I don't see why there would be less than a one-year tban. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Kheo17
[edit]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 Kheo17
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Kheo17 (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
- WP:ARBAA2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
- 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 by me before continuing to restore the edits, see the system log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 6 April 2021 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Kheo17 continued to use the source Qərbi Azərbaycanın türk mənşəli toponimləri ("Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan") after being warned of it's unreliability. The "Western Azerbaijan" in the title is actually referring to Armenia, and is an Azerbaijani irredentism source that is explaining how the names of every Armenian city and town are actually of Turkic/Azerbaijani origin. The book's author, Ibrahim Bayramov, co-wrote another book about how all of Armenia is Azerbaijan's rightful territory.
I explained to Kheo17 on his talk page why this source is unreliable, but he continued to restore it on several Armenian town articles regardless. I'm shocked that an editor who has been editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles for over a decade would not understand why a source claiming all of Armenia belongs to Azerbaijan is not acceptable. --Dallavid (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Rosguill My apologies, I had misread that sample example amid the multiple other examples close to each other, and mistakenly read it as "Previously given a discretionary sanction alert for conduct in the area of conflict" because the "Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict..." and "Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict..." examples were close to it. --Dallavid (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [2]
Discussion concerning Kheo17
[edit]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 Kheo17
[edit]The accusation by Dallavid is baseless. An irredentist title does not make the information in the publication automatically biased or unreliable. The paper uses tens of reliable references from Armenian, Azerbaijani, Russian and European sources. For every statistical information, it provides a reference right after the statement. Using the same logic, all the reliable sources with "Western Armenia" in the title should be removed from Wikipedia?
Unlike Dallavid argues, the source does not try to claim any territory or prove that every Armenian settlement was only inhabited by Azerbaijanis. It is just a research paper on the Turkic origin of some of the settlement names in current Armenia at certain period in time.
Second of all, I expanded articles and created content using two sources: Korkotyan (1932) - an Armenian author and Bayramov (2002) - an Azerbaijani author. The demographic data from 1831 to 1931 was only sourced from Kokotyan (1932). However, Dallavid kept reverting all of my content independent of what source I used. It seems Dallavid is more dissatisfied with what my sources say, rather than their reliability. Thank you--KHE'O (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (Abrvagl)
[edit]This appears to be a content dispute case that almost escalated into an edit warring when both users demonstrated a lack of ability to handle the matter wisely. User Dallavid made the correct decision by initiating the conversation on the user Kheo17's talk page. However, I feel that the discussion, which began with a DS notice and was written in a demanding tone was not a good start and generated a hostile perception. Then user Dallavid did not wait for the reply and reverted 23 edits of the user Kheo17 on the 23 articles within 8 minutes of initiating a conversation, which I think also fosters a battlefield environment rather than fostering healthy discussion. Furthermore, I reviewed the all of the 23 reverts, and it looks that user Dallavid has never contributed to any of those articles, which, in my opinion, may make other user feel hounded.
On the other hand, instead of attempting to reinstate some of his edits, user Kheo17 could have attempted to comprehend Dallavid's concerns, continued the discussion in order to achieve an agreement, and maybe taken the source to the RSN or to some of the dispute resolution boards. I am not an administrator, and I believe administrators will know more than I, but I see nothing but two people arguing about the content, who need to learn to manage things wisely in order to maintain healthy atmosphere. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 15:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning Kheo17
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Dallavid, I'm afraid you've misread or misrepresented my interaction with Kheo17: I gave them a standard DS alert, not a sanction. If you're making a report here, you should understand the difference between those things. I don't see any record of a logged sanction against Kheo17 at WP:AELOG. I would suggest that you strike this element of your report accordingly. I have not otherwise investigated this report. signed, Rosguill talk 15:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Muhafiz-e-Pakistan
[edit]Topic-banned as a GS (non-AE) action. See follow-up comments on talk with respect to AE jurisdiction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:51, 7 October 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 Muhafiz-e-Pakistan[edit]
N/A
I don't really think this needs saying, but while there are indeed Uyghur militant groups, flatly smearing the majority of an ethnic group in a country as militant extremist without any reliable sources that supporting the is so flagrantly out-of-line with our content policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V that it shows, at best, a lack of competence to be editing in this general sanctions area. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Muhafiz-e-Pakistan[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 Muhafiz-e-Pakistan[edit]@Red-tailed hawk I also said that there are refugees. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Muhafiz-e-Pakistan[edit]
|
Clean Copy
[edit]Clean Copy blocked 1 month for blatant topic ban violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:04, 8 October 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 Clean Copy[edit]
[6] 5 October 2022 Discussion concerning Clean Copy[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 Clean Copy[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Clean Copy[edit]
|
Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center
[edit]Crisis pregnancy center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed under an indefinite 72-hour 1RR. Any admin may impose a BRD restriction, in addition to or in place of this 1RR, without need for further AE discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:51, 11 October 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 for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center[edit]
This is not a request for sanctions against any particular editor. Rather, per the instructions at the top of this page, it is a request that administrator(s) enact, as an administrator action authorized under the Abortion case DS, a WP:1RR page restriction at Crisis pregnancy center (not the talk page, just the page itself). As shown in the link above, there was previously a 1RR restriction at all pages in the topic area of the DS, that was lifted in 2020. Here, I'm requesting that it be added back on a single page, for at least a while, while there is a dispute that is being discussed on the article talk page, where there is an ongoing RfC and related discussion. A look at the page edit history shows no 3RR violations, but a significant amount of slow edit warring: [7]. Alternatively, I guess you could full protect the page. In any case, I think it would be helpful to keep the debate on the talk page, at least until the RfC is over. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center[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 (username)[edit]Result concerning Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center[edit]
|
Grandmaster
[edit]There is a consensus to lift Grandmaster's topic ban from the AA2 subject area. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Grandmaster[edit]
Topic ban appeal[edit]I would like to appeal my indefinite AA topic ban per this report: [11] by User:Armatura (now indef banned). I was reported for posting a link to a news site article in a talk page discussion. While I agree that the link that I posted was not a reliable source, I never used it in the article, nor did I propose to use it. But it was a poor choice, of which I regret. I understand that I should use better discretion when selecting sources, even if they are intended just for illustrative purposes. I promise not to make the same mistake again. Another reason for Tban was mentioning an IWPR reporter's Armenian nationality to demonstrate the usage of the discussed term in various countries and the reporter not being an Azerbaijani propaganda source. I understand that mentioning nationality during a dispute, even for good faith reasons, could potentially create a battleground atmosphere. As Rosguill advised, I should have just limited myself to pointing out that IWPR was not in cahoots with the Azerbaijani government. It was a mistake on my part that I promise never to repeat. After my first appeal I was advised to take some time off (6 months at least) to edit other areas, which I did. [12] In the last 6 months, in addition to various edits, I created two new articles: Fyodor Arturovich Keller, about a notable historical figure of the Russian revolution era, and Destroyed Russian military equipment exhibition, related to the war in Ukraine. The former became a DYK and was featured on Wikipedia main page. I have been a long time contributor to Wikipedia, I made more than 24,000 edits, and I contributed pretty much to every notable article about Azerbaijan, and created many new ones. Right before the ban, I created another DYK article, Lazar Bicherakhov, which was one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022, and largely rewrote the article about Gobustan State Historical and Cultural Reserve, which is a world heritage site, and was in a very bad shape. I think I could positively contribute to improving Azerbaijan related articles, as I did for many years, so I would like to ask the admins to lift the topic ban. Thank you very much. Grandmaster 14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Sanctioning admin is User:Rosguill. I did not personally notify him. Sorry, I did not know that I had to personally notify him. I have notified him now. Grandmaster 18:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Johnuniq, thanks for commenting. Regarding your question, I have not been sanctioned in the last 15 years, until this tban. Grandmaster 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Discussion concerning Grandmaster[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 Grandmaster[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by Abrvagl[edit]During my newbie days, Grandmaster suddenly stopped responding to the ongoing discussion, despite the fact that I pinged him several times. I only found out Grandmaster was Tbanned after another user explained me. That piqued my interest because it was new to me, so I began exploring the case. I will be honest here, my first impression was that Grandmaster was targeted, because, as I understood from Grandmamster’s reply[13], same user filed number of reports on him in a short period of time. I didn't fully understand what warranted indefinite Tban at the time, but after reading the appeal, it became crystal clear to me, and I actually took some lessons learned from it. I believe that the fact that the individual understands what he did wrong may identicate that he has improved his behavior and addressed concerns. What I don't quite understand is which policy defines duration of the ban and this confuses my understanding. For example, a user, who assume the ethnicity of other editors and challenge RfC outcome based on ethnicity of participants, get a 2-month Tban [14], while other editor get an indefinite Tban for highlighting the reporter's ethnicity to prove the article is not Azerbaijani propaganda. With regards to appeal, considering the fact that Grandmaster understood his mistake and given the points raised by Rosguill, I would opt for a trial period during which any battleground mentality from Grandmaster will result in an immediate Tban. I believe giving Grandmaster a trial Tban lift is a reasonable solution, because, as Rosguill suggested, how else can editor demonstrate that concerns regarding the A-A are addressed if he cannot contribute in that area? A b r v a g l (PingMe) 21:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Grandmaster[edit]
|
Kheo17
[edit]Kheo17 and Dallavid are warned for edit warring, and advised to use resources like the reliable sources noticeboard rather than reverts to help resolve disputes over source reliability in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:56, 15 October 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 Kheo17[edit]
Kheo17 continued to use the source Qərbi Azərbaycanın türk mənşəli toponimləri ("Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan") after being warned of it's unreliability. The "Western Azerbaijan" in the title is actually referring to Armenia, and is an Azerbaijani irredentism source that is explaining how the names of every Armenian city and town are actually of Turkic/Azerbaijani origin. The book's author, Ibrahim Bayramov, co-wrote another book about how all of Armenia is Azerbaijan's rightful territory. I explained to Kheo17 on his talk page why this source is unreliable, but he continued to restore it on several Armenian town articles regardless. I'm shocked that an editor who has been editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles for over a decade would not understand why a source claiming all of Armenia belongs to Azerbaijan is not acceptable. --Dallavid (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kheo17[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 Kheo17[edit]The accusation by Dallavid is baseless. An irredentist title does not make the information in the publication automatically biased or unreliable. The paper uses tens of reliable references from Armenian, Azerbaijani, Russian and European sources. For every statistical information, it provides a reference right after the statement. Using the same logic, all the reliable sources with "Western Armenia" in the title should be removed from Wikipedia? Unlike Dallavid argues, the source does not try to claim any territory or prove that every Armenian settlement was only inhabited by Azerbaijanis. It is just a research paper on the Turkic origin of some of the settlement names in current Armenia at certain period in time. Second of all, I expanded articles and created content using two sources: Korkotyan (1932) - an Armenian author and Bayramov (2002) - an Azerbaijani author. The demographic data from 1831 to 1931 was only sourced from Kokotyan (1932). However, Dallavid kept reverting all of my content independent of what source I used. It seems Dallavid is more dissatisfied with what my sources say, rather than their reliability. Thank you--KHE'O (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Statement by (Abrvagl)[edit]This appears to be a content dispute case that almost escalated into an edit warring when both users demonstrated a lack of ability to handle the matter wisely. User Dallavid made the correct decision by initiating the conversation on the user Kheo17's talk page. However, I feel that the discussion, which began with a DS notice and was written in a demanding tone was not a good start and generated a hostile perception. Then user Dallavid did not wait for the reply and reverted 23 edits of the user Kheo17 on the 23 articles within 8 minutes of initiating a conversation, which I think also fosters a battlefield environment rather than fostering healthy discussion. Furthermore, I reviewed the all of the 23 reverts, and it looks that user Dallavid has never contributed to any of those articles, which, in my opinion, may make other user feel hounded. On the other hand, instead of attempting to reinstate some of his edits, user Kheo17 could have attempted to comprehend Dallavid's concerns, continued the discussion in order to achieve an agreement, and maybe taken the source to the RSN or to some of the dispute resolution boards. I am not an administrator, and I believe administrators will know more than I, but I see nothing but two people arguing about the content, who need to learn to manage things wisely in order to maintain healthy atmosphere. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 15:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Kheo17[edit]
|
Aman.kumar.goel
[edit]No action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:27, 17 October 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 Aman.kumar.goel[edit]
Discussion concerning Aman.kumar.goel[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 Aman.kumar.goel[edit]Pakdef.info is an unreliable source that now redirects to a casino guide. When it was live as a pro-Pakistan military website it claimed "Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world." Anyway, I am not surprised by this bogus report because the IP is a serial ban evading sock I reported almost a week ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NomanPK44. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Aman.kumar.goel[edit]
|
Bookku
[edit]Topic banned indefinitely from the intersection of Pakistan and Feminism, appealable after six months--RegentsPark (comment) 22:40, 8 October 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 Bookku[edit]
N/A
I have previously worked with User:Bookku over Feminism related articles and was ready to discuss the additions to 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and expected him to assume good faith on my behalf but he made it quite a dispute. Since the start of discussion he continuously blamed me for victim blaming even though I clarified multiple times that I do not deny the happening of incident but there are other things that needs a inclusion for balancing the article and neutrality. He was not ready to accept the inclusion based on WP:BLPPUBLIC and making WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based arguments. He was also not ready to accept the other editor view who came on his notice to some project but held a vague RfC (as called by editors there) where most editors opined the suspects to be Public Figures for the purpose. He still did not accep their views and wilfully brings WP:NBIO to be criteria to include someone's name in the article which is criteria for a person to have separate article and was told about it. Bludgeoning the discussion by bringing irrelevant things to the discussion and creating walls of texts for which a couple of editors requested him to be concise but seems like he always does this as evident from his talkpage discussions. Although he calls himself South Asian gender studies student but his editing is mostly centred around pushing POV against a specific country and sometimes a community. He is even warned for shenanigans for an undue addition and singling out a specific country by User:TrangaBellam. He accepted his POV in his editing in the subject area contrary to Wikipedia is Not Advocacy and WP:NOTFORUM for which he was previously told as well. One more thing which is though a couple of years back happening but since we both were directly involved in a redirect discussion where I was called supporter of Pakistani deep state, promoting Armed Forces' narrative, wisher of soft censors by him. In conclusion his behaviour seems like just lingering on the matter in an attempt to exhaust contributing editors by doing argument for the sake of argument, refusal to accept the other views and hell bent on resisting these changes and inability to understand the situation to follow policies and guidelines. USaamo (t@lk) 14:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon thanks for your mediation offer, you have my full cooperation. Appologies that my response got longer in last discussion but before that I tried to be as concise as possible. He kept on making long replies for which I reluctantly have to reply but still he said to me that I'm not co-operating and his concerns remain unaddressed. In last thread I just combined my responses from above in a single post as I was not in a mood to reply again and again. USaamo (t@lk) 10:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC) @User:Deepfriedokra since @User:Johnuniq himself saying that sources does say it, on Wikipedia content needs to be sourced. I believe its inclusion for reasons I explained here esp 2nd and 3rd point. In brief Police found the said audiotape from victim's associate phone as call recording which is quite likely. The same guy later turned to be the main accused as charged by her. Also audiotapes are not denied by any party and are admitted fact in proceedings since victim charged her associate on its basis and accused himself accepted the tapes reiterating it in his statement that victim wanted to extort money and I disagreed with her so she charged me. Aman.kumar.goel I have abided by my topic ban from articles of wars between India-Pakistan and I haven't even appealed it after two years for which I was eligible after 6 months because I don't want to edit in that area.(16) I edited The Kashmir Files once only thinking it to be a film article and had no further intention of editing it but when I was told by User:EdJohnston that the said page also cover my topic ban, I duly abided by it. You bringing that here seems to settle the left over scores against me like always. While you yourself have been the editor mostly up on nationalistic lines as noted by editors (17, 18) and your recent undue addition of similar pattern to 2022 Pakistan floods reverted by me and subsequent edit warring by relatively new accounts to add it reverted by other editors. (19, 20) Bookku, My body my choice and Mera Jism Meri Marzi was another case of WP:UNDUE from you since MJMM was an Urdu slogan with no history or usage outside Pakistan while Mbmc had a global usage where that was best suited. I explained that on talkpage before removal. And that redirect discussion was not a humorous essay but a serious discussion and there was no joke happening there. USaamo (t@lk) 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
diff
Discussion concerning Bookku[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 Bookku[edit]
Assuring you all, I am very much here to build encyclopedia constructively. Pl. let me know any other/ more clarification needed. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Bookku (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Own sign is updated with fresh to avoid bloating
Statement by TB[edit]Will make a statement in support of a logged warning. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]I became aware of the dispute over 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and of Bookku on 11 September, when Bookku posted to the DRN talk page asking for mediation; see Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mediation_help_request_@_article_talk_page. The posts of both Bookku and USaamo are too long, didn't read in detail. Bookku was saying that they would be requesting assistance at DRN and at BLPN. I advised Bookku against forum shopping and said to file in one place. Bookku replied and said they would also need help from other pages. It appears that Bookku is running around in a panic and not helping things. Both Bookku and USaamo need to be civil and concise. I haven't researched the details of the article dispute. If there is a content dispute, I am willing to try to mediate, but will impose word limits and other restrictions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Clarification[edit]This may be a restatement of the obvious, but if a topic ban is imposed, I will not be mediating a dispute over an area where the subject is not permitted to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by Aman.kumar.goel[edit]@Deepfriedokra and Johnuniq USaamo remains topic banned from conflicts related to India and Pakistan,[17] and has violated that topic ban as recently as May 2022.[18] USaamo treated allegations as facts on this diff and wrote it in wikivoice. That was a BLP violation. On talk page, USaamo tells Bookku to " Topic ban of USaamo should be extended to cover whole ARBIPA. Bookku is not understanding about the nature of their POV pushing. He has been already warned over WP:UNDUE, NotAForum, bludgeoning in the recent months. However, the activity of Bookku on Public Space,[22] and 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault[23][24] shows he has ignored these warnings and above message confirms great chances of similar disruption. Bookku should be topic banned as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Replies from both editors, Bookku and USaamo, to my above comment reinforces my view that both of them need a topic ban to cover whole WP:ARBIPA. They simply don't see what is wrong with their own editing. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Bookku[edit]
|
Dallavid
[edit]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 Dallavid
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Dallavid (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
- WP:ARBAA2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 15 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 20 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 19 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 17 October 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 17 October 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 24 March 2021 - Blocked from a user page for
Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy
. - 19 September 2022 - Blocked for 72 hours from the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article for edit warring.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above 15 October 2022
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
On September 14, 2022, Dallavid made this contentious edit to the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article, after which they started a talk page discussion on Talk:September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes#Undue weight. They also made a similar edit to the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis article. Dallavid's edit on the September 2022 clashes article was reverted by another user (Viewsridge) who also replied at the discussion Dallavid had opened. On September 15, while the discussion was still going on the talk page, Dallavid restored their own edit. This time, I undid their edit and requested that they first reach a consensus within the edit summary. I also commented on the discussion to further explain my objection to the edit. Another user then restored Dallavid's edit, but the user Sandstein reverted it with this edit summary: No opinion on the merits, but this version of the lead is confusing and a stylistic catastrophe; see MOS:LEAD
. On September 19, Dallavid restored their edit once more. I asked Dallavid to go back and reach a decision first in accordance with WP:ONUS. On the same day, Dallavid again restored their edit after another user had undone it. On September 20, I restored stable version of the lead and asked the involved editors to reach consensus. Dallavid stopped reinstating their edit for about a month after that. A number of editors improved the lead during that time. On October 17, however, Dallavid abruptly reinstated their edit once more, citing the edit summary no additional discussion in the talk page about the lead's undue weight.
as justification. They also reinstated same edit on the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis. article
Dallavid most likely did not even check edits made to the lead during their absence and simply copy-pasted their edit, because by reinstating their edit, Dallavid also reverted a number of edits from other users without any explanation. For example, their edit also reverted this edit, which was made based on a consensus between several editors.
Dallavid appear to have engaged in edit warring behavior, which continued even after they was blocked and warned for it. This could also be a case of tendentious editing, because Dallavid is not only pushing their POV and not dropping the stick after being opposed by a number of editors, but they continue to do so even after being told that their edit doesn't comply with Wikipedia's MOS. The version of lead Dallavid proposed, which contains things like The Azerbaijani Defence Ministry and Turkish media falsely claimed...
, ...which was disproven by multiple third-party sources
, delivers no new information, but was written in a tendentious way rather than in encyclopedic and neutral tone.
Since I made the report, Dallavid has continued their tendentious editing and edit warring:
- 26 October 2022 - Dallavid partially restores their edit, justifying it with
a very clear consensus
despite the fact that there are three users actively opposing Dallavid's change. - 24 October 2022 - Dallavid restores a category by the name "Azerbaijani war crimes" in an article about Nazi massacre in Poland simply because of the participation of some ethnic Azerbaijanis.
- 26 September 2022 - Although not done after the report, this is a good example Dallavid's tendentious editing: Dallavid removed a whole section from the Ruben Vardanyan (businessman) article, which was supported by reliable sources such as RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, Eurasianet, OCCRP and The Guardian, justifying it with
only "alleged" by one source with no evident reliability, is a BLP violation
. Yet two days later, on 28 September 2022, Dallavid adds contentious material to an article about Nasimi Aghayev, a living person, and supports it with a bunch of Twitter links and a Fox11 source. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Done
Discussion concerning Dallavid
[edit]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 Dallavid
[edit]How is my September 14th edit "contentious"? It was reliably sourced and, as Abrvagl admits, I opened a talk page discussion right afterward to further elaborate and so anyone that wanted to dispute them could discuss it. Abrvagl is incorrect in saying that I reverted Viewsridge, who had claimed there was an issue with my sources in his edit summary but never elaborated what that was, and his removal of my edit also broke several reference tags. Viewsridge was instead reverted by User:Blaylockjam10.[25] Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users,[26][27][28] and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted.[29] When I restored the edits on September 19th, that had been two days after User:Knižnik (himself being reverted by Viewsridge) made a talk page post agreeing[30] that the "both sides accused each other" wording was very undue, given that multiple third-party politicians and organizations confirmed Azerbaijan was the aggressor. These false balance points were further agreed on by User:XTheBedrockX.[31] That is why I restored a version making it clear that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia; there was a clear talk page consensus to do so. But I didn't restore the exact same header, as I had taken care to reword it in order to address Sandstein's stylistic concerns. The user who reverted me was Viewsridge again[32], who bizarrely claimed "Changes opposed by multiple users and discussed against inclusion in the talk page" even though the False balance discussion showed the opposite was true; multiple users opposed the changes Viewsridge was making and he never even replied to them on the talk page. Abrvagl's September 20th edit was not the stable version, and it is very odd for him to have said "lets achieve consensus version at talk fist", because there had already been a talk page consensus established by Knižnik, XTheBedrockX, and myself. Abrvagl and Viewsridge continued to revert other users and asking them to "achieve consensus" while at the same time not participating in the talk page consensus they were reverting. Abrvagl was then reverted by Blaylockjam10 again[33], and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.[34]
As both the Undue weight and False balance discussions show, Abrvagl and Viewsridge never responded to any of the other users explaining to them why the "both sides" wording is undue after September 16th and 17th, respectively, but they both continued to revert other users well after those dates who were simply including what the talk page consensus decided on.
This is clearly just a content dispute, mostly from over a month ago. It's a shame that Abrvagl's first thought was to make an enforcement request instead of joining the talk page discussion he neglected to reply to for over a month. If he had bothered to read the talk page, he would know that the version he claims I proposed was actually a consensus established by multiple other users. --Dallavid (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I trimmed parts of my statement with invisible HTML Comments to meet the 500 word limit. I would like to be given permission to included those parts as well so that I can fully defend myself against the large amount of false accusations Abrvagl made. --Dallavid (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Vanezi Astghik
[edit]Dallavid had only made changes that the talk page consensus had already decided on. It is actually Abrvagl who has engaged in edit warring behavior, both with me and with other users on this article. --Vanezi (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Olympian
[edit]@User:Vanezi Astghik If you took the time to read the evidence listed by Abrvagl, you'll find that in fact, Dallavid didn't adhere to talk page consensus at all. – Olympian loquere 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Blaylockjam10
[edit]The main thing I remember about this is reverting edits that removed text and references that supported that text. It seemed like those edits were done to remove text and references that made Azerbaijan look bad. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by XTheBedrockX
[edit]I definitely agreed with Dallavid that it was likely WP:UNDUE to state that both sides blamed each other without mentioning that a number of third party sources also claimed that Azerbaijan was encroaching into Armenia. The non-regional perspectives were important, and also, I think, notable enough to mention in the lead. In any case, though, I don't thank an arbitration request was necessary to resolve this. Contentious reverting without consensus is certainly uncalled for - but questions and debates about WP:NPOV and consensus-building are also a normal part of Wikipedia. I believe Dallavid was acting in WP:GOODFAITH, and I simply don't agree that Dallavid was being anywhere close to disruptive enough to warrant this. User:XTheBedrockX (talk)
Statement by (username)
[edit]Result concerning Dallavid
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Dallavid
[edit]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 Dallavid
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Dallavid (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
- WP:ARBAA2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 15 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 20 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 19 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 17 October 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- 17 October 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 24 March 2021 - Blocked from a user page for
Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy
. - 19 September 2022 - Blocked for 72 hours from the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article for edit warring.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above 15 October 2022
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
On September 14, 2022, Dallavid made this contentious edit to the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article, after which they started a talk page discussion on Talk:September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes#Undue weight. They also made a similar edit to the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis article. Dallavid's edit on the September 2022 clashes article was reverted by another user (Viewsridge) who also replied at the discussion Dallavid had opened. On September 15, while the discussion was still going on the talk page, Dallavid restored their own edit. This time, I undid their edit and requested that they first reach a consensus within the edit summary. I also commented on the discussion to further explain my objection to the edit. Another user then restored Dallavid's edit, but the user Sandstein reverted it with this edit summary: No opinion on the merits, but this version of the lead is confusing and a stylistic catastrophe; see MOS:LEAD
. On September 19, Dallavid restored their edit once more. I asked Dallavid to go back and reach a decision first in accordance with WP:ONUS. On the same day, Dallavid again restored their edit after another user had undone it. On September 20, I restored stable version of the lead and asked the involved editors to reach consensus. Dallavid stopped reinstating their edit for about a month after that. A number of editors improved the lead during that time. On October 17, however, Dallavid abruptly reinstated their edit once more, citing the edit summary no additional discussion in the talk page about the lead's undue weight.
as justification. They also reinstated same edit on the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis. article
Dallavid most likely did not even check edits made to the lead during their absence and simply copy-pasted their edit, because by reinstating their edit, Dallavid also reverted a number of edits from other users without any explanation. For example, their edit also reverted this edit, which was made based on a consensus between several editors.
Dallavid appear to have engaged in edit warring behavior, which continued even after they was blocked and warned for it. This could also be a case of tendentious editing, because Dallavid is not only pushing their POV and not dropping the stick after being opposed by a number of editors, but they continue to do so even after being told that their edit doesn't comply with Wikipedia's MOS. The version of lead Dallavid proposed, which contains things like The Azerbaijani Defence Ministry and Turkish media falsely claimed...
, ...which was disproven by multiple third-party sources
, delivers no new information, but was written in a tendentious way rather than in encyclopedic and neutral tone.
Since I made the report, Dallavid has continued their tendentious editing and edit warring:
- 26 October 2022 - Dallavid partially restores their edit, justifying it with
a very clear consensus
despite the fact that there are three users actively opposing Dallavid's change. - 24 October 2022 - Dallavid restores a category by the name "Azerbaijani war crimes" in an article about Nazi massacre in Poland simply because of the participation of some ethnic Azerbaijanis.
- 26 September 2022 - Although not done after the report, this is a good example Dallavid's tendentious editing: Dallavid removed a whole section from the Ruben Vardanyan (businessman) article, which was supported by reliable sources such as RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, Eurasianet, OCCRP and The Guardian, justifying it with
only "alleged" by one source with no evident reliability, is a BLP violation
. Yet two days later, on 28 September 2022, Dallavid adds contentious material to an article about Nasimi Aghayev, a living person, and supports it with a bunch of Twitter links and a Fox11 source. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Done
Discussion concerning Dallavid
[edit]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 Dallavid
[edit]How is my September 14th edit "contentious"? It was reliably sourced and, as Abrvagl admits, I opened a talk page discussion right afterward to further elaborate and so anyone that wanted to dispute them could discuss it. Abrvagl is incorrect in saying that I reverted Viewsridge, who had claimed there was an issue with my sources in his edit summary but never elaborated what that was, and his removal of my edit also broke several reference tags. Viewsridge was instead reverted by User:Blaylockjam10.[35] Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users,[36][37][38] and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted.[39] When I restored the edits on September 19th, that had been two days after User:Knižnik (himself being reverted by Viewsridge) made a talk page post agreeing[40] that the "both sides accused each other" wording was very undue, given that multiple third-party politicians and organizations confirmed Azerbaijan was the aggressor. These false balance points were further agreed on by User:XTheBedrockX.[41] That is why I restored a version making it clear that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia; there was a clear talk page consensus to do so. But I didn't restore the exact same header, as I had taken care to reword it in order to address Sandstein's stylistic concerns. The user who reverted me was Viewsridge again[42], who bizarrely claimed "Changes opposed by multiple users and discussed against inclusion in the talk page" even though the False balance discussion showed the opposite was true; multiple users opposed the changes Viewsridge was making and he never even replied to them on the talk page. Abrvagl's September 20th edit was not the stable version, and it is very odd for him to have said "lets achieve consensus version at talk fist", because there had already been a talk page consensus established by Knižnik, XTheBedrockX, and myself. Abrvagl and Viewsridge continued to revert other users and asking them to "achieve consensus" while at the same time not participating in the talk page consensus they were reverting. Abrvagl was then reverted by Blaylockjam10 again[43], and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.[44]
As both the Undue weight and False balance discussions show, Abrvagl and Viewsridge never responded to any of the other users explaining to them why the "both sides" wording is undue after September 16th and 17th, respectively, but they both continued to revert other users well after those dates who were simply including what the talk page consensus decided on.
This is clearly just a content dispute, mostly from over a month ago. It's a shame that Abrvagl's first thought was to make an enforcement request instead of joining the talk page discussion he neglected to reply to for over a month. If he had bothered to read the talk page, he would know that the version he claims I proposed was actually a consensus established by multiple other users. --Dallavid (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I trimmed parts of my statement with invisible HTML Comments to meet the 500 word limit. I would like to be given permission to included those parts as well so that I can fully defend myself against the large amount of false accusations Abrvagl made. --Dallavid (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Vanezi Astghik
[edit]Dallavid had only made changes that the talk page consensus had already decided on. It is actually Abrvagl who has engaged in edit warring behavior, both with me and with other users on this article. --Vanezi (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Olympian
[edit]@User:Vanezi Astghik If you took the time to read the evidence listed by Abrvagl, you'll find that in fact, Dallavid didn't adhere to talk page consensus at all. – Olympian loquere 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Blaylockjam10
[edit]The main thing I remember about this is reverting edits that removed text and references that supported that text. It seemed like those edits were done to remove text and references that made Azerbaijan look bad. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by XTheBedrockX
[edit]I definitely agreed with Dallavid that it was likely WP:UNDUE to state that both sides blamed each other without mentioning that a number of third party sources also claimed that Azerbaijan was encroaching into Armenia. The non-regional perspectives were important, and also, I think, notable enough to mention in the lead. In any case, though, I don't thank an arbitration request was necessary to resolve this. Contentious reverting without consensus is certainly uncalled for - but questions and debates about WP:NPOV and consensus-building are also a normal part of Wikipedia. I believe Dallavid was acting in WP:GOODFAITH, and I simply don't agree that Dallavid was being anywhere close to disruptive enough to warrant this. User:XTheBedrockX (talk)
Statement by (username)
[edit]Result concerning Dallavid
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Hari147
[edit]Indefed by Bish --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:18, 1 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 Hari147[edit]
notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Discussion concerning Hari147[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 Hari147[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Hari147[edit]
|
TheCurrencyGuy
[edit]TheCurrencyGuy has been indefed by Tamzin. Unblocking admins should consider a topic ban as part of the unblock conditions --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:56, 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 TheCurrencyGuy[edit]
On 30 October (before TCG was alerted to the the Troubles DS), TCG added John MacBride (a participant in the Easter Rising) to our list of people who were executed, later reverted by Scolaire who pointed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals? where it was argued that Easter Rising participants should not be deemed war criminals. However, in the above three edits (all made after TCG was alerted), TCG twice restored their preferred version of the page (revert to first two edits here, to the third edit here) within a few hours, despite intervening reverts by Scolaire and Spelodrach. This should be a case of IDHT, if not of a breach of 1RR. There are also other cases of TCG adding the criminal infobox to Easter Rising participants (which can be found in their contribs), but I will leave them out because they were not yet alerted of DS when those edits were made. I understand that Arbitration is a serious matter, and I hope I didn't err too much in my first enforcement request; I apologize for any wastage of time that this request incurs. Thank you all for your time. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Not applicable.
Special:Diff/1119388769
I would like to fix a ping. @Spleodrach: NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC) I have moved "On 30 October... for your time" one section up (under the diffs) and the ping-fixing comment to this section. Thanks. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC) @Scolaire: In this edit, you did remove MacBride. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC) On one hand, TCG declared that they have "abandoned" their account. However, I am inclined to take it as AE flu, since their previous attempt at declaring abandonment (in July) lasted for about a day. For details, please peruse the history of TCG's user page. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1119551559
Discussion concerning TheCurrencyGuy[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 TheCurrencyGuy[edit]What Scolaire had done was not recategorise but removed the individuals entirely, something Spelodrach did again, somehow implying these people were not executed, I have not altered it since they were retained but shunted into a different category. I added the "criminal conviction" infobox in good faith after noting it on the articles of similar individuals likewise guilty of politically motivated crimes and I considered it an omission. The argument over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals? is hard to follow. It is my position that if a person was lawfully executed and whose charge, conviction and execution is a pertinent aspect of their lives then it ought to be included in their infobox and should be supported by the categories the article is listed in. I am unsure whether the charge of treason by "levying war against the government" is technically considered a war crime, But I would have been happy to be advised to simply move them to another section. The heavy handed complete removal of them is what spurred my reversions.
The discussion at WT:IE#Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals? is not all that hard to follow - it's clear that there's significant opposition to TheCurrencyGuy's changes, which was apparent before their post-DS alert reverts. Their response here is WP:IDHT - trying to explain why they're right and everyone else in that discussion is wrong. -M.nelson (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by The Banner[edit]Rather concerning is that The CurrencyGuy not only depicted the leaders of the Easter Rising as criminals but also as war criminals (example: [53]) or just branded a fighter as a murderer (example: [54]). The Banner talk 12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by Scolaire[edit]I think this is a bit excessive. 1) three diffs are shown where in fact there were only two reverts: WP:EW defines a revert as "an edit or a series of consecutive edits", so the first two diffs make one revert (two is still too many, but bear with me). 2) Adding John MacBride to the List of people who were executed is a red herring, since it was not a revert. 3) The notice on TheCurrencyGuy's talk page was clearly about the articles where he was editing the infobox – a friendly warning not to revert any of those articles, which he did not. 4) Not having experience in Troubles-related articles, it would not have been obvious to him that List of people who were executed would come under the Troubles ArbCom's remit; that was not made clear in the notice, and NotReallySoroka did not take the trouble to explain that to him. I don't think any action should be taken here. Scolaire (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]It was pointed out in the thread that by TCG's definition above, Jesus should be listed as a criminal in the infobox and categories. While I don't think action should be taken at this time, he does need to rethink his actions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]It appears that TCG has, um... retired. 23:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TheCurrencyGuy[edit]
|