Johnpacklambert blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Johnpacklambert
Discussion concerning JohnpacklambertStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Johnpacklambert
Statement by NableezyClear violation, should result in a block. nableezy - 00:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDayIf you're going to be blocked? it should be for no more then one week. Because of the t-ban, you're going to be under extra scrutiny. Best bet? walk away entirely from anything to do with 'deletions'. GoodDay ( talk) 13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) A month block, for a mistake? That's too harsh, IMHO. These types of blocks are suppose to be "preventative" in nature, not "punitive". GoodDay ( talk) 13:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenonI believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. That isn't an excuse, but a problem. We apparently have an editor who doesn't understand the restrictions, maybe because he isn't capable of understanding or isn't trying to understand. I don't know what should be done, but I don't think that the usual pattern of escalating sanctions will be effective. I believe his statement, and that is a problem. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by ShibbolethinkUnfortunately, I do think this probably qualifies as a violation of the "spirit" of JPL's TBAN, if not the actual letter. I've been following this user's saga from the periphery, just as a lurker on the litany of ANI threads. I haven't really interacted with them otherwise.
One of the things I think we should all consider on AE threads is "Is there a better course of action the user could have followed, in good faith, to exercise the impulse they felt? If so, what would it have been?" In this case, JPL could have gotten clarification from an admin if the talk page comment would have run afoul of their TBAN. They could have posted about the page's actual issues (e.g. notability, etc) on a noticeboard or Wikiproject page, without juxtaposing it directly next to someone else talking about a PROD. etc. etc. As to the length or severity of this violation of a TBAN, though, I think some of the suggested durations are a bit harsh, aren't they? One month, for posting " I know it typically isn't the purview of commenting non-admins to discuss the length of such blocks, and they should be escalating in nature. But I would appeal to empathy. The user clearly did not intend to violate the TBAN, and it is also clearly a grey area that we all think is worth talking about.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by FloqDo not believe JPL when he expresses remorse. Or, at least, do not assume that remorse correlates with a reduced likelihood of violating the ban in the future. I was suckered into believing how distraught he claimed to be during a previous block situation, and tricked into intervening which, in retrospect, likely saved JPL from a community ban at that time. I suggest imposing as long a block as uninvolved admins are willing to place. JPL is a timesink, and I imagine he has wasted more than a hundred person-hours of other people's time over the last half year, and probably more than half of that time wasting is due to my previous intervention preventing a community ban. I'm sorry. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Johnpacklambert
|
The consensus here is that the partial block which has already been applied is appropriate. Gillcv is warned that further disruptive editing may result in a topic ban from the pseudoscience and/or CAM areas, or other additional sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gillcv
[6] 29 August 2022, 15:22 UTC
About Hi GoldenRing. You have misread the time. They were warned at 15:22 UTC, not 16:22 UTC. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC) @ Gillcv: See law of holes. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GillcvStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GillcvI the wikipedia entry "Cupping therapy" I introduced the following paragraph; However, this is not the first situation when folk medicine is unjustly blamed by "scientific" medicine. The negative effects of suction cup therapy may also be due to improper handling of the suction cups. It is true that there are also negative effects of suction cup therapy, but which "scientifically" designed drug does not? But there are also scientific studies that rehabilitate this therapy. [1] This paragraph was deleted twice. On the second re-introduction, in the motivation, I wrote that, from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful. The last deletion was motivated as follows: the source is not reliable. In other words, the author of the second deletion allows himself to make me a liar. In addition, without documenting himself, he says that the journal is not reliable! Here is the journal information: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-acupuncture-and-meridian-studies. Gillcv ( talk) 16:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Statement by GoldenRing
@ Tgeorgescu: you are right, my bad. I'll go figure out how to get wiki to always give me times in UTC. GoldenRing ( talk) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Gillcv
|
Blocked indef by GeneralNotability as a regular admin action. El_C 18:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning MrLag525
Discussion concerning MrLag525Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MrLag525Statement by (username)Result concerning MrLag525
|
Carter00000 is indefinitely topic banned from Xinjiang, broadly construed -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Carter00000
At WP:ITNC, the user has bludgeoned arguments for excluding any link to Uyghur genocide in the blurb, essentially resulting the same argument being restated about 8 times. These include:
After being cautioned about bludgeoning on their talk page and about beating a dead horse in the discussion itself, the user continued to bludgeon the discussion and then pinged a bunch of editors who were involved at a discussion on another page:
N/A
I believe that the above shows that the editor has bludgeoned, has been warned about bludgeoning, and has no interest in stopping bludgeoning. I'd ask that the user be blocked under general sanctions for 72 hours for repeatedly bludgeoning at WP:ITNC with respect to the Uyghur genocide article. I believe this will allow time for the user to calm down and will prevent further disruption in this thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Carter00000Statement by Carter00000On the initial edits, I would like to note that the edits linked were made at different stages of the ITN nomination. I felt that given that the discussion had entered into new stages, it was reasonable to address the same concerns again, given that each stage was for a separate action. I would like to note that I stopped making the above argument after being warned. The two subsequent edits made related to the nomination in general, and was to address issues with the process of the nomination, given the number of concerns raised by other editors. The concerns were cited to editors who had raised those issues in brackets, pinging them at the same time as a means to request their comments on the discussion. The pings to the five editors in the second comment was to request comments from all participants of a concurrent discussion on the subject on a different page. Carter00000 ( talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by WaltCipWhatever sanction that is deemed necessary, I'll support, ncluding a topic ban from WP:ITN/C for extraordinarily disruptive conduct, even after being asked to stop. Yes, I recognize I may have partially prompted this by closing the discussion here, but these closures are not atypical on ITN/C once a consensus is reached, as it had been, and the proper thing to do then is discuss any changes to the blurb at WP:ERRORS. Even when he is the sole voice of opposition, Carter00000 has been dominating the discussion both on WP:ERRORS and WP:ITN/C in a way that represents battleground mentality.-- 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 17:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis BrownAfter filing multiple Arb cases and ANI cases, I think it's time for a topic ban from ITN. This is just ridiculous. Since they dragged me to Arb (which was immediately declined for not having merit), I will comment in this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by InvadingInvaderI have not had any direct interactions with Carter outside of this most recent debacle on Xinjiang, but I'm not hearing happy notes about this guy. I do think he frequently disrupts consensus, and if he/she/they had spent more time on
Talk:2022 with regard to Xinjiang, I believe many arguments he would bring up would be redundant and unproductive. Result concerning Carter00000
|
Pranesh Ravikumar is topic banned indefinitely from the subjects of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Pranesh Ravikumar
Discussing something with them itself is a pain due to the fact that they just tend to double down whenever a mistake is pointed out, argue against straw men and it's ultimately fruitless when they just go IDHT. In addition note that this behavior may be motivated by the nature of the content itself, the initial addition reflected negatively on the Premiership of Narendra Modi which they first tried to remove and then tried to minimise/distract from by adding tangential material. They have also previously been blocked for POV pushing and warned for copyright violations. Overall a particularly frustrating combination of uncollaborative combative behavior, edit warring, copyright violations and a general refusal and/or inability to understand and follow policies and guidelines. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Pranesh RavikumarStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Pranesh RavikumarWhy this report is being filed when the content dispute has been already resolved? I am saying this in the sense that there can be no sensible objection to the content that exists in the present version. The content which I had removed included misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims. But the content which I wrote was in fact expansion and was based on quality sources like Christophe Jaffrelot. I admit I had to focus more on rewriting, but I haven't breached copyrights since. Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources. [9] After this, I discussed reliably sourced content backed with multiple sources with Tayi Arajakte on their talk page, but only to see them failing to provide a sensible reason to remove the reliably sourced information. After nearly 3 days of discussion I restored the content. [10] I was following WP:BRD here and gave every opportunity to Tayi Arajakte to provide a good explanation behind the removal of the content backed with quality sources. I also told Tayi Arajakte how they can justify the removal. If the community was consulted over this content then I am sure it will favor my position that the reliably sourced content should not be removed. Pranesh Ravikumar ( talk) 05:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by D4iNa4Making my statement here because of 2 frivolous warnings I received from Tayi Arajakate right after I made my comment on talk page. First warning falsely claims that I violated WP:NPA because of the word " WP:STONEWALLING" I used here, followed by the false claim of having a "rough consensus", despite no consensus is developed in less than 2 hours for removing reliably sourced content. No evidence of WP:NPA violation was ever provided. Second warning falsely claims that I violated WP:CANVASSING by notifying the long term contributors in good standing who have edited this article for years. Either this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or a WP:CIR issue, or a combination of both. You can't go around spamming frivolous warnings just to get discourage your opponent in a content dispute. Admins need to take a look at this misconduct of Tayi Arajakte. D4iNa4 ( talk) 06:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by TrangaBellamIt is ridiculous that Tayi —who is one of the most competent and cooperative editors about Indian topics— is being considered for a TBan. That too, based on flimsy evidence from someone who is under an indefinite AE sanction (since 2018) and has since commited less than 500 edits. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93(I had intended to sit this one out *sigh*). I read the section of Jaffrelot's book that's under dispute. That source is indeed the best on the topic that I am aware of. It constitutes three substantial paragraphs discussing how the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used its investigative agencies to intimidate and/or harass political opponents. The section begins with a passing mention of a historical instance when a politician of the opposing party used the same tactics. If I were interested in genuinely improving that section, I would summarize what the source had to say about the Modi administration. Instead, PraneshRavikumar has decided to lead with the single sentence that's critical of a different politician. This was after he first tried blanking the section. His edit-summary was dreadful, too. I can't help but believe PR has an axe to grind here, and would benefit from some time away from this dispute. A logged warning is the minimum I'd recommend: South Asian politics requires more collaboration and less belligerence, and his attitude toward the copyvio situation was...cavalier. I see no substantive evidence here against Tayi Arajakate. The templated warning wasn't necessary; no attacks were made; but I don't think highly of D4iNa4's choice to jump right into an edit-war after 2+ years of not touching the article. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by RegentsParkI haven't followed all this carefully (RL busyness) but I don't think a tban for Tayi Arajakate is a good idea. No comment on Pranesh Ravikumar. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by TylerBurdenI think a topic ban is reasonable here, poor behaviour went on for far too long and only seems to have turned into remorse now that consequenses look likely. The topic area is complicated enough without editing like this and Pranesh Ravikumar seems to have a POV that is strong enough to get in the way of constructively editing the topic. -- TylerBurden ( talk) 04:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Pranesh Ravikumar
|
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.
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
It seems Trickipaedia has taken it upon himself to purge Wikipedia of caste related information. When asked about what Wikipedia policy approves of his actions, I was called a promoter of casteism (which I take as a personal attack), in a message on my user talk Special:Diff/1110904786 and was asked to "stop casteism". (I am neither a caste warrior, nor caste promoter etc). Responding to my question, Special:Diff/1110778705/1110904555 he pointed me to WP:GS/CASTE, even though that page nowhere says anything about purging caste info from articles.
I have not checked his past contributions to gauge the extent of this disruption, so admins should check and revert them. I am making this request to the admins to put an end to his purging and disruption of information and personal attacks when challenged.
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.
Exactly what is the "charge" and what is the proposed punishment? What Venkat TL is doing here is bullying by unnecessarily dragging me to some sort of penal noticeboard. I have not vandalised any page or acted in bad faith in any article edit ever. And the other bit about Sonia Gandhi that somebody mentioned, can be referenced through thousands of scholarly books (go to books.google.com) , including her authoritative biography. So I have no idea why adding her real name before immigrating to India, is a problem. Is every Indian person's Wikipedia page supposed to mention his "caste", an outmoded and divisive distinction? There has to be some relevance to the article. Doesn't the GS/CASTE policy mention that "explicitly including caste associations" can be a ground for sanctions? So, it should be Venkat TL who should be sanctioned for including it.
Caste is a sensitive matter and I do not see why somebody wants to sanction someone for removing "caste" of a living Indian politician. Have I committed a grave sin? This is the norm that many others follow and tell others. I did not invent it; I noted others saying that caste affiliations are discouraged unless relevant.
In any case, I think the right thing would have been to send me a message about why including caste for every Indian politician/person is important and inviting me to a talk page discussion on Sisodia's talk page about why his caste must be mentioned there. Instead, it has turned into an ego war where the complainant wants to feel some sort of gleeful sense of victory and vanquishing for getting me "sanctioned"—a practice some editors engage in but is actually very bad for the Project where many people genuinely want to contribute. Honestly, the admins would be wise to not turn something so trivial into negativity. If everybody here agrees that caste must be mentioned for Sisodia and other Indians, then just say it. Why "sanction" me for doing what I think is reasonable. Why are we applying a different standard for Indian politicians when we don't mention "race" for Western politicians? If there is anyone here who needs sanctioning then it is Venkat TL who is obviously abusing this forum which is used for serious matters and not basic content dispute. I rest my case and will not read or reply any further.-- Trickipaedia ( talk) 17:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
-- Trickipaedia ( talk) 17:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
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.
Venkat TL appears to be using "BLP" as an exemption for his content removal of over 30,000 bytes of content by providing misleading edit summaries [17] [18] and using horrible sources such as Instagram.com. [19] . If Venkat TL wants to rewrite some sentences or remove the names then he needs to mention that but he is using "BLP" as improper justification for removing more than 30,000 bytes and that is WP:DE.
On talk page, nobody has bought the claims of Venkat TL so far. See Talk:Popular Front of India#Recent removals.
This misuse and misrepresentation of WP:BLP is a heavily prevalent from Venkat TL. This is totally evident from the very recent 4RR violation he did just yesterday on Raju Srivastav (I edited and watchlisted this article before so I know [20]) and he is already going through a report on WP:ANEW ( permalink) for it.
On Raju Srivastav, he charged the subject "for his hypocrisy
",
[21] and defended this BLP violation on talk page
[22] even after being told several times about the violation.
He was warned on his talk page by admin Liz for the misconduct.
[23] On ANEW, admin Bbb23 told Venkat TL that "Venkat TL's claim of a BLP exemption for edit-warring is at least procedurally invalid
",
[24] but Venkat TL kept trying to prove himself that he correct (see
WP:IDHT).
[25]
Not even 1 day was elapsed and Venkat TL is already misusing "BLP" to get rid of over 30,000 bytes of content without providing any meaningful explanation. The last block of Venkat TL on July 2022 for edit warring was also over the same edit warring by using BLP as justification. [26]
I find Venkat TL to be unfit to edit in this area, be it about the subjects that involve BLPs or South Asia. >>> Extorc. talk 15:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Screendeemer blocked and locked as an LTA. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Screendeemer
This reads to me as a transparent attempt to game the system. Given Screendeemer's strong interest in Kiwi Farms and participation on the article's talkpage as recently as 22 September, while this matter was being discussed there, it seems very unlikely that they are unware that there is a strong consensus not to have mainspace content about the artist nicknamed Chris Chan. If they were unaware, we would see that by them attempting to add a mention to the article, and it being reverted, or them attempting to create an article on her (or requesting a relevant title's unsalting). Their awareness is also evidenced by a pattern of edits that would make no sense except as an attempt to game the system. Why create a disambiguation page for "Chris Chan" featuring three people not referred to as Chris Chan? Why first create an article a completely non-notable person with a similar name? It also seems unlikely that they created Sonichu comic without first attempting to create Sonichu, from which they would have become aware of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 11 § Sonichu. This is gaming the system, plain and simple, in an attempt to abuse redirects and DAB pages to create a link between the name "Chris Chan" and the Kiwi Farms article. Screendeemer also has a history of controversial GENSEX redirect creations: Milked for laughs → Kiwi Farms; Virgin with rage → Incel; Gamergate and Gamergaters → Misogyny [27] [28]. Jurisdictional note: Kiwi Farms' activities are the subject of a gender-related dispute or controversy, and Chris Chan, a trans woman, is an associated person.
Discussion concerning ScreendeemerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScreendeemerStatement by Sideswipe9thJust wanted to point out as it may make the rest of this thread somewhat moot, that at 11:52 UTC, Screendeemer was blocked as a compromised account, and at 12:06 UTC, they were additionally globally locked for being a LTA. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Screendeemer
|
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Response to this request "Notice that this entire discussion has basically been a SOAPBOX on behalf of you and Gitz" & "You made a survey in order to push your changes". I did not start the RFC and my first edit to the page, here was made after the RFC had started, so this accusation is completely false in my case, @ Gitz6666: may speak for themselves. followed by "Nope, I accused you guys of trying to push a POV without sources...The problem is that both of you, especially Gitz, took it upon yourselves to escalate this ridiculous discussion into an entire RfC, which was unwarranted. We don't need RfCs over something as trivial as what you guys are discussing." Again, completely false accusation as already stated.
Here I state that the RFC has a proper RFCbefore and editor Gitz also explains why the RFC was appropriate and the response was Bludgeon 1 & Bludgeon 2 and continued in similar vein with further misconceived allegations about the appropriateness of the RFC process as mentioned in my additional comments below and leading to the following request on the user talk page to desist.
In response to comments made by myself and another editor at their talk page, editor in both cases did not respond, deleted the comment and requested that no further comments be made at their talk page. A simple glance over the contents of Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics suffices to show the extent of WP:BLUDGEON. Not only are editors comments a significant proportion of total comments, a large proportion of the material consists of unsupported opinion and unnecessary repetition of points made previously. At a very late stage in the RFC, editor has taken to asserting that the RFC is ill-posed, biased, inappropriate, wrong, etc and after the conversation starting here ("I am confident that any "proceedings" that you launch will be thoroughly ignored by the administrators. There is already at least one other user on this talk page who has had enough of your shenanigans."), I gave up and filed this request for enforcement.
The number of times that you yourself, SelfStudier, and various other editors have launched personal attacks against myself and other editors is too many to count.Diffs please and
I have been participating in an RfC, and SelfStudier has been behaving disruptively throughout its duration,
Some of SelfStudier's comments over at Talk:DPR have been particularly disruptive, but I've refrained from deleting any of his comments at Talk:DPRagain, diffs please.
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.
I believe that this arbitration discussion is unnecessary. I have been participating in an RfC, and SelfStudier has been behaving disruptively throughout its duration. I feel no need to present any arguments. The facts speak for themselves. If the administrators have any questions, they can talk to me in person on my Talk Page or via email. Everything that has occurred is clearly on display over at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic, so it is unnecessary to repeat any of that content here. Thank you for reading this, and I wish you good health. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
If I may, I will ping some users whom I think could be relevant to this discussion.
- @
Mzajac:
- @
Vanilla Wizard:
Extended content
|
---|
Re: Mellk --> Bear in mind that the more random different things you cite, the more work that the admins have to do. When admins look at disruptive behaviour, they first look at what is happening right now in the current conversation, and they care less about whatever random issues are cited. The fact of the matter is that you've decided to barge into this discussion that has nothing to do with you, and you've started making accusations against me that have nothing to do with the core topic that is being discussed. If anything, your behaviour is disruptive. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 20:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Deepfriedokra - Mellk is talking about both me and another user called "Colinmcdermott". Colin wrote a comment on Talk:Russia that was critical of the other editors there. I replied to this comment (I subsequently deleted my own comments). A little while later, an editor deleted the entire talk section that Colin had started. I objected to this because I didn't think it was fair that some editors could pick and choose which comments to delete from other editors. For example, if other users are allowed to delete mine and Colin's comments over at Talk:Russia, then does that make me allowed to delete some of SelfStudier's comments over at Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic? Indeed, I've deleted SelfStudier's comments at my own talk page, but that's because I'm under the impression that I'm allowed to do that, because it's my own talk page. Some of SelfStudier's comments over at Talk:DPR have been particularly disruptive, but I've refrained from deleting any of his comments at Talk:DPR. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ El C - Thanks for your comments. I will try and heed your advice. My speaking style is usually polite, but considering the context, my comments were especially heated. In general, this entire discussion area is infuriating on a regular basis. I definitely need to meditate and breathe more so that I can write in a more calm and collected manner. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 22:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Mellk - The number of times that you yourself, SelfStudier, and various other editors have launched personal attacks against myself and other editors is too many to count. My own policy is to not delete ANY comments of other users, no matter how much I dislike them, with the caveat that I delete comments whenever I want at my own user page exclusively. Long story short, unless you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a certain comment warrants deletion, then I would highly recommend against doing it, because there will probably be someone who is opposed to that deletion. Furthermore, deletion is very unhelpful for dispute resolution since it only serves to make the opponent even more angry and upset than they already were beforehand. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 22:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Mellk - You have made personal attacks against me on multiple occasions, to differing levels of severity. I'm not going to cite them because I have no interest in charging you, but I will advise you that the perception of a personal attack can be subjective. For example, you have accused me of making threats in situations when I was actually talking to myself and not to anyone else in particular. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 22:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Mellk - This discussion is clearly going nowhere, and we've already talked about this before. Your interpretation of that talk section is entirely inaccurate. And you need to take into account the fact that most of the talk section has been occupied by conversations between myself and another user, which have been entirely civil. Indeed, that other user even went so far as to praise me for being civil after you wrote some scathing commentary about me that was off-topic in that thread. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Here is the comment from the other user at my talk page wherein he praises me for being civil. Diff Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Mellk - I got exactly what I wanted. I asked any Russians passing by to talk to me so I could see if they were completely under Putin's mind control or still had some agency left. Clearly, one person replied to me, and he is someone of Russian ancestry who holds pro-Russian views. Even though some of his commentary was a bit extreme, he did seemingly demonstrate an understanding of human values that are somewhat similar to my own. The caveat is that this person lives in the United States, so I'm still yet to have a similar discussion with a Russian living in Russia. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ El C - The evidence of Mellk's personal attacks against me are self-evident in his own comments and citations. Indeed, both SelfStudier and Mellk seem to have a habit of citing evidence that makes both their opponent and themself look equally bad. Mellk's first attack against me occurred when he commented on my talk page. Instead of leaving a warning in a new section, he chose to leave the warning in a pre-existing section, and then he went on a rant in a series of subsequent edits about how he was justified in doing this due to an alleged problem with the pre-existing talk section. I don't even need to cite him doing this before because he's been doing this again right in this very thread. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ El C - Usually, warnings should be left in a new talk section. Generally speaking, I don't appreciate warnings anyway, so I've deleted some of the warnings that I've recently received from SelfStudier and Gitz that felt particularly hostile, threatening, and unwarranted. However, the way that Mellk left a warning on my talk page was particularly inappropriate because he took it upon himself to disrupt a pre-existing conversation between myself and another user, and he started threatening me there. Effectively, I don't regard Mellk's initial comment to be an official warning because he presented it in an inappropriate manner. I regard Mellk's initial comment as a blatant threat, as opposed to a "thinly-veiled" threat, whatever that's supposed to mean. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ El C - Here is the first edit 1 wherein Mellk leaves a warning in my talk page not in a new section but instead in a pre-existing section. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:El C - In both the first citation (above) and this second citation 2, Mellk alludes to an alleged previous indefinite block that I received, allegedly over the "harassment" policy. For starters, this means that Mellk has been combing through my account's archives from up to two years into the past (indeed, the indef block occurred around November 2020, from what I recall). But, crucially, I will also point out that Mellk is mistaken about the reason for that indef block. At the time, I had been involved in an ANI case against myself, ironically wherein I had deleted another user's comment at an article's talk page on the basis of it being a personal attack. Simultaneously, I accidentally "outed" one of my friends from another website, and one of the administrators who was overseeing my case saw this action and decided to deus ex machina my case on the charge of "outing". I was inactive for months after that, but I eventually became unblocked with the help of my friend whom I had allegedly outed. He came to my defence and explained that I was being friendly, and that no malice had been intended. As such, I was unblocked. And, therefore, I was never indef blocked on the basis of harassment, unless you count the mistaken charge of outing as harassment. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:Chipmunkdavis - I don't think anyone wants to read that wall of text, Bob. I need to have a sleep now... How long have I been talking in this discussion? I'm losing focus. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:Chipmunkdavis - You don't have to unpack my entire life, Frank. I could easily do the same for you, combing through your entire edit history. You've said and done quite a lot things that I view as aggressive and offensive. But aside from that, maybe you need to let go of your ego a little, as do I. If I'm treating Wikipedia as a battlefield, well, apparently, so are you. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:Chipmunkdavis - I have autism. I'm used to having each and every word that comes out of my mouth be scrutinized, because I'm apparently never talking in the "correct" way. But I will point out that nothing that you yourself have ever said is immune from criticism. So, you should be careful about accusing others of what can be easily interpreted about yourself. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ Gitz - I appreciate your comments. While I concede that I have a tendency to ramble and go off-topic, I believe that it is also problematic when people do things without a sufficient explanation. So, I'd rather have things be explained in 1000 words rather than in none at all (obviously, brevity is best). Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:Chipmunkdavis - It is interesting that you seem to interpret the truth as a threat. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
@ User:El C - I struck through part of the other user's comment because it misquoted another user as saying something that he didn't. In terms of the comments that I made towards HiLo, I believe that he made some racist edits back in 2014, which is why I commented in the archive (although I have discovered subsequently that I'm not supposed to edit archives). What HiLo did was to essentially completely revert a non-native English speaker's edits on the grounds of being poorly worded, even though the actual content was non-objectionable. I told HiLo that it was completely within his abilities as a native English speaker to copy-edit the text to improve it, rather than to delete everything that the user has contributed. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User: Deepfriedokra - I believe that I am capable of editing in this area. However, I might be too invested in getting the "correct" outcome. At the end of the day, more and more people are ignoring Wikipedia, so it is becoming less and less important. Somebody else might come and rectify the information that I've neglected. It doesn't really matter. I recall that Russia was trying to ban Wikipedia outright, so it might not matter at all at the end of the day. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC) I've been absent from Wikipedia for several-months-long intervals, and no effects have been shown, whether positive or negative. My own life has never improved because of Wikipedia, and I don't believe that anyone else's life has either. When I have left Wikipedia, I have not felt that much was missing, except for maybe a few of the comrades I met along the way, that's it. So, I probably do have a battleground mentality, but that's more of a heat in the moment thing. At the end of the day, this entire website is largely inconsequential, so I'm not sure why I care so much about rectifying information aside from my autism. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 18:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:El C - Here are the relevant diffs, as I've posted them on my own user talk page. This is the edit that I perceived as racist from User:HiLo48:
[30]. He writes, in the edit summaries of the Russia article, In this Talk:Russia comment
[32], HiLo48 writes, In terms of language backgrounds, HiLo48 claims to be a native English speaker whereas Aleksd claims to be Eastern European. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
@ My very best wishes - To clarify, I have a "bias" against the Russian Federation regime, not against "Russians" in general. Indeed, my perspective on global affairs is generally very fair. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 14:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@ User:El C - I am currently being harassed -- unprovoked, mind you -- by some random other Wikipedian whom, to my knowledge, I have never interacted with before. Please do something about this, thank you. [33] [34] Note: I have engaged with them, although I have attempted to be civil. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 18:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
^From what I can tell, the other user seems to believe that I am "bigoted" against Russians, due to the section on my talk page titled "Russians are mafia. Change my mind.", written on September 3, 2022. However, they seem to have missed the section higher up on the page titled "Public statement: Russians who are suffering under the Russian Federation regime, I am on your side", written on August 1, 2022. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 19:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately this editor has an issue with battleground behavior and despite various warnings, is unable to understand this. This as a result has caused disruption. On Talk:Russia, a user created a new section simply for personal attacks and casting aspersions; when this was removed by multiple users per TPG, JN kept restoring it [35] [36] and made a new subsection about how he and the other user was being censored [37] [38] and again making more walls of text on the talk page [39]. Then he makes a new section on his own talk page about how "Russians are mafia" and makes a vague threat related to this "censorship" [40], then again continues to restore the original personal attacks and the walls of text he made on Talk:Russia [41] [42] and then continues on with personal attacks [43] and using the other user's talk page as his soapbox where he again makes personal attacks against "orcs" and "Ruzzkies" "censoring" him [44] [45]. Still he continues to restore the text on Talk:Russia after another user removes it [46] [47]. Again continues attacking editors on talk pages ("See you in Hell!") [48]. When I ask him to stop with any further personal attacks, he states that he has "no idea" what "Ruzzkies" means which he used earlier and then states "orc" is not a slur because it refers to Russian military only [49] and so when I ask him why he used it, he says it is because the other editors who he deems supports Russian war narrative is an "honorary soldier". [50] Mellk ( talk) 20:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Note: The diffs are from earlier in the month but gives some context and may be subject to standard administrative action.
Don't delete my comments or things will get messy[51]. I do not see how asking you to not make such comments is a personal attack, even if you did not mean to direct it at anyone. I was referring to your comments, not you personally. Mellk ( talk) 22:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh god. Ok. There are FIVE diffs provided in the Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it. ONLY ONE of these diffs is an edit (a talk page comment) by the person who this report is about. The other FOUR are OTHER people ... just saying stuff. This diff is from the filer and, hilariously enough, it's level of of "incivility" is probably HIGHER than that that can be found in the one diff out of the five above that is from the subject.
This is about as spurious as a request can get. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I do think that the sort of thing in the first diff needs to be discouraged a bit more strongly than it currently is; part of the reason so many WP:ACDS areas are so difficult to edit is because having WP:ASPERSIONS like that flung around without consequence encourages other editors to either retaliate (if they disagree) or to say similar things and generally treat others as bad-faith editors (if they agree), contributing to a broader WP:BATTLEGROUND / non- WP:AGF atmosphere. But clearly a single diff like that is insufficient to go straight to WP:AE - if we removed people for that there would be almost nobody left in WP:ACDS topic areas at all. Also, links to warnings are generally only useful if they show someone was informed that they were doing something wrong and then kept doing it afterwards. The key point is to establish that they're not listening and that this can't be settled by lesser means. Showing yourself warning them after the diff of their being aspersion-y, without showing any other problems after that, doesn't establish anything beyond the fact that you think their actions are bad, which is already self-evident from the fact that you're taking them to AE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The main problem with Jargo Nautilus's contribution is the uncontainable flood of comments that they pour into the talk pages. That behaviour can be seen in Talk:Donetsk People's Republic: from 2 to 16 September, they made 91 edits to the RfC that I started; I'm quite talkative myself and I made 23 edits overall to that RfC. But see also Talk:Russian separatist forces in Donbas: from 13 August to 3 September they made 42 edits to the RM I started. I made 25 edits and I apologise for that: it's way too much. But JN's way of contributing to the discussion drags you into endless and unproductive back-and-forth, and I wouldn't have made my 23+25 comments if it wasn't for their 91+42, so I'm sensitive to the problem: it's a waste of time, is frustrating and it also makes it more difficult for other editors to join the discussion. Also Talk:International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic shows the problem: from 2 August onwards, Michael Z stops replying to JN, but they continue to discuss in solitude for days and days building impassable walls of text. Obviously most of their comments are off-topic and WP:SOAPBOX, they have difficulties in complying with WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM and a tendency to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. I don't know if this is sanctionable behaviour and I have no difficulty in AGF in this case, as I don't see any mean intentions, but it's objectively disruptive and is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow, either by the admins or by JN themselves. Final note: occasionally JN falls short of civility: [53] [54]. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 01:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Talkpage interjections by JN disruptive, with talkpages treated as a place of polemic (eg. User talk:Jargo Nautilus). This is tricky to show clearly in 20 diffs, as it's a deluge of individual comments. They necro discussions and use talkpages for personal commentary (and sometimes add commentary to articles). Here is the start of 1,200 words starting with "I don't have any material/sources about this, just my thoughts". A related issue is adding a continuous serious of comments. The 1,200 words included that initial edit and five others. The edit history of this arbitration page is an example.
These personal opinions bludgeon conversations, see here where an RfC went from this to being doubled in length with off-topic opinion. Their opinion sometimes shifts into pure invective.
Most problematically, edits are seen as a battleground-style crusade [55] [56] [57]. They and move other people's comments. They leave passive agressive instructions/threats ( [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]) and engage in direct harassment [63] [64] [65] ( even editing archives). They address me with what seem to be dismissive nicknames they won't explain, and explicitly declare opponents.
I stress again this is a hard pattern to show through a small selection of diffs. These long series of entirely unsourced personal opinion edits end up on every talkpage, flooding edit histories, watchlists, and of course actual discussions. This issues are not limited to WP:ARBEE, but ARBEE covers a large component of the recent disruption. CMD ( talk) 00:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC) shortened CMD ( talk) 02:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I do not see any serious reason for sanctioning Jargo Nautilus. Here is why.
P.S. I do agree that user Jargo Nautilus has an anti-Russian bias strong views
[66], but his willingness of discuss disagreements is actually a good thing, not a reason for sanctions, in my opinion.
My very best wishes (
talk) 12:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings here. This AE filing does a poor job at demonstrating issues with JN's behavior, but other comments from other editors demonstrate serious concerns. I recommend they take all of Deepfriedokra's advice. As a fellow autistic Wikipedian I +1 everything they said. If they do receive a TBAN, I prefer a temporary to an indef. If they can drop the battleground mentality then they should be fine to contribute to pages about geopolitics in the future.
My advice for JN is as follows:
In summary: I think JN can continue to be a productive editor, but they really need to have WP:BATTLEGROUND in mind going forward. A TBAN from articles related to current military conflicts could be acceptable if it lasts roughly 6 months to a year, but I wouldn't endorse an indefinite one.
Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Jones? What even is that? Well, whatever it is, it's weird (as in it makes no sense) and inappropriate.
Jones, Bob, Frank), including twice in this very complaint. Now you've accused someone of "racist comments," yet again with zero evidence. Above (way above), I asked you whether you've reviewed the WP:ASPERSIONS page, a question which you never answered (I don't think). But I presume you didn't review it since you're still continuing to do it. As for misquotes, again, correct those (or anything) in your own comment. You have no right to intrude on someone else's comment like that.
Johnpacklambert blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Johnpacklambert
Discussion concerning JohnpacklambertStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Johnpacklambert
Statement by NableezyClear violation, should result in a block. nableezy - 00:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDayIf you're going to be blocked? it should be for no more then one week. Because of the t-ban, you're going to be under extra scrutiny. Best bet? walk away entirely from anything to do with 'deletions'. GoodDay ( talk) 13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) A month block, for a mistake? That's too harsh, IMHO. These types of blocks are suppose to be "preventative" in nature, not "punitive". GoodDay ( talk) 13:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenonI believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. That isn't an excuse, but a problem. We apparently have an editor who doesn't understand the restrictions, maybe because he isn't capable of understanding or isn't trying to understand. I don't know what should be done, but I don't think that the usual pattern of escalating sanctions will be effective. I believe his statement, and that is a problem. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by ShibbolethinkUnfortunately, I do think this probably qualifies as a violation of the "spirit" of JPL's TBAN, if not the actual letter. I've been following this user's saga from the periphery, just as a lurker on the litany of ANI threads. I haven't really interacted with them otherwise.
One of the things I think we should all consider on AE threads is "Is there a better course of action the user could have followed, in good faith, to exercise the impulse they felt? If so, what would it have been?" In this case, JPL could have gotten clarification from an admin if the talk page comment would have run afoul of their TBAN. They could have posted about the page's actual issues (e.g. notability, etc) on a noticeboard or Wikiproject page, without juxtaposing it directly next to someone else talking about a PROD. etc. etc. As to the length or severity of this violation of a TBAN, though, I think some of the suggested durations are a bit harsh, aren't they? One month, for posting " I know it typically isn't the purview of commenting non-admins to discuss the length of such blocks, and they should be escalating in nature. But I would appeal to empathy. The user clearly did not intend to violate the TBAN, and it is also clearly a grey area that we all think is worth talking about.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by FloqDo not believe JPL when he expresses remorse. Or, at least, do not assume that remorse correlates with a reduced likelihood of violating the ban in the future. I was suckered into believing how distraught he claimed to be during a previous block situation, and tricked into intervening which, in retrospect, likely saved JPL from a community ban at that time. I suggest imposing as long a block as uninvolved admins are willing to place. JPL is a timesink, and I imagine he has wasted more than a hundred person-hours of other people's time over the last half year, and probably more than half of that time wasting is due to my previous intervention preventing a community ban. I'm sorry. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Johnpacklambert
|
The consensus here is that the partial block which has already been applied is appropriate. Gillcv is warned that further disruptive editing may result in a topic ban from the pseudoscience and/or CAM areas, or other additional sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gillcv
[6] 29 August 2022, 15:22 UTC
About Hi GoldenRing. You have misread the time. They were warned at 15:22 UTC, not 16:22 UTC. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC) @ Gillcv: See law of holes. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GillcvStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GillcvI the wikipedia entry "Cupping therapy" I introduced the following paragraph; However, this is not the first situation when folk medicine is unjustly blamed by "scientific" medicine. The negative effects of suction cup therapy may also be due to improper handling of the suction cups. It is true that there are also negative effects of suction cup therapy, but which "scientifically" designed drug does not? But there are also scientific studies that rehabilitate this therapy. [1] This paragraph was deleted twice. On the second re-introduction, in the motivation, I wrote that, from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful. The last deletion was motivated as follows: the source is not reliable. In other words, the author of the second deletion allows himself to make me a liar. In addition, without documenting himself, he says that the journal is not reliable! Here is the journal information: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-acupuncture-and-meridian-studies. Gillcv ( talk) 16:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Statement by GoldenRing
@ Tgeorgescu: you are right, my bad. I'll go figure out how to get wiki to always give me times in UTC. GoldenRing ( talk) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Gillcv
|
Blocked indef by GeneralNotability as a regular admin action. El_C 18:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning MrLag525
Discussion concerning MrLag525Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MrLag525Statement by (username)Result concerning MrLag525
|
Carter00000 is indefinitely topic banned from Xinjiang, broadly construed -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Carter00000
At WP:ITNC, the user has bludgeoned arguments for excluding any link to Uyghur genocide in the blurb, essentially resulting the same argument being restated about 8 times. These include:
After being cautioned about bludgeoning on their talk page and about beating a dead horse in the discussion itself, the user continued to bludgeon the discussion and then pinged a bunch of editors who were involved at a discussion on another page:
N/A
I believe that the above shows that the editor has bludgeoned, has been warned about bludgeoning, and has no interest in stopping bludgeoning. I'd ask that the user be blocked under general sanctions for 72 hours for repeatedly bludgeoning at WP:ITNC with respect to the Uyghur genocide article. I believe this will allow time for the user to calm down and will prevent further disruption in this thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Carter00000Statement by Carter00000On the initial edits, I would like to note that the edits linked were made at different stages of the ITN nomination. I felt that given that the discussion had entered into new stages, it was reasonable to address the same concerns again, given that each stage was for a separate action. I would like to note that I stopped making the above argument after being warned. The two subsequent edits made related to the nomination in general, and was to address issues with the process of the nomination, given the number of concerns raised by other editors. The concerns were cited to editors who had raised those issues in brackets, pinging them at the same time as a means to request their comments on the discussion. The pings to the five editors in the second comment was to request comments from all participants of a concurrent discussion on the subject on a different page. Carter00000 ( talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by WaltCipWhatever sanction that is deemed necessary, I'll support, ncluding a topic ban from WP:ITN/C for extraordinarily disruptive conduct, even after being asked to stop. Yes, I recognize I may have partially prompted this by closing the discussion here, but these closures are not atypical on ITN/C once a consensus is reached, as it had been, and the proper thing to do then is discuss any changes to the blurb at WP:ERRORS. Even when he is the sole voice of opposition, Carter00000 has been dominating the discussion both on WP:ERRORS and WP:ITN/C in a way that represents battleground mentality.-- 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 17:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis BrownAfter filing multiple Arb cases and ANI cases, I think it's time for a topic ban from ITN. This is just ridiculous. Since they dragged me to Arb (which was immediately declined for not having merit), I will comment in this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by InvadingInvaderI have not had any direct interactions with Carter outside of this most recent debacle on Xinjiang, but I'm not hearing happy notes about this guy. I do think he frequently disrupts consensus, and if he/she/they had spent more time on
Talk:2022 with regard to Xinjiang, I believe many arguments he would bring up would be redundant and unproductive. Result concerning Carter00000
|
Pranesh Ravikumar is topic banned indefinitely from the subjects of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Pranesh Ravikumar
Discussing something with them itself is a pain due to the fact that they just tend to double down whenever a mistake is pointed out, argue against straw men and it's ultimately fruitless when they just go IDHT. In addition note that this behavior may be motivated by the nature of the content itself, the initial addition reflected negatively on the Premiership of Narendra Modi which they first tried to remove and then tried to minimise/distract from by adding tangential material. They have also previously been blocked for POV pushing and warned for copyright violations. Overall a particularly frustrating combination of uncollaborative combative behavior, edit warring, copyright violations and a general refusal and/or inability to understand and follow policies and guidelines. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Pranesh RavikumarStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Pranesh RavikumarWhy this report is being filed when the content dispute has been already resolved? I am saying this in the sense that there can be no sensible objection to the content that exists in the present version. The content which I had removed included misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims. But the content which I wrote was in fact expansion and was based on quality sources like Christophe Jaffrelot. I admit I had to focus more on rewriting, but I haven't breached copyrights since. Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources. [9] After this, I discussed reliably sourced content backed with multiple sources with Tayi Arajakte on their talk page, but only to see them failing to provide a sensible reason to remove the reliably sourced information. After nearly 3 days of discussion I restored the content. [10] I was following WP:BRD here and gave every opportunity to Tayi Arajakte to provide a good explanation behind the removal of the content backed with quality sources. I also told Tayi Arajakte how they can justify the removal. If the community was consulted over this content then I am sure it will favor my position that the reliably sourced content should not be removed. Pranesh Ravikumar ( talk) 05:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by D4iNa4Making my statement here because of 2 frivolous warnings I received from Tayi Arajakate right after I made my comment on talk page. First warning falsely claims that I violated WP:NPA because of the word " WP:STONEWALLING" I used here, followed by the false claim of having a "rough consensus", despite no consensus is developed in less than 2 hours for removing reliably sourced content. No evidence of WP:NPA violation was ever provided. Second warning falsely claims that I violated WP:CANVASSING by notifying the long term contributors in good standing who have edited this article for years. Either this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or a WP:CIR issue, or a combination of both. You can't go around spamming frivolous warnings just to get discourage your opponent in a content dispute. Admins need to take a look at this misconduct of Tayi Arajakte. D4iNa4 ( talk) 06:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by TrangaBellamIt is ridiculous that Tayi —who is one of the most competent and cooperative editors about Indian topics— is being considered for a TBan. That too, based on flimsy evidence from someone who is under an indefinite AE sanction (since 2018) and has since commited less than 500 edits. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93(I had intended to sit this one out *sigh*). I read the section of Jaffrelot's book that's under dispute. That source is indeed the best on the topic that I am aware of. It constitutes three substantial paragraphs discussing how the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used its investigative agencies to intimidate and/or harass political opponents. The section begins with a passing mention of a historical instance when a politician of the opposing party used the same tactics. If I were interested in genuinely improving that section, I would summarize what the source had to say about the Modi administration. Instead, PraneshRavikumar has decided to lead with the single sentence that's critical of a different politician. This was after he first tried blanking the section. His edit-summary was dreadful, too. I can't help but believe PR has an axe to grind here, and would benefit from some time away from this dispute. A logged warning is the minimum I'd recommend: South Asian politics requires more collaboration and less belligerence, and his attitude toward the copyvio situation was...cavalier. I see no substantive evidence here against Tayi Arajakate. The templated warning wasn't necessary; no attacks were made; but I don't think highly of D4iNa4's choice to jump right into an edit-war after 2+ years of not touching the article. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by RegentsParkI haven't followed all this carefully (RL busyness) but I don't think a tban for Tayi Arajakate is a good idea. No comment on Pranesh Ravikumar. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by TylerBurdenI think a topic ban is reasonable here, poor behaviour went on for far too long and only seems to have turned into remorse now that consequenses look likely. The topic area is complicated enough without editing like this and Pranesh Ravikumar seems to have a POV that is strong enough to get in the way of constructively editing the topic. -- TylerBurden ( talk) 04:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Pranesh Ravikumar
|
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.
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
It seems Trickipaedia has taken it upon himself to purge Wikipedia of caste related information. When asked about what Wikipedia policy approves of his actions, I was called a promoter of casteism (which I take as a personal attack), in a message on my user talk Special:Diff/1110904786 and was asked to "stop casteism". (I am neither a caste warrior, nor caste promoter etc). Responding to my question, Special:Diff/1110778705/1110904555 he pointed me to WP:GS/CASTE, even though that page nowhere says anything about purging caste info from articles.
I have not checked his past contributions to gauge the extent of this disruption, so admins should check and revert them. I am making this request to the admins to put an end to his purging and disruption of information and personal attacks when challenged.
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.
Exactly what is the "charge" and what is the proposed punishment? What Venkat TL is doing here is bullying by unnecessarily dragging me to some sort of penal noticeboard. I have not vandalised any page or acted in bad faith in any article edit ever. And the other bit about Sonia Gandhi that somebody mentioned, can be referenced through thousands of scholarly books (go to books.google.com) , including her authoritative biography. So I have no idea why adding her real name before immigrating to India, is a problem. Is every Indian person's Wikipedia page supposed to mention his "caste", an outmoded and divisive distinction? There has to be some relevance to the article. Doesn't the GS/CASTE policy mention that "explicitly including caste associations" can be a ground for sanctions? So, it should be Venkat TL who should be sanctioned for including it.
Caste is a sensitive matter and I do not see why somebody wants to sanction someone for removing "caste" of a living Indian politician. Have I committed a grave sin? This is the norm that many others follow and tell others. I did not invent it; I noted others saying that caste affiliations are discouraged unless relevant.
In any case, I think the right thing would have been to send me a message about why including caste for every Indian politician/person is important and inviting me to a talk page discussion on Sisodia's talk page about why his caste must be mentioned there. Instead, it has turned into an ego war where the complainant wants to feel some sort of gleeful sense of victory and vanquishing for getting me "sanctioned"—a practice some editors engage in but is actually very bad for the Project where many people genuinely want to contribute. Honestly, the admins would be wise to not turn something so trivial into negativity. If everybody here agrees that caste must be mentioned for Sisodia and other Indians, then just say it. Why "sanction" me for doing what I think is reasonable. Why are we applying a different standard for Indian politicians when we don't mention "race" for Western politicians? If there is anyone here who needs sanctioning then it is Venkat TL who is obviously abusing this forum which is used for serious matters and not basic content dispute. I rest my case and will not read or reply any further.-- Trickipaedia ( talk) 17:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
-- Trickipaedia ( talk) 17:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
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.
Venkat TL appears to be using "BLP" as an exemption for his content removal of over 30,000 bytes of content by providing misleading edit summaries [17] [18] and using horrible sources such as Instagram.com. [19] . If Venkat TL wants to rewrite some sentences or remove the names then he needs to mention that but he is using "BLP" as improper justification for removing more than 30,000 bytes and that is WP:DE.
On talk page, nobody has bought the claims of Venkat TL so far. See Talk:Popular Front of India#Recent removals.
This misuse and misrepresentation of WP:BLP is a heavily prevalent from Venkat TL. This is totally evident from the very recent 4RR violation he did just yesterday on Raju Srivastav (I edited and watchlisted this article before so I know [20]) and he is already going through a report on WP:ANEW ( permalink) for it.
On Raju Srivastav, he charged the subject "for his hypocrisy
",
[21] and defended this BLP violation on talk page
[22] even after being told several times about the violation.
He was warned on his talk page by admin Liz for the misconduct.
[23] On ANEW, admin Bbb23 told Venkat TL that "Venkat TL's claim of a BLP exemption for edit-warring is at least procedurally invalid
",
[24] but Venkat TL kept trying to prove himself that he correct (see
WP:IDHT).
[25]
Not even 1 day was elapsed and Venkat TL is already misusing "BLP" to get rid of over 30,000 bytes of content without providing any meaningful explanation. The last block of Venkat TL on July 2022 for edit warring was also over the same edit warring by using BLP as justification. [26]
I find Venkat TL to be unfit to edit in this area, be it about the subjects that involve BLPs or South Asia. >>> Extorc. talk 15:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Screendeemer blocked and locked as an LTA. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Screendeemer
This reads to me as a transparent attempt to game the system. Given Screendeemer's strong interest in Kiwi Farms and participation on the article's talkpage as recently as 22 September, while this matter was being discussed there, it seems very unlikely that they are unware that there is a strong consensus not to have mainspace content about the artist nicknamed Chris Chan. If they were unaware, we would see that by them attempting to add a mention to the article, and it being reverted, or them attempting to create an article on her (or requesting a relevant title's unsalting). Their awareness is also evidenced by a pattern of edits that would make no sense except as an attempt to game the system. Why create a disambiguation page for "Chris Chan" featuring three people not referred to as Chris Chan? Why first create an article a completely non-notable person with a similar name? It also seems unlikely that they created Sonichu comic without first attempting to create Sonichu, from which they would have become aware of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 11 § Sonichu. This is gaming the system, plain and simple, in an attempt to abuse redirects and DAB pages to create a link between the name "Chris Chan" and the Kiwi Farms article. Screendeemer also has a history of controversial GENSEX redirect creations: Milked for laughs → Kiwi Farms; Virgin with rage → Incel; Gamergate and Gamergaters → Misogyny [27] [28]. Jurisdictional note: Kiwi Farms' activities are the subject of a gender-related dispute or controversy, and Chris Chan, a trans woman, is an associated person.
Discussion concerning ScreendeemerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScreendeemerStatement by Sideswipe9thJust wanted to point out as it may make the rest of this thread somewhat moot, that at 11:52 UTC, Screendeemer was blocked as a compromised account, and at 12:06 UTC, they were additionally globally locked for being a LTA. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Screendeemer
|
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Response to this request "Notice that this entire discussion has basically been a SOAPBOX on behalf of you and Gitz" & "You made a survey in order to push your changes". I did not start the RFC and my first edit to the page, here was made after the RFC had started, so this accusation is completely false in my case, @ Gitz6666: may speak for themselves. followed by "Nope, I accused you guys of trying to push a POV without sources...The problem is that both of you, especially Gitz, took it upon yourselves to escalate this ridiculous discussion into an entire RfC, which was unwarranted. We don't need RfCs over something as trivial as what you guys are discussing." Again, completely false accusation as already stated.
Here I state that the RFC has a proper RFCbefore and editor Gitz also explains why the RFC was appropriate and the response was Bludgeon 1 & Bludgeon 2 and continued in similar vein with further misconceived allegations about the appropriateness of the RFC process as mentioned in my additional comments below and leading to the following request on the user talk page to desist.
In response to comments made by myself and another editor at their talk page, editor in both cases did not respond, deleted the comment and requested that no further comments be made at their talk page. A simple glance over the contents of Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics suffices to show the extent of WP:BLUDGEON. Not only are editors comments a significant proportion of total comments, a large proportion of the material consists of unsupported opinion and unnecessary repetition of points made previously. At a very late stage in the RFC, editor has taken to asserting that the RFC is ill-posed, biased, inappropriate, wrong, etc and after the conversation starting here ("I am confident that any "proceedings" that you launch will be thoroughly ignored by the administrators. There is already at least one other user on this talk page who has had enough of your shenanigans."), I gave up and filed this request for enforcement.
The number of times that you yourself, SelfStudier, and various other editors have launched personal attacks against myself and other editors is too many to count.Diffs please and
I have been participating in an RfC, and SelfStudier has been behaving disruptively throughout its duration,
Some of SelfStudier's comments over at Talk:DPR have been particularly disruptive, but I've refrained from deleting any of his comments at Talk:DPRagain, diffs please.
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.
I believe that this arbitration discussion is unnecessary. I have been participating in an RfC, and SelfStudier has been behaving disruptively throughout its duration. I feel no need to present any arguments. The facts speak for themselves. If the administrators have any questions, they can talk to me in person on my Talk Page or via email. Everything that has occurred is clearly on display over at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic, so it is unnecessary to repeat any of that content here. Thank you for reading this, and I wish you good health. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
If I may, I will ping some users whom I think could be relevant to this discussion.
- @
Mzajac:
- @
Vanilla Wizard:
Extended content
|
---|
Re: Mellk --> Bear in mind that the more random different things you cite, the more work that the admins have to do. When admins look at disruptive behaviour, they first look at what is happening right now in the current conversation, and they care less about whatever random issues are cited. The fact of the matter is that you've decided to barge into this discussion that has nothing to do with you, and you've started making accusations against me that have nothing to do with the core topic that is being discussed. If anything, your behaviour is disruptive. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 20:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Deepfriedokra - Mellk is talking about both me and another user called "Colinmcdermott". Colin wrote a comment on Talk:Russia that was critical of the other editors there. I replied to this comment (I subsequently deleted my own comments). A little while later, an editor deleted the entire talk section that Colin had started. I objected to this because I didn't think it was fair that some editors could pick and choose which comments to delete from other editors. For example, if other users are allowed to delete mine and Colin's comments over at Talk:Russia, then does that make me allowed to delete some of SelfStudier's comments over at Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic? Indeed, I've deleted SelfStudier's comments at my own talk page, but that's because I'm under the impression that I'm allowed to do that, because it's my own talk page. Some of SelfStudier's comments over at Talk:DPR have been particularly disruptive, but I've refrained from deleting any of his comments at Talk:DPR. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ El C - Thanks for your comments. I will try and heed your advice. My speaking style is usually polite, but considering the context, my comments were especially heated. In general, this entire discussion area is infuriating on a regular basis. I definitely need to meditate and breathe more so that I can write in a more calm and collected manner. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 22:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Mellk - The number of times that you yourself, SelfStudier, and various other editors have launched personal attacks against myself and other editors is too many to count. My own policy is to not delete ANY comments of other users, no matter how much I dislike them, with the caveat that I delete comments whenever I want at my own user page exclusively. Long story short, unless you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a certain comment warrants deletion, then I would highly recommend against doing it, because there will probably be someone who is opposed to that deletion. Furthermore, deletion is very unhelpful for dispute resolution since it only serves to make the opponent even more angry and upset than they already were beforehand. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 22:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Mellk - You have made personal attacks against me on multiple occasions, to differing levels of severity. I'm not going to cite them because I have no interest in charging you, but I will advise you that the perception of a personal attack can be subjective. For example, you have accused me of making threats in situations when I was actually talking to myself and not to anyone else in particular. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 22:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Mellk - This discussion is clearly going nowhere, and we've already talked about this before. Your interpretation of that talk section is entirely inaccurate. And you need to take into account the fact that most of the talk section has been occupied by conversations between myself and another user, which have been entirely civil. Indeed, that other user even went so far as to praise me for being civil after you wrote some scathing commentary about me that was off-topic in that thread. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Here is the comment from the other user at my talk page wherein he praises me for being civil. Diff Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ Mellk - I got exactly what I wanted. I asked any Russians passing by to talk to me so I could see if they were completely under Putin's mind control or still had some agency left. Clearly, one person replied to me, and he is someone of Russian ancestry who holds pro-Russian views. Even though some of his commentary was a bit extreme, he did seemingly demonstrate an understanding of human values that are somewhat similar to my own. The caveat is that this person lives in the United States, so I'm still yet to have a similar discussion with a Russian living in Russia. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ El C - The evidence of Mellk's personal attacks against me are self-evident in his own comments and citations. Indeed, both SelfStudier and Mellk seem to have a habit of citing evidence that makes both their opponent and themself look equally bad. Mellk's first attack against me occurred when he commented on my talk page. Instead of leaving a warning in a new section, he chose to leave the warning in a pre-existing section, and then he went on a rant in a series of subsequent edits about how he was justified in doing this due to an alleged problem with the pre-existing talk section. I don't even need to cite him doing this before because he's been doing this again right in this very thread. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ El C - Usually, warnings should be left in a new talk section. Generally speaking, I don't appreciate warnings anyway, so I've deleted some of the warnings that I've recently received from SelfStudier and Gitz that felt particularly hostile, threatening, and unwarranted. However, the way that Mellk left a warning on my talk page was particularly inappropriate because he took it upon himself to disrupt a pre-existing conversation between myself and another user, and he started threatening me there. Effectively, I don't regard Mellk's initial comment to be an official warning because he presented it in an inappropriate manner. I regard Mellk's initial comment as a blatant threat, as opposed to a "thinly-veiled" threat, whatever that's supposed to mean. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ El C - Here is the first edit 1 wherein Mellk leaves a warning in my talk page not in a new section but instead in a pre-existing section. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:El C - In both the first citation (above) and this second citation 2, Mellk alludes to an alleged previous indefinite block that I received, allegedly over the "harassment" policy. For starters, this means that Mellk has been combing through my account's archives from up to two years into the past (indeed, the indef block occurred around November 2020, from what I recall). But, crucially, I will also point out that Mellk is mistaken about the reason for that indef block. At the time, I had been involved in an ANI case against myself, ironically wherein I had deleted another user's comment at an article's talk page on the basis of it being a personal attack. Simultaneously, I accidentally "outed" one of my friends from another website, and one of the administrators who was overseeing my case saw this action and decided to deus ex machina my case on the charge of "outing". I was inactive for months after that, but I eventually became unblocked with the help of my friend whom I had allegedly outed. He came to my defence and explained that I was being friendly, and that no malice had been intended. As such, I was unblocked. And, therefore, I was never indef blocked on the basis of harassment, unless you count the mistaken charge of outing as harassment. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 23:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:Chipmunkdavis - I don't think anyone wants to read that wall of text, Bob. I need to have a sleep now... How long have I been talking in this discussion? I'm losing focus. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:Chipmunkdavis - You don't have to unpack my entire life, Frank. I could easily do the same for you, combing through your entire edit history. You've said and done quite a lot things that I view as aggressive and offensive. But aside from that, maybe you need to let go of your ego a little, as do I. If I'm treating Wikipedia as a battlefield, well, apparently, so are you. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:Chipmunkdavis - I have autism. I'm used to having each and every word that comes out of my mouth be scrutinized, because I'm apparently never talking in the "correct" way. But I will point out that nothing that you yourself have ever said is immune from criticism. So, you should be careful about accusing others of what can be easily interpreted about yourself. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ Gitz - I appreciate your comments. While I concede that I have a tendency to ramble and go off-topic, I believe that it is also problematic when people do things without a sufficient explanation. So, I'd rather have things be explained in 1000 words rather than in none at all (obviously, brevity is best). Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:Chipmunkdavis - It is interesting that you seem to interpret the truth as a threat. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
@ User:El C - I struck through part of the other user's comment because it misquoted another user as saying something that he didn't. In terms of the comments that I made towards HiLo, I believe that he made some racist edits back in 2014, which is why I commented in the archive (although I have discovered subsequently that I'm not supposed to edit archives). What HiLo did was to essentially completely revert a non-native English speaker's edits on the grounds of being poorly worded, even though the actual content was non-objectionable. I told HiLo that it was completely within his abilities as a native English speaker to copy-edit the text to improve it, rather than to delete everything that the user has contributed. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User: Deepfriedokra - I believe that I am capable of editing in this area. However, I might be too invested in getting the "correct" outcome. At the end of the day, more and more people are ignoring Wikipedia, so it is becoming less and less important. Somebody else might come and rectify the information that I've neglected. It doesn't really matter. I recall that Russia was trying to ban Wikipedia outright, so it might not matter at all at the end of the day. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC) I've been absent from Wikipedia for several-months-long intervals, and no effects have been shown, whether positive or negative. My own life has never improved because of Wikipedia, and I don't believe that anyone else's life has either. When I have left Wikipedia, I have not felt that much was missing, except for maybe a few of the comrades I met along the way, that's it. So, I probably do have a battleground mentality, but that's more of a heat in the moment thing. At the end of the day, this entire website is largely inconsequential, so I'm not sure why I care so much about rectifying information aside from my autism. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 18:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC) @ User:El C - Here are the relevant diffs, as I've posted them on my own user talk page. This is the edit that I perceived as racist from User:HiLo48:
[30]. He writes, in the edit summaries of the Russia article, In this Talk:Russia comment
[32], HiLo48 writes, In terms of language backgrounds, HiLo48 claims to be a native English speaker whereas Aleksd claims to be Eastern European. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
@ My very best wishes - To clarify, I have a "bias" against the Russian Federation regime, not against "Russians" in general. Indeed, my perspective on global affairs is generally very fair. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 14:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@ User:El C - I am currently being harassed -- unprovoked, mind you -- by some random other Wikipedian whom, to my knowledge, I have never interacted with before. Please do something about this, thank you. [33] [34] Note: I have engaged with them, although I have attempted to be civil. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 18:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
^From what I can tell, the other user seems to believe that I am "bigoted" against Russians, due to the section on my talk page titled "Russians are mafia. Change my mind.", written on September 3, 2022. However, they seem to have missed the section higher up on the page titled "Public statement: Russians who are suffering under the Russian Federation regime, I am on your side", written on August 1, 2022. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 19:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately this editor has an issue with battleground behavior and despite various warnings, is unable to understand this. This as a result has caused disruption. On Talk:Russia, a user created a new section simply for personal attacks and casting aspersions; when this was removed by multiple users per TPG, JN kept restoring it [35] [36] and made a new subsection about how he and the other user was being censored [37] [38] and again making more walls of text on the talk page [39]. Then he makes a new section on his own talk page about how "Russians are mafia" and makes a vague threat related to this "censorship" [40], then again continues to restore the original personal attacks and the walls of text he made on Talk:Russia [41] [42] and then continues on with personal attacks [43] and using the other user's talk page as his soapbox where he again makes personal attacks against "orcs" and "Ruzzkies" "censoring" him [44] [45]. Still he continues to restore the text on Talk:Russia after another user removes it [46] [47]. Again continues attacking editors on talk pages ("See you in Hell!") [48]. When I ask him to stop with any further personal attacks, he states that he has "no idea" what "Ruzzkies" means which he used earlier and then states "orc" is not a slur because it refers to Russian military only [49] and so when I ask him why he used it, he says it is because the other editors who he deems supports Russian war narrative is an "honorary soldier". [50] Mellk ( talk) 20:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Note: The diffs are from earlier in the month but gives some context and may be subject to standard administrative action.
Don't delete my comments or things will get messy[51]. I do not see how asking you to not make such comments is a personal attack, even if you did not mean to direct it at anyone. I was referring to your comments, not you personally. Mellk ( talk) 22:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh god. Ok. There are FIVE diffs provided in the Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it. ONLY ONE of these diffs is an edit (a talk page comment) by the person who this report is about. The other FOUR are OTHER people ... just saying stuff. This diff is from the filer and, hilariously enough, it's level of of "incivility" is probably HIGHER than that that can be found in the one diff out of the five above that is from the subject.
This is about as spurious as a request can get. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I do think that the sort of thing in the first diff needs to be discouraged a bit more strongly than it currently is; part of the reason so many WP:ACDS areas are so difficult to edit is because having WP:ASPERSIONS like that flung around without consequence encourages other editors to either retaliate (if they disagree) or to say similar things and generally treat others as bad-faith editors (if they agree), contributing to a broader WP:BATTLEGROUND / non- WP:AGF atmosphere. But clearly a single diff like that is insufficient to go straight to WP:AE - if we removed people for that there would be almost nobody left in WP:ACDS topic areas at all. Also, links to warnings are generally only useful if they show someone was informed that they were doing something wrong and then kept doing it afterwards. The key point is to establish that they're not listening and that this can't be settled by lesser means. Showing yourself warning them after the diff of their being aspersion-y, without showing any other problems after that, doesn't establish anything beyond the fact that you think their actions are bad, which is already self-evident from the fact that you're taking them to AE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The main problem with Jargo Nautilus's contribution is the uncontainable flood of comments that they pour into the talk pages. That behaviour can be seen in Talk:Donetsk People's Republic: from 2 to 16 September, they made 91 edits to the RfC that I started; I'm quite talkative myself and I made 23 edits overall to that RfC. But see also Talk:Russian separatist forces in Donbas: from 13 August to 3 September they made 42 edits to the RM I started. I made 25 edits and I apologise for that: it's way too much. But JN's way of contributing to the discussion drags you into endless and unproductive back-and-forth, and I wouldn't have made my 23+25 comments if it wasn't for their 91+42, so I'm sensitive to the problem: it's a waste of time, is frustrating and it also makes it more difficult for other editors to join the discussion. Also Talk:International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic shows the problem: from 2 August onwards, Michael Z stops replying to JN, but they continue to discuss in solitude for days and days building impassable walls of text. Obviously most of their comments are off-topic and WP:SOAPBOX, they have difficulties in complying with WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM and a tendency to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. I don't know if this is sanctionable behaviour and I have no difficulty in AGF in this case, as I don't see any mean intentions, but it's objectively disruptive and is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow, either by the admins or by JN themselves. Final note: occasionally JN falls short of civility: [53] [54]. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 01:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Talkpage interjections by JN disruptive, with talkpages treated as a place of polemic (eg. User talk:Jargo Nautilus). This is tricky to show clearly in 20 diffs, as it's a deluge of individual comments. They necro discussions and use talkpages for personal commentary (and sometimes add commentary to articles). Here is the start of 1,200 words starting with "I don't have any material/sources about this, just my thoughts". A related issue is adding a continuous serious of comments. The 1,200 words included that initial edit and five others. The edit history of this arbitration page is an example.
These personal opinions bludgeon conversations, see here where an RfC went from this to being doubled in length with off-topic opinion. Their opinion sometimes shifts into pure invective.
Most problematically, edits are seen as a battleground-style crusade [55] [56] [57]. They and move other people's comments. They leave passive agressive instructions/threats ( [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]) and engage in direct harassment [63] [64] [65] ( even editing archives). They address me with what seem to be dismissive nicknames they won't explain, and explicitly declare opponents.
I stress again this is a hard pattern to show through a small selection of diffs. These long series of entirely unsourced personal opinion edits end up on every talkpage, flooding edit histories, watchlists, and of course actual discussions. This issues are not limited to WP:ARBEE, but ARBEE covers a large component of the recent disruption. CMD ( talk) 00:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC) shortened CMD ( talk) 02:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I do not see any serious reason for sanctioning Jargo Nautilus. Here is why.
P.S. I do agree that user Jargo Nautilus has an anti-Russian bias strong views
[66], but his willingness of discuss disagreements is actually a good thing, not a reason for sanctions, in my opinion.
My very best wishes (
talk) 12:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings here. This AE filing does a poor job at demonstrating issues with JN's behavior, but other comments from other editors demonstrate serious concerns. I recommend they take all of Deepfriedokra's advice. As a fellow autistic Wikipedian I +1 everything they said. If they do receive a TBAN, I prefer a temporary to an indef. If they can drop the battleground mentality then they should be fine to contribute to pages about geopolitics in the future.
My advice for JN is as follows:
In summary: I think JN can continue to be a productive editor, but they really need to have WP:BATTLEGROUND in mind going forward. A TBAN from articles related to current military conflicts could be acceptable if it lasts roughly 6 months to a year, but I wouldn't endorse an indefinite one.
Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Jones? What even is that? Well, whatever it is, it's weird (as in it makes no sense) and inappropriate.
Jones, Bob, Frank), including twice in this very complaint. Now you've accused someone of "racist comments," yet again with zero evidence. Above (way above), I asked you whether you've reviewed the WP:ASPERSIONS page, a question which you never answered (I don't think). But I presume you didn't review it since you're still continuing to do it. As for misquotes, again, correct those (or anything) in your own comment. You have no right to intrude on someone else's comment like that.