| Procedural close. The editor is now blocked as a result of another enforcement action, rendering this discussion moot. Editor has indicated that he wishes to file a new appeal, at which point his multiple sanctions can be discussed in one place. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
logged at WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#American_politics_2
Statement by HughDRespectfully request consideration of an appeal of the topic ban extension.
Thank you. Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
Statement by SafeHaven86I'm the one who brought forward the complaint that HughD is appealing here. I find his 4th point, "No consideration of context of harassment and content dispute improperly escalated to behavior noticeboard filing..." to be incredibly odd and misleading. There is a context of harassment to be looked at here--HughD's harassing behavior toward me (see here)--but the idea that I am harassing him somehow comes out of nowhere and isn't an accusation I remember him making before. As for the "content dispute being improperly escalated," I also have no idea what he's talking about. We're not currently engaged in any content disputes, nor have we been for some time. I wasn't escalating anything by bringing it here, I just noticed he was repeatedly violating his topic ban and I was tired of him not facing any consequences for doing so. I would have much more sympathy for HughD if he had even once expressed humility or contrition about his behavior, but despite a growing block and sanctions log, I've never once seen him admit the tiniest iota of fault in any of his many troubles here on Wikipedia. His inability to self-regulate his topic ban unfortunately leaves no options besides a block. Safehaven86 ( talk) 22:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dennis BrownI opined in the extension, I think the 6 month extension was actually my idea. The purpose was to not block Hugh and instead deal with the problem at hand, Hugh skirting his topic ban by making edits on political topics. These weren't blatant violations, like editing Ted Cruz's article, but they were in clearly political areas. Both AE requests were spent arguing why the admin were wrong instead of seeking a way to edit without bouncing along the boundaries of the topic ban. If an editor doesn't show a willingness to stay as far away from the area in which they were banned, our first concern is the rest of the encyclopedia. I thought an extension without blocks or other sanctions was pretty light. I stand by my previous statements and opinions, although I don't expect to post more about it, instead relying on uninvolved admin to review and decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ricky81682In my view, this is moot in light of the closing above. The topic ban is now indefinite and expanded significantly and the editor is currently blocked as well. If there's an appeal on that decision (which given history is likely) then a explanation to justify that sanction request can be done. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade(Commenting here as I imposed the most recent sanction). I think the suggestion by Ricky81682 is a good one. I think, with the most recent sanctions I've imposed, this is essentially moot. HughD has indicated that he will appeal the most recent set of sanctions; if so, I think we should close this request and let him speak to why the current sanctions should be modified or lifted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughDResult of the appeal by HughD
|
| Indefinite topic ban imposed. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:19, 17 May 2016 (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 FreeatlastChitchat
Per this also it appears the user is under a 0RR restriction, which would mean that these edits [1] and [2] are a violation of it. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by User:Spartaz [3].
Basically the user's whole talk page is a billboard for warnings and sanction notifications.
1RR didn't work. One week block didn't work. 0RR didn't work. Unless the user dramatically changes their approach to editing it's time for a topic ban at the very least. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC) In response to SheriffsinTown's accusations (which are actually sanctionable as well since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS) what I did is remove a whole bunch of POV text which looked like an attempt to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK. It's funny to be accused of "battleground" when I'm actually probably the one person on that article that is more or less uninvolved (I've edited it before in passing just in the course of my regular editing) and doesn't have a dog in this fight. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Oh and Sheriff, can you point to exactly where "ARBPIA specifically prohibits such behavior"? Where does it do this "specifically"? And what behavior? I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC) I feel compelled to also point out that despite FreeatlastChitchat's comment, no one ever said that "Biharis were just killed in the process". Go to the article talk page. Press Ctrl-F, search for "killed in the process", all you find is FreeatlastChitchat making that false accusation. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, ffs. To those who are claiming that FreeatlastChitchat didn't accuse anyone of being a Holocaust denier - well, I guess you're right. He accused other editors of being the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Which is what I said above in my statement (to quote myself: "compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers"") . If you really think that makes it better than please, WP:WIKILAWYER to your hearts' content. Here is their statement: "We have the same with Holocaust deniers ... So it is quite clear that some deniers are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) I ask only this". Now obfuscate and battleground' onward. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchatStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FreeatlastChitchat@
Seraphimblade I am removing everything from my statement except the bare bones. @
User:The Wordsmith I am deleting my statement from here and using only 100 words or so as u asked. So here goes Statement by SheriffIsInTownI suggest a WP:BOOMERANG as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior which involved large-scale removal of sourced content from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and restoration of unsourced content. I am not sure what Wikipedia policies he is following to do all this. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits such battleground behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sir JosephJust a comment to clarify. I have no issue with the case or parties, but I don't think anyone called anyone a Holocaust denier. The statement was "we have the same with Holocaust deniers." In other words, the issue is similar to those who deny the Holocaust, not that anyone here is a HD. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by TripWireA simple glance at Freeatlast's comment will tell the reader that he did not call anyone "holocaust denier" nor did he display any WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So, that's that. But I am compelled to point out that the way VM is accusing everyone around him of WP:ASPERSION, he should be careful as he commonly violates this policy himself in routine:
And before he accuses me of tag-teaming, I'd like to info that I am already involved at this board. A WP:BOOMERANG shall be in order here, I guess.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC) VM, please stop WP:cherrypicking Freeatlast's words and synthesising a conclusion. What Freeatlast said was: "Removing this (Bihari genocide) amounts to genocide denial, and I personally think that anyone removing this should be sanctioned (he says that those who deny genocide must be sanctioned). We have the same with Holocaust deniers (i.e. as Holocaust deniers are sanctioned, so must be Genocide Deniers, in this case ho deny genocide of Biharis - he is simply equating genocide deniers to Holocaust deniers and demanding equal sanctions for both), why won't these guys accept that Biharis were killed?" He further says: "It is quite clear that no one is removing ANY part of the article (i.e Freeatlast is not denying or removing info related to genocide of Bengalis - hence not denying it). So it is quite clear that some deniers (yeah, some [genocide, not Holocaust] deniers) are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) (who deny Bihari, not Bengali genocide) I ask only this, where exactly does it say that this article is exclusive to the killing of Bengalis? If Biharis were killed they should most definitely be included." I dont think he is labeling VM or for that matter anyone as a Holocaust denier. At most what he suggested was that those who deny Behari genocide (i.e. say it didnt happen during the events of 1971), should also be equated with genocide deniers and as such must be sanctioned as is in the case of Holocaust deniers.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment by My very best wishesSeveral contributors blame VM of "genocide denial". What genocide? They tell about genocide of Biharis population. However, vast majority of sources tell about genocide of Hindu, not Biharis population (e.g. There is an academic consensus that this campaign of violence, particularly against the Hindu population, was a genocide - from good summary review). Even Rummel expresses concern that the violence against Biharis was a "democide" which is not the same as "genocide": "How much of this was democide (intentional killing by government or its agents) is a question". One can find very few sources which call violence against Biharis a "genocide". Hence the current description of this simply as "violence" was correct. That is what vast majorty of sources tell. It seems that several contributors are trying to push their nationalistic views by including fringe or poorly sourced materials/claims, and blame VM and other contributors of "denying" these materials/claims. This happens on a number of pages, such as Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, and Mukti Bahini. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Comment by RhoarkThough I find VM's positions on this article content unconvincing, FreeatlastChitchat's delcaration
Statement by Kautilya3Freeatlast seems to have been around the circuit for a while, but his participation in South Asian conflict pages is only about a couple of months old. The pages include Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen conflict, Kashmir conflict, List of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Kulbhushan Yadav, Balochistan conflict and possibly other pages he is still discovering. On all these pages, his edits to mainspace are minimal, mostly limited to reverts in support of editors that accord with his POV. He probably knows nothing of substance on these topics. Given how limited his contributions are, he certainly throws a surprising amount of weight around on the talk pages.
I am pretty sure that his idea of "consensus" is for a bunch of editors to gang up and CRUSH the others into submission. He feels entirely free to target editors with his cutting, pointed, sanctimonious remarks as if he is a prima donna veteran of Wikipedia. With his accusation of holocaust denial, he has clearly crossed the line and the pity is that he doesn't even realize it. We certainly don't need such prima donnas on conflict pages that are already dealing with difficult subjects that need to account for multiple nationalist POVs. I recommend that Freeatlast be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Freeatlast proposes a self-imposed 1RR (a tactic that he has tried before), and that too for only 3 months. That is of no use. His participation in all South Asia conflicts pages is to lend his weight to other editors that accord with his POV. See this revert for a most recent example. This page got full-protected only a couple of days ago as a result of an edit war that he provoked. He also followed it up with a highly inflammatory nationalistic comment: "The so called "newspaper" is from India and giving information from a non reliable person, hence it is unreliable." (quoted in full). His colleague, TripWire, is still persisting with this argument. This kind of reckless behaviour even while an AE case is going on gives me no confidence that this user will ever behave himself. I am opposed to any self-imposed sanctions of any kind, and I don't see why they should be time-limited. If he demonstrates good behaviour on other pages, he an always come back and ask for his sanctions to be lifted. There is no need for a pre-defined time limit. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by GhatusThis editor (FreeatlastChitchat) is a habitual battleground editor. He was trying to create a false equivalence between the real victims of genocide ( with academic consensus) and those killed in other ways. There is no academic consensus that killing of "a few hundred" Biharis was a "genocide" from any angle as against the killing of "a million" Bengalis by the state with impunity. Anyone who opposed that PoV pushing was insinuated as a "genocide denier", though the case in reality was the opposite. One can not say that Jews also massacred Germans in some places and hence both are equally guilty. Hence, like Kautilya, I also recommend that Freeatlast is to be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. Ghatus ( talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by ArghyaIndianI will like to draw administrator's kind attention towards SHERIFFISINTOWN's battleground behaviour (I also recommend that SheriffIsInTown should be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages). He said I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. clearly shows that he is just here to WP:TAGTEAM and defend a user who shares his POV (as VM said). A quick look here [10], [11], [12] will show that this user have long displayed an incomprehensible pattern of shielding editors (who shares his *POV*) from sanctions and downplaying their disruption. He's doing the same here! His comment adds no value to this discussion whatsoever. Maybe (*as also suggested by admin Spartaz*) administrators should consider banning him from commenting here at AE in the future. Contrary to what SheriffIsInTown said in their last lines, he reported me right here at AE asking a T-ban (when I have less then 6 edits to that page/talk page combined) just because I voted *Reject* in the RFC. He left no chance of threatening me and he intentionally targeted me again and again. Right here, he called User:Volunteer Marek (a completely uninvolved editor) a battleground editor, and on talk page he intentionally targeted User:My very best wishes [13]. Per Volunteer Marek and above users, this editor (FreeatLastChitchat) should be topic banned indefinitely. This user (Freeatlast) has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with over the top nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Based on the ample amount of evidences (I provided in my statement below in second report right here at AE), SHERIFFISINTOWN should also be Topic-banned (as also suggested by administrator SPARTAZ, but he is on wiki leave currently SEE.... Spartaz further warned this user on their talk page [14]). Also, SheriffIsInTown was previously t-ban by HighInBC for a period of one month from one page (It seems from his talk page) because of the same reason *POV Pushing* and *Edit Warring*. SHERIFFISINTOWN'S's long term Edit Warring (recent 3RR violation), large scale POV pushing on all the 1971 related INDIA-BANGLADESH pages, continuous violating WP:ASPERSIONS and his attempt of harassment are equally sanctionable as well. Please look at the edit diffs/evidences I provided below in my statement (right here at AE in the second report). Reviewing admin should take a look here at once (report filed by an uninvolved editor Mhhossein ). Also, Freeatlast is commenting on other's statement which as per the rule he cannot! In addition, his total word count is far more then 500 word. -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lankiveil: This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This user is so disruptive that we see him on different noticeboards on weekly bases. Just look at his contributions to see how many reverts he does per day just to remove contents (that he doesn't like). Take a look at his block log once. He promised Slakr that he "will attempt to self-adhere to WP:1RR," what he failed to do on numerous occasions. A quick look at D4iNa4 statement ( here) shows that this user has massively violated his 1RR restrictions on many articles and gone unnoticed as usual. Here on one administrator TP, he is canvassing him to come and defend him on ANI, see ( ANI DRAMA(Take 2)). Apart from this AE case, there's currently two active WP:ANI thread where users have reported Freeatlast [15], [16] ) for his disrupting editing, as usual. I am confused how this user is surviving here. There are many users who had faced harassment from this guy and not limited to one or two. He is blatantly hounding User: Mhhossein. This editor pushed the 3RR rule right to the limit on Balochistan, Pakistan and Kulbhushan Yadav page. Anything short of an indef block seems a waste of time. SheriffIsInTown needs to be t-ban. No one mentioned him on ANI, yet this user went on there to shield FreeatLast and tried to downplay his disruption just because he shares his bias POV, When asked by an editor, what he is doing here, his reaction was How about you tell me why I should not get involved and you should?. Nationalist users like him are the reason why bullshit take it's place on Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the evidences I provided in my statement [17] which per me are more then enough to t-ban SheriffIsInTown (also suggested by admin Spartaz). In previous report, right here at AE [18] Administrator Spartaz was considering imposing 0RR restrictions on this user. Another administrator EdJohnston also suggested 0RR restrictions. Spartaz said Imposition will depend on behavior after return from block. but they are on wiki leave currently. Please also take a look at User Kautilya3 comment here on ANI. -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 13:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by NuroDisclaimer: I'm Australian and have no cultural or religious affiliation with the subject matter TP debate or the two sets of nationals involved. It is clear to me, by the written word, that this editors ability to make themselves understood properly in English, is extremely poor. They have continuously used inflammatory language, falsely made claims and invented accusations, against myself and others, in regards to consensus debating on the Yadav talk page along with TripWire. The arrival of SheriffIsInTown in the last few days, after I raised concerns on the AN/I page, and has joined their cause with vigor and quite a large amount of arrogance in their attitude and behaviour; all three of which I consider to be acting in coalition with one another, to aggressively push a Nationalist Pakistani POV agenda on WP, which has become my view after weeks of TP debate on the subject matter, to help build a consensus for the article to move forward. It is bombastic in the amount of effort that the any three of these editors have used to attack any one who disagrees with their POV on how the article should read, which is to say quite poorly at present, and completely biased. All attempts to create a neutral POV consensus in the article have been rejected by either FreeatlastChitchat or TripWire on all occasions, especially once the subject matter turns to the fact that everything that Pakistan has said on the matter is just a claim, exactly the same as everything India says is just a claim. I don't see the Indian contributors making such accusations and they have been more than willing to except these issues in this regard. The source material is appalling, with 2/3 exceptions, and reads as if a badly written spy novel (no pun intended) by very biased journalists with a clear agenda to promote nationalist propaganda about the matter. Both FALCC and TW have continuously tried to block any attempts to sift through the obvious bias in reporting and claim that they are factually correct, when 95% of all information is rejected by India, who have also made their own claims on the matter. This is an article about Espionage between India and Pakistan...and as such the efforts to have a neutral POV are non existent. FALCC, TP and SIIT all use the Modus Operandi of bombarding other editors with WP Policies in a blatantly disingenuous manner, making erroneous claims about WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RECKLESS, WP:BIASED towards everything that is edited on the article not to their liking, and in the case of SIIT - who hasn't contributed to the Yadav TP but has done so on the AN/I, and another administrators TP - to support the others behaviour, after the fact, when it is raised as a concern, and furthermore does so which such vehemence, to then claim with absolute assurance that they are acting in good standing as dissenting voices on WP, as if they are attempting to achieve some revolutionary agenda in this place, as a whole for the Pakistani element he on WP. I leave this ARE to those that are making their decisions on the matter and consider my involvement at an end, unless a non-involved editor wishes to ask me to provide some further explanation of what I consider to be disruptive behaviour. Again I state that the three editors mentioned by me are not to contact me for any reason, and any such actions will be regarded as harassment, as my patience is at it end with them, and I am disengaging from the situation for my own sanity. I leave with the note that I have not even edited the article page, and was only engaged in the consensus debate about the issues raised by another AN/I, that I was asked to help contribute to, and this was the result..
PS: I was asked by ArghyaIndian to make a comment on this ARE instead of on the AN/I, for clarities sake. I also reject any attempt by SheriffsIsInTown of Canvassing and have given him 30 minutes to remove his harassing notice of such from my Talk Page, as he has been expressly told not to contact me, harass me as far as I'm concerned, for any reason, twice now.
Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat
|
| No formal sanction imposed. Editors are cautioned to remain civil, and advised that further reports of meaty socks in this area will be subject to heightened scrutiny from uninvolved admins and will not be taken lightly. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:49, 17 May 2016 (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 ArghyaIndian
Requesting a topic ban for ArghyaIndian in topic area of India/Pakistan broadly construed based on evidence of nationalistic propaganda and assuming bad faith along national lines.
Diff of notification to the editor
Discussion concerning ArghyaIndianStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ArghyaIndianThis user is bullying me continuously from past one-two weeks. He is intentionally targeting me again and again. But lemme tell him, I'm not going to be bullied or threatened. He seems to be leaving no chance of WP BITING. I am not the only one whom this user has tried to WP:HARASS. This user has attacked and targeted many uninvolved users on article's talk page see and on their talk pages see. (*just because they opposed his strong POVish edits* (which are itself sanctionable since these pages are covered by ARBIPA and WP:NPOV is one of the Wikipedia's main pillar). Admins should take a look at the revision history of the page to get a better understanding of this user (along with his WP:TAGTEAM) attempt of hijacking and converting an NPOV article into a complete POV COATRACK, promoting fringe and preposterous theories. (All uninvolved users pointed out this on talk page including Ghatus, KT, Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, and so on).
More recent evidences of EDIT WARRING and POV pushing by this user.
Further comments/evidences of WP:TAGTEAM and his desparate attempts of shielding editors (who shares his bias POV) whenever they get reported to noticeboards and downplaying their disruption in my statement in above AE case. -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The Wordsmith please note that, this user has continuously harassed me for weeks. This should WP:BOOMERANG hard on SheriffIsInTown and he should be sanctioned. Please go through the evidences I provided. This user is edit warring, pushing (his nationalist) POV across these articles (ARBIPA) for months. Even leaving Harassment (I faced from this user) aside, other evidences that I provided should be enough to issue t-ban to this user for long term TAG-TEAMING,WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, hurling accusations (without any evidences whatsoever), BITING newcomers, Edit warring (This user has violated 3RR multiple times and gone unnoticed as usual. Take a look at my evidences once), and blatant POV pushing. ARBIPA sanctions should be issued to this user!!! -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesThis does appear to me as a battleground request because SheriffIsInTown edit war on these pages for months, but reported someone who only started. In addition, after looking at changes by SheriffIsInTown on this page, it appear that he inserts wording like "a number now universally regarded as excessively inflated" and "however some scholars consider this number to be seriously inflated" in introduction, instead of simply providing a range of numbers - as the more NPOV version preferred by ArghyaIndian. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by RhoarkSaying there are POV pushers in this area is calling a spade a spade, and no one involved appears to have any inhibition about editing while the RfC is open. This area needs more admin scrutiny than is seen through the keyhole of AE filings. Rhoark ( talk) 04:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning ArghyaIndian
|
| Gala19000 is indefinitely banned under WP:ARBAA2 from all wars and conflicts involving Turkey, and from anything to do with Armenia. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Gala19000
This user has a tremendous history of violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:PERSONAL, and WP:EDITWAR ever since joining wikipedia and has only gotten warnings, seems to think this is a game. An indefinite topic ban is strongly needed. Oatitonimly ( talk) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC) The linked users have all been involved with Gala19000's tedious editing and given him various warnings, both shown above. I invite them all to come here and give their thoughts if they wish to. -- Oatitonimly ( talk) 01:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Gala19000Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gala19000Statement by FerakpI had a lot of problems with Galaa19000, I mean a lot of problems. I had to explain word by word all violations, but the user still continued to attack me and after I didn't give up and explained more clearly all violations, user disappeared. The user has played with many articles and involved at least in cherry picking, violated WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL. This user is cooperating with some other users who has just recently reported me after I warned them to not involve in edit wars and use the talk page. Ferakp ( talk) 10:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Darwinian ApeThe OP here is engaging in a canvassing attempt to rally editors whom they assume would support their Enforcement request by piling on the reported editor. I noted this earlier in here(see my original comment below) but the editor asked me in my talk page to remove my comment. I said I only would do that, if they acknowledge(in their AE request) that the canvassing behavior was wrong and pledge they won't do it again so that they inform pinged editors that there is foul play in notifications and they can act accordingly, that task is up to me now. Unfortunately Oatitonimly did not comply and I am re-posting it as I said I would. I will also be updating my AN/I request because the editor doesn't seem to understand why what they did was wrong, instead blaming me of gaming the system and any other violations they can think of.(though they deny it when they are called out.) You can check my talk page for the interaction between us. As for the complaint, I assume the reason why any admin or editor haven't commented on it until the canvassing attempt by Oatitonimly is that there are too many diffs(many of them 6+ months stale), but at best it's just an example of a Pot calling the kettle black. Darwinian Ape talk 01:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC) My original statement:
Statement by Mr.User200User Gala19000 have a Turkish history related activity, mostly a heavily Pro Turkish bias. Also his/her use of offensive words could be considered as evidence to block him for a period of time. I have seen many cases like this in Modern Middle East articles, and I recommend to keep an eye on another user:
User talk:Zimimi. Statement by TiptoethrutheminefieldGala19000's edits at Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) are entirely unproductive. On that article, if there have been valid content changes or additions by Gala19000, they has been lost amid the general ineptness of this editor's editing. I don't think it is deliberate vandalism, it looks like plain stupidity at work. Observe this edit by Gala19000: [118] - it has resulted in most of the article's content being reproduced twice! That edit was reverted by Oatitonimly. What does Gala19000 do next - makes an edit that now reproduces the article's content three times [119]! An IP editor sees this and fixes it [120]. Gala19000 puts the duplication right back in again [121], and does it again [122], and AGAIN [123]. This is blind reverting of the worst sort. Caught up in the heat of edit warring, Gala19000 has not bothered to look at what his editing has been doing to the article, and has ignored the edit summaries of others that have repeatedly mentioning this duplicating or triplicating of the content. Gala19000 simply reverts those corrective edits made to remove the duplication or triplication, and claims he is reverting vandalism. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Gala19000
|
| Abbatai is hereby topic banned from all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, for 30 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Abbatai
The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ( [126]).
Discussion concerning AbbataiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AbbataiThe first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead. And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [128] and [129] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I am amused to see how one revert of me maliciously brought here and there started an anti-Abbatai campaign by pro-Armenian users. @ Étienne Dolet if you think my edits were wrong you are welcomed to discuss it on talk page. However you seem you even did not read what I wrote there. What you are doing here is not constructive at all with being very willing to have me blocked. I find what you are doing here quite threatening since simply you accuse me with socking without any IP investigation and calling admins to ban me just because you do not like my edits. Can you please explain what was wrong changing this [130]. The section is "Caucasus" but Central Asian Turkic legions stated there. So it was completely wrong. I added Azerbaijani and Georgian legions along with Armenian legion which were the collaborators from Caucasus. And here [131] instead of picture from Turkistan I added Armenian soldiers which were native to Caucasus. Next time please read carefully what you are reporting. I hope you have basic geography knowledge that Turkistan is not in Caucasus. Thanks Abbatai 22:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Finally @ Étienne Dolet seems s/he has an obsession with me. Trying to dilute the topic and extend this thread by several baseless accusations [132] [133] and reverts [134] [135]. I demand closure of the case because as I explained above I feel threatened by him or her bringing unrelated things here and accuse me every means possible. Abbatai 00:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Clearly as @ Étienne Dolet could not support his latest groundless accusation S/he came with something that happened earlier. Just wondering how long this will last. Abbatai 01:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by OptimusViewAbbatai still continues editwarring as an IP [136]. OptimusView ( talk) 07:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by EtienneDoletI'm also concerned about the socking. In addition to the IP OptimusView has aforementioned, I ran into a similar case at the Defense of Van (1915). Abbatai apparently lives in Istanbul. An IP out of Istanbul, similar to the one OptimusView has shown, reverted on Abbatai's behalf (IP and Abattai's ). This also appears to be the case at Drastamat Kanayan ( [137] and [138]) and also at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims ( [139] and [140]). Étienne Dolet ( talk) 20:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning Abbatai
|
| The three-way mutual interaction bans between MarkBernstein, Thargor Orlando and DHeyward are hereby lifted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This topic ban originated from an ARCA, and three AE requests regarding GamerGate. It was poorly thought out (i.e. ThargorOrlando and I never had a dispute, rather we noted personal attacks by MarkBernstein. MarkBernstein viewed our ARCA and AE requests as personal attacks. Gamaliel imposed a 3-way topic ban with the apparent attempt to limit requests for sanction. Despite the wording, ThargorOrlandao and I never had a disagreement. Rather MarkBernstein was repeatedly brought to AE and Gamaliel sought to stop it. It's clear this topic ban did not stem the flood and MarkBernstein has since been topic banned. I have no interest in replying to direct and personal inquiries by MarkBernstein. Since then, despite numerous AE requests to sanction MarkBernstein by others, Gamaliel has insisted that his topic ban didn't apply. Yet he jumped in and rev-del'd a comment I made and supported a block when MarkBernstein complained. The Admins at AN disagreed strongly, undid the oversight and the block and chastised Gamaliel for bein too close to the topic. The latest interpretation by email is even more confusing as it now allows comment at drama boards which I believed to be off-limits. This is a long history so I will provide diffs on request. My desire is to lift the ill-concieved topic ban. He can make as many comments as he likes about me. Diffs on request. - DHeyward ( talk) 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Liz: The restriction on filing AE or any other kind of request was lifted in November 2015. I've not filed anything regarding MarkBernstein. I've not commented either on the many times MarkBernstein has been brought here by other parties except above when he received email reinterpretation. Considering I've been able to file requests for 6 months and haven't even commented shows both an iban or tban is unnecessary. In addition it did not slow down the AE requests filed against MarkBernstein so whatever its intent, it did not happen. MarkBernstein is now topic banned from GamerGate so I see no overlap at all. I believe I have only filed 1 AE request ( it's a good read) regarding MarkBernstein and that was met with Gamaliel's topic ban well over a year ago when MarkBernstein filed a retaliatory request (one against Thargor Orlando and one against me). You can read the diffs above and the sanctions log to see that it was modified in November. Also, do you still consider yourself involved in GamerGate related matters per your RfA? If so, can you kindly move your statement to the statement section? --20:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Dennis Brown: to clarify, it was a Topic Ban so that we could all contribute and discuss article edits. Both MarkBernstein and I can edit any article, discuss any content with each other, comment on any proposal, etc. I am Topic Banned from the topic of MarkBernstein, though, but with the exceptions (noted in the log and email in MarkBernstein section above) there doesn't seem to much of even a Topic Ban anymore and it is difficult to parse where the line is. It would be incorrect to change to an Iban as there never has been an interaction restriction, nor does there need to be. -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC) @ Liz: See above, it is a Topic Ban. MarkBernstein and I can interact on any article or talk page we like. Second, the section you commented in is for "uninvolved admins". Feel free to move your comments to the regular statement area. If you cannot take administrative action because of involvement, your statement/opinion is in the wrong area as you are not "uninvolved". -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Only in DeathEither convert the IB to a standard 2-way interaction ban between DHeyward and MarkBernstein (As DHeyward says, he and Thargor have not had conflict that justified it) or lift it altogether. As it stands its clearly been crafted and amended by Gamaliel to favour MarkBernstein as much as possible. The 'commenting at drama boards' stuff MB thinks is valid is completely voiding the point of an IB. Which is to prevent editors interacting at all. As it stands there is also a good case for lifting it entirely - as MB has been topic banned from GamerGate, and that was the only locus of dispute - it is unlikely to rear its head again. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ryk72Whatever the intentions behind these topic bans, it is clear that they have long outlived any usefulness they might once have had. I should not wish to dwell on the unfortunate genesis of these topic bans in two
WP:POINTy noticeboard filings, but do consider that if we have now reached the point where that same editor "complies" with the topic ban by talking not about another editor but about their dog,
[148]
[149] and is encouraged in such "compliance" by the sanctioning admin,
[150] it might be time to remove these sanctions.
Statement by Starke HathawayIn my opinion this sanction ought to either be lifted or converted into a mutual interaction ban, which is easier to understand and enforce. Note to The Wordsmith: Thargor Orlando's last edit was in December 2015, so I think waiting for him to respond here may not work out. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 14:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernsteinIs there an urgent reason to deal with this now now now? (What reason might that be?)
So, I have no need just now to talk about DHeyward or Orlando on-wiki. I’m not doing anything on-wiki that DHeyward or Orlando would want to discuss, or could properly discuss even if they thought discussing it would be really swell. We have a complex and volatile situation with potentially serious consequences, involving any number of people and processes. My recommendation would call for a cautious approach. MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Liz:: No, they won’t be bringing more traffic about MarkBernstein to AE because they don't don't need to. As Ryk72 attentively points out, I may not bring to your attention incontrovertible facts that are directly pertinent to your question, and to the issues discussed above. MarkBernstein ( talk) 20:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Topic Ban Appeal
|
| Closing without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:51, 20 May 2016 (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 Miles Creagh
Editor is involved in a dispute about the official status of the Flag of Northern Ireland and if it is used to represent Northern Ireland or if the Union Flag is used, the article has seen a slow edit war which while not breaching the 1RR restriction it certainly stretching it waiting just long enough so as to avoid sanctions. As can be seen in the diffs the editor removed that flag was not official and then removed that the Union Flag is the only flag used officially in Northern Ireland. I asked the editor to self revert to avoid this process but they refused here and said they will wait till after this request is completed in some way to negate this request. The whole crux of the dispute as I said is that Ulster Banner has no official status and that the Union Flag is the only official flag and mentions of both of these things where removed by Miles, a compromise was agreed which was the addition of a sentence proposed by User:Eckerslike the edit was made and then Miles removed more thus ending the proposed compromise. I wont be surprised if one of the dormant accounts come along and revert I already asked for admin assistance on the page looks like a sock farm because if it looks like a duck...
Discussion concerning Miles CreaghStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Miles CreaghIt's too bad that Mo ainm didn't just provide me the diffs when I asked him repeatedly to do so on my talk page [153]. Now I know what he's talking about! I would argue that the second diff he provides is not in fact a revert, as it removes no content whatsoever from the article. Eckerslike had just inserted this [154] new sentence that we had all three of us (Mo ainm, Eckerslike and myself) discussed and agreed on here [155], as part of a good-faith effort to move a long-running dispute on a difficult topic towards a balanced conclusion. The new sentence Eckerslike inserted as agreed at the start of the second paragraph of the lead was "There has been no flag in use by the government for the purpose of representing Northern Ireland since 1973". The existing first sentence of the second paragraph, which became the second sentence after Eckerslike's insertion read "During official events, the British government uses the Union flag which is the official flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is the only flag used by the government in Northern Ireland." (My emphases). What Mo ainm is now claiming is a revert that removes content, is not a revert as it doesn't remove any content. In fact, it is me removing a repetitive redundancy from the paragraph, as the very content and concept it conveys had just been given greater prominence, per the discussion on talk, by the addition of a new first sentence to the paragraph conveying the exact same information. I would argue that the relevant diffs in this case, that demonstrate no content was removed, but was switched around pursuant to a discussion are these [156]. That said, Mo ainm clearly feels there has been a revert here, and now he has indicated what he meant, so I will now self-revert in the interests of reducing tensions and furthering the on-going attempt to resolve this dispute. Done [157] Miles Creagh ( talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Miles Creagh
|
| Withdrawn by filing party. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:26, 20 May 2016 (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 TripWire
Just came off a topic ban this year.
I don't see how one can deal with such user after they create such a toxic environment. it's time for a ARBIPA topic ban at the very least. @The WordSmith, If you think I should withdraw this request then I will. However, I have only provided edit diffs from 8 May and as latest as of 2-3 days ago. -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 17:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TripWireStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TripWire
Statement by SheriffIsInTownThe request should be declined as stale. I went through almost all the diffs, i did not find a single diff younger than a week. Also, please take a note that this request might have been inspired by a couple of recent topic bans e.g. User:Towns Hill and User:FreeatlastChitchat. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by TopGunI'm here as I watch TW's talkpage. The report is blatantly frivolous and full of stale diffs. From what I understand, it is an attempt to resolve disputes by removing users from the topic area which is not how wikipedia works. You have to go through the DR process. I also noticed that Arghya was warned just above in another AE report. The fact that he filed this report inspite of that definitely calls for a block of appropriate length that would deter any future hounding of such sort. The offer of withdrawal of this report by the filer seems be looking for a way to avoid WP:BOOMERANG only after he saw it coming where as he was wasting every one's time with lengthy replies in the above AE report(s) and even here till now when he had the WP:ROPE. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable on wikipedia. TripWire, I would really like to note that you dont need to respond with such long statements... admins are generally experienced enough users to get your point if you simply list your arguments (as you finally did in your update statement). I also hope you will avoid discussing the users in future and focus on content instead, unlike those diffs from April (although stale) as I noticed RegentsPark recently applied restrictions to the Kashmir conflict topics for all users, esp. wrt discussion on users. I am also noting this here as a record so that admins can keep a check on editors who bring ethnic claims about other editors in future edits instead of discussing content which is categorically mentioned in the restriction. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC) PS. ArghyaIndian blanked the report which I have reverted. If you want to withdraw, please leave a comment... but let the admins deal with whether they have to hat the report or take some action. Blanking does not guarantee that WP:BOOMERANG wont be opted by an admin anyway. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning TripWire
|
| Editors are reminded that WP:CIVIL is not just a suggestion. The Wordsmith Talk to me 01:01, 22 May 2016 (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 Tiptoethrutheminefield
Probably could find more evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in the AA2 area but the above should be sufficient.
I'm not quite sure what EtienneDolet is talking about. Apparently they object to me making edits to this article at all and think this is some kind of conspiracy against *them* despite the fact that this report has nothing to do with them. I made edits to the article because it was in the news, then I remembered about it when Jamala won the Eurovision contest and I followed some links. This appears to be a desperate attempt at deflecting the issue from Tiptoethrutheminefield's problematic behavior. I'll leave EtienneDolet's - who just jumped in to edit war on that article [190] - motives out of it, though it's not hard to guess them. I resent any charges, which are completely baseless and amount to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, that I have "unclean hands" (whatever that is suppose to mean) or that I'm pushing "pro-Azeri POV" which is ridiculous and it only reveals EtienneDolet's own biased WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC) This isn't the place to discuss content (I have discussed it on talk page - EtienneDolet and Tiptoethroughtheminefield, aside from their personal attack above, have not) but just to make it clear the two paragraphs I removed (I guess that's "mass deletions") are obviously highly POV, and sourced to non-reliable sources like breitbart news, a bunch of primary sources from the involved governments and a few others non-reliable sources. Then a couple actually reliable sources are included to source trivial or irrelevant facts to make it look legit. It's a classic POV pushing tactic. And yes, like many topic areas which have been placed under discretionary sanctions due to nationalistic WP:BATTLEGROUND this one too has its share of dedicated tag teams. @ User:The_Wordsmith - in the past I've let stuff like this slide. Then it just build up and eventually ended up being a huge mess. And at that point administrators and arbcoms were like "why didn't you bring it to WP:AE earlier?". Well, here I am bringing it to WP:AE earlier. Additionally keep in mind that User:Tiptoethroughtheminefiled has been sanctioned, with good cause, in this topic area. ADD: another diff to support that Tiptoethroughthebattlefield is just not getting it. A reasonable user, interested in compromise and working towards a neutral article would have at this point struck the offending personal attack and said "ok sorry, I went to far, let's discuss the issue". Unfortunately this is NOT what Tiptoethroughthebattlefield has done, instead they've just flung around more weird accusations. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Finally, after a comment like that *how exactly* are we suppose to have a constructive discussion about the issue at hand? Putting aside for the moment the fact that the comment clearly indicates Tiptoethroughtheminefield is not interested in such, it also shuts down discussion with others. And of course the fact that s/he is not only defending but doubling down on the personal attacks in their comment here only makes it more problematic. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC) @Tiptoethroughtheminefield - yes, the article, and that section in particular is garbage (there's a ton of material on Wikipedia which is most accurately described as garbage, this is just one instance of it). It uses sources like breitbart news and a bunch of press releases from obviously biased governments, which then it presents as fact. Describing it as such reference content. You may disagree but in that case you should respond on talk page with constructive arguments (and preferably do the real work of finding reliable sources) on the talk page. What you SHOULD NOT do is make comments like "Volunteer Marek needs to pack up his own crap and stick to edit warring in subject areas he knows he has a carte blanche permit to edit war in. " which is a clear cut personal attack specifically because it involves discussing editors. See the difference? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TiptoethrutheminefieldStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TiptoethrutheminefieldVolunteer Marek drives by an article he has never edited before, in a field he has never (or very rarely) edited before, and starts deleting VERY large quantities of referenced content [192] without prior discussion, content he MUST have known would constitute a contentious deletion. When reverted, he refers to a talk page post he's made in a dead and settled discussion thread (his post is made one month after the last post there [193]), that is half way up the talk page and is about an entirely different subject, to allege that a lack of "consensus" permits all of this deletion, and he deletes it all again [194]. This is a misuse of the talk page (pointing out that misuse and suggesting it should stop is a "personal attack" according to VM). When others point out that the deleted content had numerous sources VM then goes on an I-don't-like-it tirade against all the sources. Without presenting any argument or evidence, he asserts this source is not "reliable", that source is not "reliable", that one too is not "reliable" - all this is referring to well known and well used sources like The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Eurasianet, etc. And he asserts that media sources based in Armenia or Azerbaijan are "primary sources", when they clearly are not. When this is questioned his assertions get even wilder, now the sources are all "junk", are all "crap" [195]. However, the only "crap" I saw on display was in the arguments coming from Volunteer Marek, and I think for me to have reused his use of the word "crap", and asked him to leave with it, is a fair comment to have made under the circumstances. If he wants to return with proper arguments, and present those arguments in a reasonable way, without edit warring, then he is welcome and I will engage with him. No other editor who has worked on the article has advocated such a massive deletion of content, prior discussion about it been mostly about what appropriate wording to use. I suspect the only reason Volunteer Marek came to 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes is that he was following Étienne Dolet around to cause harassment, after having had several disagreements with that editor on Syrian and Ukrainian and Putin-related articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EtienneDoletThe filer of this report appears to have unclean hands. Volunteer Marek, who has never edited an AA2 article, only did so to revert an of mine after the whole feud at Putin subsided in what seems to be classic WP:HOUND-like behavior. He has been pushing some strange pro-Azeri POV at that article ever since. A month later, Marek gets reverted by me at this article, and responds 10 minutes later by making a massive deletion of material concerning human rights violations against Armenians here. In other words, Marek's two instances of editing at this article was either to revert me or bait me to revert him. Since then, for the past three days, Marek has made 2 reverts ( [199] [200]) to maintain his deletion of an entire section consisting of 11,000+ characters and 30+ sources/reports while edit-warring over several users in this 1RR article. That's one revert every 24 hours. One can only assume that there's some WP:GAMING going on. As for Tiptoe's comment, I don't know if that is necessarily an AA2 issue in and of itself. Perhaps WP:ANI would be a better venue to handle a single remark like that. As for his editing pattern, I'd say that his edits are rather productive and neutral. He'll go so far as to confront Armenian POV here, Azerbaijani POV here, and Turkish POV there. That's quite a rarity in the AA2 these days. Hence the main reason why I think he's a good asset to the topic area. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 10:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by OptimusViewWhile the article is under 1RR rule, Volunteer Marek already made 3 reverts [201] [202] [203] during the last 4 days, deleting a whole section with very dubious and disaffected comments. Several users asked him to stop editwarring, but no result. OptimusView ( talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Comment by My very best wishesIt is wrong that lower civility standards should apply to discussions in nationalism-related areas. To the contrary, higher standards must apply. It is precisely the personal attacks of the kind provided above (and these comments are undoubtely directed at a contributor) that makes editing in such subject areas unbearable. If someone can not edit politely in difficult subject areas, s/he should not edit in such areas. Very simple. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment by KingsindianIt is almost impossible to avoid this mild level of hostility and language in nationalist areas. I suggest closing with no action. On the content matter, I agree with Volunteer Marek's position - a lot of the content is junk and should be deleted. However, the local consensus is for inclusion. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to get consensus to delete junk in such areas. That's just the way it is. I suggest an RfC to get more people looking at the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Comment by usernameResult concerning Tiptoethrutheminefield
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Interfase
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- OptimusView ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
-
Interfase (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [205] Interfase reverted (readded) a phrase that previously was deleted by a user [206] [207]
- [208] without any initial explanations at talk Interfase returns an original and possibly disruptive phrase that few hours ago was added by him [209]
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [210] "For any reverts you make in mainspace that are not of clear and obvious vandalism (within the definition above), you must go to the article's talk page and give your reasons for your revert before making any further edits anywhere on Wikipedia".
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 00:29, 9 March 2014 by HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
While Interfase is under AA2 restrictions, he reverted without any explanations at talk before his revert.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Interfase
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Interfase
1. Actually I didn't make a "revert". The information was
removed because of "mistranslated from Russian". I
put the text with correct translation that was explained by me in comments. As you can see the text added by me is differ from the text that was removed by anonymous user. I don't see here any violation of sanction. --
Interfase (
talk) 07:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
2. This situation was already explained by me
here, where I noted that these reverts were my mistakes. I already initiated a
discussion on a talk one week ago. --
Interfase (
talk) 17:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EtienneDolet
Interfase is a topic-banned user that has been violating his topic ban for quite some time now. Consistent edit-warring and POV pushing appears to be the theme. He has been edit-warring over several users at Kyaram Sloyan to maintain a POV tag ( [212] [213] [214] [215]) even when an AfD discussion was ongoing. There's no sense of compromise when it comes to his beliefs. He is the sole user at that article who deems it necessary to have the POV tag placed. Tiptoethrutheminefield's good faith efforts at the article to make it as neutral as possible (going as far as to place the Azerbaijani perspective in the lead) has been subjugated to continued edit-warring and reluctance by Interfase to accept the consensus against him. Some of Interfase's additions are complete unsourced OR POV material and the user even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. These two particular edits ( [216] [217]) which I came across recently are disruptive and in complete violation of his topic ban. He did not explain this addition on the talk page before making his revert as his topic ban requires. Above all, the claim is completely OR, and is entirely untrue and Interfase even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. The Ter-Tadevosyan quote, for example, is completely cherry-picked and there's absolutely no secondary source that suggests its significance. Interfase went through a YouTube interview of an Armenian general, picked out a quote that suits his POV, concealed contextual information that went against his POV, then added it to the article to prove some sort of WP:POINT (the point being Azeris did better in the war, something he truly believes). His arguments are also unfair. For example, he claims that the bodies of mutilated Armenian soldiers are simply " Armenian side just lies" because there's supposedly no secondary source to back up the claim. But then adds that the Azerbaijani MoD claims to the article which don't have any secondary sources to back their claims either. But when it comes to Azeri claims, it should be considered. When it comes to Armenian claims, they're "just lies" and should be removed. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 22:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, I didn't say that Armenian claims "should be removed". I said that we shouldn't present them as a fact but as a claims, because its dubious information (as I did with Azerbaijani claims). About claims of Kocharyan (that Azerbaijani president proclaimed Safarov as a hero) I explained on a talk why it is untrue. In NYT nothing about it, btw. -- Interfase ( talk) 04:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning Interfase
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
| Procedural close. The editor is now blocked as a result of another enforcement action, rendering this discussion moot. Editor has indicated that he wishes to file a new appeal, at which point his multiple sanctions can be discussed in one place. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
logged at WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#American_politics_2
Statement by HughDRespectfully request consideration of an appeal of the topic ban extension.
Thank you. Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
Statement by SafeHaven86I'm the one who brought forward the complaint that HughD is appealing here. I find his 4th point, "No consideration of context of harassment and content dispute improperly escalated to behavior noticeboard filing..." to be incredibly odd and misleading. There is a context of harassment to be looked at here--HughD's harassing behavior toward me (see here)--but the idea that I am harassing him somehow comes out of nowhere and isn't an accusation I remember him making before. As for the "content dispute being improperly escalated," I also have no idea what he's talking about. We're not currently engaged in any content disputes, nor have we been for some time. I wasn't escalating anything by bringing it here, I just noticed he was repeatedly violating his topic ban and I was tired of him not facing any consequences for doing so. I would have much more sympathy for HughD if he had even once expressed humility or contrition about his behavior, but despite a growing block and sanctions log, I've never once seen him admit the tiniest iota of fault in any of his many troubles here on Wikipedia. His inability to self-regulate his topic ban unfortunately leaves no options besides a block. Safehaven86 ( talk) 22:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dennis BrownI opined in the extension, I think the 6 month extension was actually my idea. The purpose was to not block Hugh and instead deal with the problem at hand, Hugh skirting his topic ban by making edits on political topics. These weren't blatant violations, like editing Ted Cruz's article, but they were in clearly political areas. Both AE requests were spent arguing why the admin were wrong instead of seeking a way to edit without bouncing along the boundaries of the topic ban. If an editor doesn't show a willingness to stay as far away from the area in which they were banned, our first concern is the rest of the encyclopedia. I thought an extension without blocks or other sanctions was pretty light. I stand by my previous statements and opinions, although I don't expect to post more about it, instead relying on uninvolved admin to review and decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ricky81682In my view, this is moot in light of the closing above. The topic ban is now indefinite and expanded significantly and the editor is currently blocked as well. If there's an appeal on that decision (which given history is likely) then a explanation to justify that sanction request can be done. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade(Commenting here as I imposed the most recent sanction). I think the suggestion by Ricky81682 is a good one. I think, with the most recent sanctions I've imposed, this is essentially moot. HughD has indicated that he will appeal the most recent set of sanctions; if so, I think we should close this request and let him speak to why the current sanctions should be modified or lifted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughDResult of the appeal by HughD
|
| Indefinite topic ban imposed. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:19, 17 May 2016 (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 FreeatlastChitchat
Per this also it appears the user is under a 0RR restriction, which would mean that these edits [1] and [2] are a violation of it. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by User:Spartaz [3].
Basically the user's whole talk page is a billboard for warnings and sanction notifications.
1RR didn't work. One week block didn't work. 0RR didn't work. Unless the user dramatically changes their approach to editing it's time for a topic ban at the very least. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC) In response to SheriffsinTown's accusations (which are actually sanctionable as well since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS) what I did is remove a whole bunch of POV text which looked like an attempt to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK. It's funny to be accused of "battleground" when I'm actually probably the one person on that article that is more or less uninvolved (I've edited it before in passing just in the course of my regular editing) and doesn't have a dog in this fight. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Oh and Sheriff, can you point to exactly where "ARBPIA specifically prohibits such behavior"? Where does it do this "specifically"? And what behavior? I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC) I feel compelled to also point out that despite FreeatlastChitchat's comment, no one ever said that "Biharis were just killed in the process". Go to the article talk page. Press Ctrl-F, search for "killed in the process", all you find is FreeatlastChitchat making that false accusation. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, ffs. To those who are claiming that FreeatlastChitchat didn't accuse anyone of being a Holocaust denier - well, I guess you're right. He accused other editors of being the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Which is what I said above in my statement (to quote myself: "compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers"") . If you really think that makes it better than please, WP:WIKILAWYER to your hearts' content. Here is their statement: "We have the same with Holocaust deniers ... So it is quite clear that some deniers are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) I ask only this". Now obfuscate and battleground' onward. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchatStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FreeatlastChitchat@
Seraphimblade I am removing everything from my statement except the bare bones. @
User:The Wordsmith I am deleting my statement from here and using only 100 words or so as u asked. So here goes Statement by SheriffIsInTownI suggest a WP:BOOMERANG as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior which involved large-scale removal of sourced content from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and restoration of unsourced content. I am not sure what Wikipedia policies he is following to do all this. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits such battleground behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sir JosephJust a comment to clarify. I have no issue with the case or parties, but I don't think anyone called anyone a Holocaust denier. The statement was "we have the same with Holocaust deniers." In other words, the issue is similar to those who deny the Holocaust, not that anyone here is a HD. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by TripWireA simple glance at Freeatlast's comment will tell the reader that he did not call anyone "holocaust denier" nor did he display any WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So, that's that. But I am compelled to point out that the way VM is accusing everyone around him of WP:ASPERSION, he should be careful as he commonly violates this policy himself in routine:
And before he accuses me of tag-teaming, I'd like to info that I am already involved at this board. A WP:BOOMERANG shall be in order here, I guess.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC) VM, please stop WP:cherrypicking Freeatlast's words and synthesising a conclusion. What Freeatlast said was: "Removing this (Bihari genocide) amounts to genocide denial, and I personally think that anyone removing this should be sanctioned (he says that those who deny genocide must be sanctioned). We have the same with Holocaust deniers (i.e. as Holocaust deniers are sanctioned, so must be Genocide Deniers, in this case ho deny genocide of Biharis - he is simply equating genocide deniers to Holocaust deniers and demanding equal sanctions for both), why won't these guys accept that Biharis were killed?" He further says: "It is quite clear that no one is removing ANY part of the article (i.e Freeatlast is not denying or removing info related to genocide of Bengalis - hence not denying it). So it is quite clear that some deniers (yeah, some [genocide, not Holocaust] deniers) are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) (who deny Bihari, not Bengali genocide) I ask only this, where exactly does it say that this article is exclusive to the killing of Bengalis? If Biharis were killed they should most definitely be included." I dont think he is labeling VM or for that matter anyone as a Holocaust denier. At most what he suggested was that those who deny Behari genocide (i.e. say it didnt happen during the events of 1971), should also be equated with genocide deniers and as such must be sanctioned as is in the case of Holocaust deniers.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment by My very best wishesSeveral contributors blame VM of "genocide denial". What genocide? They tell about genocide of Biharis population. However, vast majority of sources tell about genocide of Hindu, not Biharis population (e.g. There is an academic consensus that this campaign of violence, particularly against the Hindu population, was a genocide - from good summary review). Even Rummel expresses concern that the violence against Biharis was a "democide" which is not the same as "genocide": "How much of this was democide (intentional killing by government or its agents) is a question". One can find very few sources which call violence against Biharis a "genocide". Hence the current description of this simply as "violence" was correct. That is what vast majorty of sources tell. It seems that several contributors are trying to push their nationalistic views by including fringe or poorly sourced materials/claims, and blame VM and other contributors of "denying" these materials/claims. This happens on a number of pages, such as Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, and Mukti Bahini. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Comment by RhoarkThough I find VM's positions on this article content unconvincing, FreeatlastChitchat's delcaration
Statement by Kautilya3Freeatlast seems to have been around the circuit for a while, but his participation in South Asian conflict pages is only about a couple of months old. The pages include Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen conflict, Kashmir conflict, List of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Kulbhushan Yadav, Balochistan conflict and possibly other pages he is still discovering. On all these pages, his edits to mainspace are minimal, mostly limited to reverts in support of editors that accord with his POV. He probably knows nothing of substance on these topics. Given how limited his contributions are, he certainly throws a surprising amount of weight around on the talk pages.
I am pretty sure that his idea of "consensus" is for a bunch of editors to gang up and CRUSH the others into submission. He feels entirely free to target editors with his cutting, pointed, sanctimonious remarks as if he is a prima donna veteran of Wikipedia. With his accusation of holocaust denial, he has clearly crossed the line and the pity is that he doesn't even realize it. We certainly don't need such prima donnas on conflict pages that are already dealing with difficult subjects that need to account for multiple nationalist POVs. I recommend that Freeatlast be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Freeatlast proposes a self-imposed 1RR (a tactic that he has tried before), and that too for only 3 months. That is of no use. His participation in all South Asia conflicts pages is to lend his weight to other editors that accord with his POV. See this revert for a most recent example. This page got full-protected only a couple of days ago as a result of an edit war that he provoked. He also followed it up with a highly inflammatory nationalistic comment: "The so called "newspaper" is from India and giving information from a non reliable person, hence it is unreliable." (quoted in full). His colleague, TripWire, is still persisting with this argument. This kind of reckless behaviour even while an AE case is going on gives me no confidence that this user will ever behave himself. I am opposed to any self-imposed sanctions of any kind, and I don't see why they should be time-limited. If he demonstrates good behaviour on other pages, he an always come back and ask for his sanctions to be lifted. There is no need for a pre-defined time limit. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by GhatusThis editor (FreeatlastChitchat) is a habitual battleground editor. He was trying to create a false equivalence between the real victims of genocide ( with academic consensus) and those killed in other ways. There is no academic consensus that killing of "a few hundred" Biharis was a "genocide" from any angle as against the killing of "a million" Bengalis by the state with impunity. Anyone who opposed that PoV pushing was insinuated as a "genocide denier", though the case in reality was the opposite. One can not say that Jews also massacred Germans in some places and hence both are equally guilty. Hence, like Kautilya, I also recommend that Freeatlast is to be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. Ghatus ( talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by ArghyaIndianI will like to draw administrator's kind attention towards SHERIFFISINTOWN's battleground behaviour (I also recommend that SheriffIsInTown should be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages). He said I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. clearly shows that he is just here to WP:TAGTEAM and defend a user who shares his POV (as VM said). A quick look here [10], [11], [12] will show that this user have long displayed an incomprehensible pattern of shielding editors (who shares his *POV*) from sanctions and downplaying their disruption. He's doing the same here! His comment adds no value to this discussion whatsoever. Maybe (*as also suggested by admin Spartaz*) administrators should consider banning him from commenting here at AE in the future. Contrary to what SheriffIsInTown said in their last lines, he reported me right here at AE asking a T-ban (when I have less then 6 edits to that page/talk page combined) just because I voted *Reject* in the RFC. He left no chance of threatening me and he intentionally targeted me again and again. Right here, he called User:Volunteer Marek (a completely uninvolved editor) a battleground editor, and on talk page he intentionally targeted User:My very best wishes [13]. Per Volunteer Marek and above users, this editor (FreeatLastChitchat) should be topic banned indefinitely. This user (Freeatlast) has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with over the top nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Based on the ample amount of evidences (I provided in my statement below in second report right here at AE), SHERIFFISINTOWN should also be Topic-banned (as also suggested by administrator SPARTAZ, but he is on wiki leave currently SEE.... Spartaz further warned this user on their talk page [14]). Also, SheriffIsInTown was previously t-ban by HighInBC for a period of one month from one page (It seems from his talk page) because of the same reason *POV Pushing* and *Edit Warring*. SHERIFFISINTOWN'S's long term Edit Warring (recent 3RR violation), large scale POV pushing on all the 1971 related INDIA-BANGLADESH pages, continuous violating WP:ASPERSIONS and his attempt of harassment are equally sanctionable as well. Please look at the edit diffs/evidences I provided below in my statement (right here at AE in the second report). Reviewing admin should take a look here at once (report filed by an uninvolved editor Mhhossein ). Also, Freeatlast is commenting on other's statement which as per the rule he cannot! In addition, his total word count is far more then 500 word. -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Lankiveil: This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This user is so disruptive that we see him on different noticeboards on weekly bases. Just look at his contributions to see how many reverts he does per day just to remove contents (that he doesn't like). Take a look at his block log once. He promised Slakr that he "will attempt to self-adhere to WP:1RR," what he failed to do on numerous occasions. A quick look at D4iNa4 statement ( here) shows that this user has massively violated his 1RR restrictions on many articles and gone unnoticed as usual. Here on one administrator TP, he is canvassing him to come and defend him on ANI, see ( ANI DRAMA(Take 2)). Apart from this AE case, there's currently two active WP:ANI thread where users have reported Freeatlast [15], [16] ) for his disrupting editing, as usual. I am confused how this user is surviving here. There are many users who had faced harassment from this guy and not limited to one or two. He is blatantly hounding User: Mhhossein. This editor pushed the 3RR rule right to the limit on Balochistan, Pakistan and Kulbhushan Yadav page. Anything short of an indef block seems a waste of time. SheriffIsInTown needs to be t-ban. No one mentioned him on ANI, yet this user went on there to shield FreeatLast and tried to downplay his disruption just because he shares his bias POV, When asked by an editor, what he is doing here, his reaction was How about you tell me why I should not get involved and you should?. Nationalist users like him are the reason why bullshit take it's place on Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the evidences I provided in my statement [17] which per me are more then enough to t-ban SheriffIsInTown (also suggested by admin Spartaz). In previous report, right here at AE [18] Administrator Spartaz was considering imposing 0RR restrictions on this user. Another administrator EdJohnston also suggested 0RR restrictions. Spartaz said Imposition will depend on behavior after return from block. but they are on wiki leave currently. Please also take a look at User Kautilya3 comment here on ANI. -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 13:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by NuroDisclaimer: I'm Australian and have no cultural or religious affiliation with the subject matter TP debate or the two sets of nationals involved. It is clear to me, by the written word, that this editors ability to make themselves understood properly in English, is extremely poor. They have continuously used inflammatory language, falsely made claims and invented accusations, against myself and others, in regards to consensus debating on the Yadav talk page along with TripWire. The arrival of SheriffIsInTown in the last few days, after I raised concerns on the AN/I page, and has joined their cause with vigor and quite a large amount of arrogance in their attitude and behaviour; all three of which I consider to be acting in coalition with one another, to aggressively push a Nationalist Pakistani POV agenda on WP, which has become my view after weeks of TP debate on the subject matter, to help build a consensus for the article to move forward. It is bombastic in the amount of effort that the any three of these editors have used to attack any one who disagrees with their POV on how the article should read, which is to say quite poorly at present, and completely biased. All attempts to create a neutral POV consensus in the article have been rejected by either FreeatlastChitchat or TripWire on all occasions, especially once the subject matter turns to the fact that everything that Pakistan has said on the matter is just a claim, exactly the same as everything India says is just a claim. I don't see the Indian contributors making such accusations and they have been more than willing to except these issues in this regard. The source material is appalling, with 2/3 exceptions, and reads as if a badly written spy novel (no pun intended) by very biased journalists with a clear agenda to promote nationalist propaganda about the matter. Both FALCC and TW have continuously tried to block any attempts to sift through the obvious bias in reporting and claim that they are factually correct, when 95% of all information is rejected by India, who have also made their own claims on the matter. This is an article about Espionage between India and Pakistan...and as such the efforts to have a neutral POV are non existent. FALCC, TP and SIIT all use the Modus Operandi of bombarding other editors with WP Policies in a blatantly disingenuous manner, making erroneous claims about WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RECKLESS, WP:BIASED towards everything that is edited on the article not to their liking, and in the case of SIIT - who hasn't contributed to the Yadav TP but has done so on the AN/I, and another administrators TP - to support the others behaviour, after the fact, when it is raised as a concern, and furthermore does so which such vehemence, to then claim with absolute assurance that they are acting in good standing as dissenting voices on WP, as if they are attempting to achieve some revolutionary agenda in this place, as a whole for the Pakistani element he on WP. I leave this ARE to those that are making their decisions on the matter and consider my involvement at an end, unless a non-involved editor wishes to ask me to provide some further explanation of what I consider to be disruptive behaviour. Again I state that the three editors mentioned by me are not to contact me for any reason, and any such actions will be regarded as harassment, as my patience is at it end with them, and I am disengaging from the situation for my own sanity. I leave with the note that I have not even edited the article page, and was only engaged in the consensus debate about the issues raised by another AN/I, that I was asked to help contribute to, and this was the result..
PS: I was asked by ArghyaIndian to make a comment on this ARE instead of on the AN/I, for clarities sake. I also reject any attempt by SheriffsIsInTown of Canvassing and have given him 30 minutes to remove his harassing notice of such from my Talk Page, as he has been expressly told not to contact me, harass me as far as I'm concerned, for any reason, twice now.
Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat
|
| No formal sanction imposed. Editors are cautioned to remain civil, and advised that further reports of meaty socks in this area will be subject to heightened scrutiny from uninvolved admins and will not be taken lightly. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:49, 17 May 2016 (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 ArghyaIndian
Requesting a topic ban for ArghyaIndian in topic area of India/Pakistan broadly construed based on evidence of nationalistic propaganda and assuming bad faith along national lines.
Diff of notification to the editor
Discussion concerning ArghyaIndianStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ArghyaIndianThis user is bullying me continuously from past one-two weeks. He is intentionally targeting me again and again. But lemme tell him, I'm not going to be bullied or threatened. He seems to be leaving no chance of WP BITING. I am not the only one whom this user has tried to WP:HARASS. This user has attacked and targeted many uninvolved users on article's talk page see and on their talk pages see. (*just because they opposed his strong POVish edits* (which are itself sanctionable since these pages are covered by ARBIPA and WP:NPOV is one of the Wikipedia's main pillar). Admins should take a look at the revision history of the page to get a better understanding of this user (along with his WP:TAGTEAM) attempt of hijacking and converting an NPOV article into a complete POV COATRACK, promoting fringe and preposterous theories. (All uninvolved users pointed out this on talk page including Ghatus, KT, Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, and so on).
More recent evidences of EDIT WARRING and POV pushing by this user.
Further comments/evidences of WP:TAGTEAM and his desparate attempts of shielding editors (who shares his bias POV) whenever they get reported to noticeboards and downplaying their disruption in my statement in above AE case. -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The Wordsmith please note that, this user has continuously harassed me for weeks. This should WP:BOOMERANG hard on SheriffIsInTown and he should be sanctioned. Please go through the evidences I provided. This user is edit warring, pushing (his nationalist) POV across these articles (ARBIPA) for months. Even leaving Harassment (I faced from this user) aside, other evidences that I provided should be enough to issue t-ban to this user for long term TAG-TEAMING,WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, hurling accusations (without any evidences whatsoever), BITING newcomers, Edit warring (This user has violated 3RR multiple times and gone unnoticed as usual. Take a look at my evidences once), and blatant POV pushing. ARBIPA sanctions should be issued to this user!!! -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesThis does appear to me as a battleground request because SheriffIsInTown edit war on these pages for months, but reported someone who only started. In addition, after looking at changes by SheriffIsInTown on this page, it appear that he inserts wording like "a number now universally regarded as excessively inflated" and "however some scholars consider this number to be seriously inflated" in introduction, instead of simply providing a range of numbers - as the more NPOV version preferred by ArghyaIndian. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by RhoarkSaying there are POV pushers in this area is calling a spade a spade, and no one involved appears to have any inhibition about editing while the RfC is open. This area needs more admin scrutiny than is seen through the keyhole of AE filings. Rhoark ( talk) 04:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning ArghyaIndian
|
| Gala19000 is indefinitely banned under WP:ARBAA2 from all wars and conflicts involving Turkey, and from anything to do with Armenia. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Gala19000
This user has a tremendous history of violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:PERSONAL, and WP:EDITWAR ever since joining wikipedia and has only gotten warnings, seems to think this is a game. An indefinite topic ban is strongly needed. Oatitonimly ( talk) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC) The linked users have all been involved with Gala19000's tedious editing and given him various warnings, both shown above. I invite them all to come here and give their thoughts if they wish to. -- Oatitonimly ( talk) 01:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Gala19000Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gala19000Statement by FerakpI had a lot of problems with Galaa19000, I mean a lot of problems. I had to explain word by word all violations, but the user still continued to attack me and after I didn't give up and explained more clearly all violations, user disappeared. The user has played with many articles and involved at least in cherry picking, violated WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL. This user is cooperating with some other users who has just recently reported me after I warned them to not involve in edit wars and use the talk page. Ferakp ( talk) 10:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Darwinian ApeThe OP here is engaging in a canvassing attempt to rally editors whom they assume would support their Enforcement request by piling on the reported editor. I noted this earlier in here(see my original comment below) but the editor asked me in my talk page to remove my comment. I said I only would do that, if they acknowledge(in their AE request) that the canvassing behavior was wrong and pledge they won't do it again so that they inform pinged editors that there is foul play in notifications and they can act accordingly, that task is up to me now. Unfortunately Oatitonimly did not comply and I am re-posting it as I said I would. I will also be updating my AN/I request because the editor doesn't seem to understand why what they did was wrong, instead blaming me of gaming the system and any other violations they can think of.(though they deny it when they are called out.) You can check my talk page for the interaction between us. As for the complaint, I assume the reason why any admin or editor haven't commented on it until the canvassing attempt by Oatitonimly is that there are too many diffs(many of them 6+ months stale), but at best it's just an example of a Pot calling the kettle black. Darwinian Ape talk 01:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC) My original statement:
Statement by Mr.User200User Gala19000 have a Turkish history related activity, mostly a heavily Pro Turkish bias. Also his/her use of offensive words could be considered as evidence to block him for a period of time. I have seen many cases like this in Modern Middle East articles, and I recommend to keep an eye on another user:
User talk:Zimimi. Statement by TiptoethrutheminefieldGala19000's edits at Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) are entirely unproductive. On that article, if there have been valid content changes or additions by Gala19000, they has been lost amid the general ineptness of this editor's editing. I don't think it is deliberate vandalism, it looks like plain stupidity at work. Observe this edit by Gala19000: [118] - it has resulted in most of the article's content being reproduced twice! That edit was reverted by Oatitonimly. What does Gala19000 do next - makes an edit that now reproduces the article's content three times [119]! An IP editor sees this and fixes it [120]. Gala19000 puts the duplication right back in again [121], and does it again [122], and AGAIN [123]. This is blind reverting of the worst sort. Caught up in the heat of edit warring, Gala19000 has not bothered to look at what his editing has been doing to the article, and has ignored the edit summaries of others that have repeatedly mentioning this duplicating or triplicating of the content. Gala19000 simply reverts those corrective edits made to remove the duplication or triplication, and claims he is reverting vandalism. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Gala19000
|
| Abbatai is hereby topic banned from all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, for 30 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Abbatai
The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ( [126]).
Discussion concerning AbbataiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AbbataiThe first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead. And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [128] and [129] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I am amused to see how one revert of me maliciously brought here and there started an anti-Abbatai campaign by pro-Armenian users. @ Étienne Dolet if you think my edits were wrong you are welcomed to discuss it on talk page. However you seem you even did not read what I wrote there. What you are doing here is not constructive at all with being very willing to have me blocked. I find what you are doing here quite threatening since simply you accuse me with socking without any IP investigation and calling admins to ban me just because you do not like my edits. Can you please explain what was wrong changing this [130]. The section is "Caucasus" but Central Asian Turkic legions stated there. So it was completely wrong. I added Azerbaijani and Georgian legions along with Armenian legion which were the collaborators from Caucasus. And here [131] instead of picture from Turkistan I added Armenian soldiers which were native to Caucasus. Next time please read carefully what you are reporting. I hope you have basic geography knowledge that Turkistan is not in Caucasus. Thanks Abbatai 22:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Finally @ Étienne Dolet seems s/he has an obsession with me. Trying to dilute the topic and extend this thread by several baseless accusations [132] [133] and reverts [134] [135]. I demand closure of the case because as I explained above I feel threatened by him or her bringing unrelated things here and accuse me every means possible. Abbatai 00:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Clearly as @ Étienne Dolet could not support his latest groundless accusation S/he came with something that happened earlier. Just wondering how long this will last. Abbatai 01:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by OptimusViewAbbatai still continues editwarring as an IP [136]. OptimusView ( talk) 07:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by EtienneDoletI'm also concerned about the socking. In addition to the IP OptimusView has aforementioned, I ran into a similar case at the Defense of Van (1915). Abbatai apparently lives in Istanbul. An IP out of Istanbul, similar to the one OptimusView has shown, reverted on Abbatai's behalf (IP and Abattai's ). This also appears to be the case at Drastamat Kanayan ( [137] and [138]) and also at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims ( [139] and [140]). Étienne Dolet ( talk) 20:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning Abbatai
|
| The three-way mutual interaction bans between MarkBernstein, Thargor Orlando and DHeyward are hereby lifted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This topic ban originated from an ARCA, and three AE requests regarding GamerGate. It was poorly thought out (i.e. ThargorOrlando and I never had a dispute, rather we noted personal attacks by MarkBernstein. MarkBernstein viewed our ARCA and AE requests as personal attacks. Gamaliel imposed a 3-way topic ban with the apparent attempt to limit requests for sanction. Despite the wording, ThargorOrlandao and I never had a disagreement. Rather MarkBernstein was repeatedly brought to AE and Gamaliel sought to stop it. It's clear this topic ban did not stem the flood and MarkBernstein has since been topic banned. I have no interest in replying to direct and personal inquiries by MarkBernstein. Since then, despite numerous AE requests to sanction MarkBernstein by others, Gamaliel has insisted that his topic ban didn't apply. Yet he jumped in and rev-del'd a comment I made and supported a block when MarkBernstein complained. The Admins at AN disagreed strongly, undid the oversight and the block and chastised Gamaliel for bein too close to the topic. The latest interpretation by email is even more confusing as it now allows comment at drama boards which I believed to be off-limits. This is a long history so I will provide diffs on request. My desire is to lift the ill-concieved topic ban. He can make as many comments as he likes about me. Diffs on request. - DHeyward ( talk) 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Liz: The restriction on filing AE or any other kind of request was lifted in November 2015. I've not filed anything regarding MarkBernstein. I've not commented either on the many times MarkBernstein has been brought here by other parties except above when he received email reinterpretation. Considering I've been able to file requests for 6 months and haven't even commented shows both an iban or tban is unnecessary. In addition it did not slow down the AE requests filed against MarkBernstein so whatever its intent, it did not happen. MarkBernstein is now topic banned from GamerGate so I see no overlap at all. I believe I have only filed 1 AE request ( it's a good read) regarding MarkBernstein and that was met with Gamaliel's topic ban well over a year ago when MarkBernstein filed a retaliatory request (one against Thargor Orlando and one against me). You can read the diffs above and the sanctions log to see that it was modified in November. Also, do you still consider yourself involved in GamerGate related matters per your RfA? If so, can you kindly move your statement to the statement section? --20:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Dennis Brown: to clarify, it was a Topic Ban so that we could all contribute and discuss article edits. Both MarkBernstein and I can edit any article, discuss any content with each other, comment on any proposal, etc. I am Topic Banned from the topic of MarkBernstein, though, but with the exceptions (noted in the log and email in MarkBernstein section above) there doesn't seem to much of even a Topic Ban anymore and it is difficult to parse where the line is. It would be incorrect to change to an Iban as there never has been an interaction restriction, nor does there need to be. -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC) @ Liz: See above, it is a Topic Ban. MarkBernstein and I can interact on any article or talk page we like. Second, the section you commented in is for "uninvolved admins". Feel free to move your comments to the regular statement area. If you cannot take administrative action because of involvement, your statement/opinion is in the wrong area as you are not "uninvolved". -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Only in DeathEither convert the IB to a standard 2-way interaction ban between DHeyward and MarkBernstein (As DHeyward says, he and Thargor have not had conflict that justified it) or lift it altogether. As it stands its clearly been crafted and amended by Gamaliel to favour MarkBernstein as much as possible. The 'commenting at drama boards' stuff MB thinks is valid is completely voiding the point of an IB. Which is to prevent editors interacting at all. As it stands there is also a good case for lifting it entirely - as MB has been topic banned from GamerGate, and that was the only locus of dispute - it is unlikely to rear its head again. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ryk72Whatever the intentions behind these topic bans, it is clear that they have long outlived any usefulness they might once have had. I should not wish to dwell on the unfortunate genesis of these topic bans in two
WP:POINTy noticeboard filings, but do consider that if we have now reached the point where that same editor "complies" with the topic ban by talking not about another editor but about their dog,
[148]
[149] and is encouraged in such "compliance" by the sanctioning admin,
[150] it might be time to remove these sanctions.
Statement by Starke HathawayIn my opinion this sanction ought to either be lifted or converted into a mutual interaction ban, which is easier to understand and enforce. Note to The Wordsmith: Thargor Orlando's last edit was in December 2015, so I think waiting for him to respond here may not work out. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 14:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernsteinIs there an urgent reason to deal with this now now now? (What reason might that be?)
So, I have no need just now to talk about DHeyward or Orlando on-wiki. I’m not doing anything on-wiki that DHeyward or Orlando would want to discuss, or could properly discuss even if they thought discussing it would be really swell. We have a complex and volatile situation with potentially serious consequences, involving any number of people and processes. My recommendation would call for a cautious approach. MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Liz:: No, they won’t be bringing more traffic about MarkBernstein to AE because they don't don't need to. As Ryk72 attentively points out, I may not bring to your attention incontrovertible facts that are directly pertinent to your question, and to the issues discussed above. MarkBernstein ( talk) 20:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Topic Ban Appeal
|
| Closing without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:51, 20 May 2016 (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 Miles Creagh
Editor is involved in a dispute about the official status of the Flag of Northern Ireland and if it is used to represent Northern Ireland or if the Union Flag is used, the article has seen a slow edit war which while not breaching the 1RR restriction it certainly stretching it waiting just long enough so as to avoid sanctions. As can be seen in the diffs the editor removed that flag was not official and then removed that the Union Flag is the only flag used officially in Northern Ireland. I asked the editor to self revert to avoid this process but they refused here and said they will wait till after this request is completed in some way to negate this request. The whole crux of the dispute as I said is that Ulster Banner has no official status and that the Union Flag is the only official flag and mentions of both of these things where removed by Miles, a compromise was agreed which was the addition of a sentence proposed by User:Eckerslike the edit was made and then Miles removed more thus ending the proposed compromise. I wont be surprised if one of the dormant accounts come along and revert I already asked for admin assistance on the page looks like a sock farm because if it looks like a duck...
Discussion concerning Miles CreaghStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Miles CreaghIt's too bad that Mo ainm didn't just provide me the diffs when I asked him repeatedly to do so on my talk page [153]. Now I know what he's talking about! I would argue that the second diff he provides is not in fact a revert, as it removes no content whatsoever from the article. Eckerslike had just inserted this [154] new sentence that we had all three of us (Mo ainm, Eckerslike and myself) discussed and agreed on here [155], as part of a good-faith effort to move a long-running dispute on a difficult topic towards a balanced conclusion. The new sentence Eckerslike inserted as agreed at the start of the second paragraph of the lead was "There has been no flag in use by the government for the purpose of representing Northern Ireland since 1973". The existing first sentence of the second paragraph, which became the second sentence after Eckerslike's insertion read "During official events, the British government uses the Union flag which is the official flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is the only flag used by the government in Northern Ireland." (My emphases). What Mo ainm is now claiming is a revert that removes content, is not a revert as it doesn't remove any content. In fact, it is me removing a repetitive redundancy from the paragraph, as the very content and concept it conveys had just been given greater prominence, per the discussion on talk, by the addition of a new first sentence to the paragraph conveying the exact same information. I would argue that the relevant diffs in this case, that demonstrate no content was removed, but was switched around pursuant to a discussion are these [156]. That said, Mo ainm clearly feels there has been a revert here, and now he has indicated what he meant, so I will now self-revert in the interests of reducing tensions and furthering the on-going attempt to resolve this dispute. Done [157] Miles Creagh ( talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Miles Creagh
|
| Withdrawn by filing party. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:26, 20 May 2016 (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 TripWire
Just came off a topic ban this year.
I don't see how one can deal with such user after they create such a toxic environment. it's time for a ARBIPA topic ban at the very least. @The WordSmith, If you think I should withdraw this request then I will. However, I have only provided edit diffs from 8 May and as latest as of 2-3 days ago. -- ArghyaIndian ( talk) 17:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TripWireStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TripWire
Statement by SheriffIsInTownThe request should be declined as stale. I went through almost all the diffs, i did not find a single diff younger than a week. Also, please take a note that this request might have been inspired by a couple of recent topic bans e.g. User:Towns Hill and User:FreeatlastChitchat. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by TopGunI'm here as I watch TW's talkpage. The report is blatantly frivolous and full of stale diffs. From what I understand, it is an attempt to resolve disputes by removing users from the topic area which is not how wikipedia works. You have to go through the DR process. I also noticed that Arghya was warned just above in another AE report. The fact that he filed this report inspite of that definitely calls for a block of appropriate length that would deter any future hounding of such sort. The offer of withdrawal of this report by the filer seems be looking for a way to avoid WP:BOOMERANG only after he saw it coming where as he was wasting every one's time with lengthy replies in the above AE report(s) and even here till now when he had the WP:ROPE. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable on wikipedia. TripWire, I would really like to note that you dont need to respond with such long statements... admins are generally experienced enough users to get your point if you simply list your arguments (as you finally did in your update statement). I also hope you will avoid discussing the users in future and focus on content instead, unlike those diffs from April (although stale) as I noticed RegentsPark recently applied restrictions to the Kashmir conflict topics for all users, esp. wrt discussion on users. I am also noting this here as a record so that admins can keep a check on editors who bring ethnic claims about other editors in future edits instead of discussing content which is categorically mentioned in the restriction. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC) PS. ArghyaIndian blanked the report which I have reverted. If you want to withdraw, please leave a comment... but let the admins deal with whether they have to hat the report or take some action. Blanking does not guarantee that WP:BOOMERANG wont be opted by an admin anyway. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning TripWire
|
| Editors are reminded that WP:CIVIL is not just a suggestion. The Wordsmith Talk to me 01:01, 22 May 2016 (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 Tiptoethrutheminefield
Probably could find more evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in the AA2 area but the above should be sufficient.
I'm not quite sure what EtienneDolet is talking about. Apparently they object to me making edits to this article at all and think this is some kind of conspiracy against *them* despite the fact that this report has nothing to do with them. I made edits to the article because it was in the news, then I remembered about it when Jamala won the Eurovision contest and I followed some links. This appears to be a desperate attempt at deflecting the issue from Tiptoethrutheminefield's problematic behavior. I'll leave EtienneDolet's - who just jumped in to edit war on that article [190] - motives out of it, though it's not hard to guess them. I resent any charges, which are completely baseless and amount to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, that I have "unclean hands" (whatever that is suppose to mean) or that I'm pushing "pro-Azeri POV" which is ridiculous and it only reveals EtienneDolet's own biased WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC) This isn't the place to discuss content (I have discussed it on talk page - EtienneDolet and Tiptoethroughtheminefield, aside from their personal attack above, have not) but just to make it clear the two paragraphs I removed (I guess that's "mass deletions") are obviously highly POV, and sourced to non-reliable sources like breitbart news, a bunch of primary sources from the involved governments and a few others non-reliable sources. Then a couple actually reliable sources are included to source trivial or irrelevant facts to make it look legit. It's a classic POV pushing tactic. And yes, like many topic areas which have been placed under discretionary sanctions due to nationalistic WP:BATTLEGROUND this one too has its share of dedicated tag teams. @ User:The_Wordsmith - in the past I've let stuff like this slide. Then it just build up and eventually ended up being a huge mess. And at that point administrators and arbcoms were like "why didn't you bring it to WP:AE earlier?". Well, here I am bringing it to WP:AE earlier. Additionally keep in mind that User:Tiptoethroughtheminefiled has been sanctioned, with good cause, in this topic area. ADD: another diff to support that Tiptoethroughthebattlefield is just not getting it. A reasonable user, interested in compromise and working towards a neutral article would have at this point struck the offending personal attack and said "ok sorry, I went to far, let's discuss the issue". Unfortunately this is NOT what Tiptoethroughthebattlefield has done, instead they've just flung around more weird accusations. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Finally, after a comment like that *how exactly* are we suppose to have a constructive discussion about the issue at hand? Putting aside for the moment the fact that the comment clearly indicates Tiptoethroughtheminefield is not interested in such, it also shuts down discussion with others. And of course the fact that s/he is not only defending but doubling down on the personal attacks in their comment here only makes it more problematic. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC) @Tiptoethroughtheminefield - yes, the article, and that section in particular is garbage (there's a ton of material on Wikipedia which is most accurately described as garbage, this is just one instance of it). It uses sources like breitbart news and a bunch of press releases from obviously biased governments, which then it presents as fact. Describing it as such reference content. You may disagree but in that case you should respond on talk page with constructive arguments (and preferably do the real work of finding reliable sources) on the talk page. What you SHOULD NOT do is make comments like "Volunteer Marek needs to pack up his own crap and stick to edit warring in subject areas he knows he has a carte blanche permit to edit war in. " which is a clear cut personal attack specifically because it involves discussing editors. See the difference? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TiptoethrutheminefieldStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TiptoethrutheminefieldVolunteer Marek drives by an article he has never edited before, in a field he has never (or very rarely) edited before, and starts deleting VERY large quantities of referenced content [192] without prior discussion, content he MUST have known would constitute a contentious deletion. When reverted, he refers to a talk page post he's made in a dead and settled discussion thread (his post is made one month after the last post there [193]), that is half way up the talk page and is about an entirely different subject, to allege that a lack of "consensus" permits all of this deletion, and he deletes it all again [194]. This is a misuse of the talk page (pointing out that misuse and suggesting it should stop is a "personal attack" according to VM). When others point out that the deleted content had numerous sources VM then goes on an I-don't-like-it tirade against all the sources. Without presenting any argument or evidence, he asserts this source is not "reliable", that source is not "reliable", that one too is not "reliable" - all this is referring to well known and well used sources like The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Eurasianet, etc. And he asserts that media sources based in Armenia or Azerbaijan are "primary sources", when they clearly are not. When this is questioned his assertions get even wilder, now the sources are all "junk", are all "crap" [195]. However, the only "crap" I saw on display was in the arguments coming from Volunteer Marek, and I think for me to have reused his use of the word "crap", and asked him to leave with it, is a fair comment to have made under the circumstances. If he wants to return with proper arguments, and present those arguments in a reasonable way, without edit warring, then he is welcome and I will engage with him. No other editor who has worked on the article has advocated such a massive deletion of content, prior discussion about it been mostly about what appropriate wording to use. I suspect the only reason Volunteer Marek came to 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes is that he was following Étienne Dolet around to cause harassment, after having had several disagreements with that editor on Syrian and Ukrainian and Putin-related articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EtienneDoletThe filer of this report appears to have unclean hands. Volunteer Marek, who has never edited an AA2 article, only did so to revert an of mine after the whole feud at Putin subsided in what seems to be classic WP:HOUND-like behavior. He has been pushing some strange pro-Azeri POV at that article ever since. A month later, Marek gets reverted by me at this article, and responds 10 minutes later by making a massive deletion of material concerning human rights violations against Armenians here. In other words, Marek's two instances of editing at this article was either to revert me or bait me to revert him. Since then, for the past three days, Marek has made 2 reverts ( [199] [200]) to maintain his deletion of an entire section consisting of 11,000+ characters and 30+ sources/reports while edit-warring over several users in this 1RR article. That's one revert every 24 hours. One can only assume that there's some WP:GAMING going on. As for Tiptoe's comment, I don't know if that is necessarily an AA2 issue in and of itself. Perhaps WP:ANI would be a better venue to handle a single remark like that. As for his editing pattern, I'd say that his edits are rather productive and neutral. He'll go so far as to confront Armenian POV here, Azerbaijani POV here, and Turkish POV there. That's quite a rarity in the AA2 these days. Hence the main reason why I think he's a good asset to the topic area. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 10:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by OptimusViewWhile the article is under 1RR rule, Volunteer Marek already made 3 reverts [201] [202] [203] during the last 4 days, deleting a whole section with very dubious and disaffected comments. Several users asked him to stop editwarring, but no result. OptimusView ( talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Comment by My very best wishesIt is wrong that lower civility standards should apply to discussions in nationalism-related areas. To the contrary, higher standards must apply. It is precisely the personal attacks of the kind provided above (and these comments are undoubtely directed at a contributor) that makes editing in such subject areas unbearable. If someone can not edit politely in difficult subject areas, s/he should not edit in such areas. Very simple. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment by KingsindianIt is almost impossible to avoid this mild level of hostility and language in nationalist areas. I suggest closing with no action. On the content matter, I agree with Volunteer Marek's position - a lot of the content is junk and should be deleted. However, the local consensus is for inclusion. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to get consensus to delete junk in such areas. That's just the way it is. I suggest an RfC to get more people looking at the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Comment by usernameResult concerning Tiptoethrutheminefield
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Interfase
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- OptimusView ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
-
Interfase (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [205] Interfase reverted (readded) a phrase that previously was deleted by a user [206] [207]
- [208] without any initial explanations at talk Interfase returns an original and possibly disruptive phrase that few hours ago was added by him [209]
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [210] "For any reverts you make in mainspace that are not of clear and obvious vandalism (within the definition above), you must go to the article's talk page and give your reasons for your revert before making any further edits anywhere on Wikipedia".
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 00:29, 9 March 2014 by HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
While Interfase is under AA2 restrictions, he reverted without any explanations at talk before his revert.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Interfase
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Interfase
1. Actually I didn't make a "revert". The information was
removed because of "mistranslated from Russian". I
put the text with correct translation that was explained by me in comments. As you can see the text added by me is differ from the text that was removed by anonymous user. I don't see here any violation of sanction. --
Interfase (
talk) 07:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
2. This situation was already explained by me
here, where I noted that these reverts were my mistakes. I already initiated a
discussion on a talk one week ago. --
Interfase (
talk) 17:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EtienneDolet
Interfase is a topic-banned user that has been violating his topic ban for quite some time now. Consistent edit-warring and POV pushing appears to be the theme. He has been edit-warring over several users at Kyaram Sloyan to maintain a POV tag ( [212] [213] [214] [215]) even when an AfD discussion was ongoing. There's no sense of compromise when it comes to his beliefs. He is the sole user at that article who deems it necessary to have the POV tag placed. Tiptoethrutheminefield's good faith efforts at the article to make it as neutral as possible (going as far as to place the Azerbaijani perspective in the lead) has been subjugated to continued edit-warring and reluctance by Interfase to accept the consensus against him. Some of Interfase's additions are complete unsourced OR POV material and the user even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. These two particular edits ( [216] [217]) which I came across recently are disruptive and in complete violation of his topic ban. He did not explain this addition on the talk page before making his revert as his topic ban requires. Above all, the claim is completely OR, and is entirely untrue and Interfase even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. The Ter-Tadevosyan quote, for example, is completely cherry-picked and there's absolutely no secondary source that suggests its significance. Interfase went through a YouTube interview of an Armenian general, picked out a quote that suits his POV, concealed contextual information that went against his POV, then added it to the article to prove some sort of WP:POINT (the point being Azeris did better in the war, something he truly believes). His arguments are also unfair. For example, he claims that the bodies of mutilated Armenian soldiers are simply " Armenian side just lies" because there's supposedly no secondary source to back up the claim. But then adds that the Azerbaijani MoD claims to the article which don't have any secondary sources to back their claims either. But when it comes to Azeri claims, it should be considered. When it comes to Armenian claims, they're "just lies" and should be removed. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 22:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, I didn't say that Armenian claims "should be removed". I said that we shouldn't present them as a fact but as a claims, because its dubious information (as I did with Azerbaijani claims). About claims of Kocharyan (that Azerbaijani president proclaimed Safarov as a hero) I explained on a talk why it is untrue. In NYT nothing about it, btw. -- Interfase ( talk) 04:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning Interfase
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.