| Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz are topic-banned from the history of Poland in World War II (1933-45) for three months for treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sandstein 20:29, 7 July 2018 (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 Volunteer Marek
VM has also been showing up quite frequently at articles I've edited, including articles he's never edited, and his main contribution has been reverting - see editor interaction tool with 1 March 2018 start date. There are also issues with misrepresenting Polish language sources (general stmts on Jews in an area => specific Jews, specific Jews => general stmts on Jews), which I did not present, but diffs are available (requires reading the Polish). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer MarekLol. Obvious "revenge report". Did I mention Icewhiz has a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem? Since April of this year - in the last three months, there has been a total of ELEVEN WP:AE reports in this topic area. For comparison, between April 2015 and April 2018 there have been FIVE total reports in this topic area. This means that regarding Eastern Europe, there have been twice as many reports in last 3 months as there have been in the preceding 3 years! Something's obviously not working. Guess what the common factor is? That's right, all eleven of those reports had involvement from Icewhiz (6 as filer, 5 as subject, 1 as commentator casting WP:ASPERSIONS). Why is April 2018 the month in which the number of WP:AE reports in EE just exploded? Well, March 2018 is when Icewhiz began editing this topic area aggressively, quickly coming into conflict with every established editor in the topic area, from User:Malik Shabazz, to User:Piotrus, to User:E-960, to myself, to users which avoid WP:AE (such as Chumchum7 and Nihil novi). Why has he pursued this strategy? Because his behavior has been tolerated and rewarded. And this is of course ignoring all the WP:AE reports that Icewhiz has been involved in other topic areas, such as Palestinian-Israeli topics. He uses WP:AE as a weapon. And admins here tolerate it. Anyway. #1 not a PA. I sincerely couldn't understand what the user was saying. #2, #3 not an aspersion but explanation of policy to a user who showed up to support Icewhiz in an edit war and make WP:IJUSTLIKEIT votes in support of Icewhiz, without prior engagement on talk. #3 uhh, what? Wait, wait, wait... #4 isn't even from this topic area. Icewhiz is just diff-stuffing. 6,7,8 - yes, comparing the main Polish anti-Nazi organization to the Nazi party is extremely biased not to mention offensive. Only reason I can think of why Icewhiz would make such a claim is that he was attempting to provoke other editors ... so that he could use the diffs at WP:AE. Hey! That's exactly what he's trying to do! Whoa! This is covered in MyMoloboaccount's report above. 9 Actually Icewhiz has already brought this one up at User:NeilN's talk page [3]. NeilN already explained to him [4] why this wasn't a problematic statement. So this is Icewhiz WP:FORUMSHOPPING for a sanction. 10 Same as #9, already discussed at NeilN's page. And yes, the source did have serious nonsense in it (it claimed that a local partisan commander and a major in Abwehr had the authority to negotiate over Poland's post war borders!) 11 Same as #9, already discussed at NeilN's page. 12 ... just ridiculous. Criticism and evaluation of a source is not an "attack". 13 Same as #12. The individual in question is actually a photographer. 14 Content dispute, discussed extensively on talk. After failing to obtain consensus for this material in early June, Icewhiz snuck back to the article about a month later and tried to reinsert his WP:OWN version again, without discussing on talk. I have no idea how there is suppose to be a BLP issue here. Icewhiz regularly makes false allegations along these lines. See for example this discussion where Icewhiz made particularly fantastical false claims of BLP vios. I didn't include that in my report above so as to keep it concise. But if you want to see WP:GAMEing in action, there you go. 15 This was shortly after Icewhiz was caught falsifying sources and using far-right anti-semitic sources on the Chodakiewicz BLP as described in my report above (though that happened earlier, it wasn't discovered till then). 16 Argument on User:Ealdgyth's talk page. What exactly is suppose to be actionable? There was no "HOAX". Icewhiz was just using hyperbolic language to attack and misrepresent other editors. 17 Again, not everything that Icewhiz disagrees with is a "HOAX". The fact that he chooses such language is a problem itself. This one actually demonstrates just how WP:BATTLEGROUND Icewhiz's approach is. See discussion on talk [5]. Initially Icewhiz argued that Dov Levin was being misrepresented. I disagreed, because, well, he wasn't (certainly not a "HOAX"). Then Icewhiz said that Levin's statement does not specifically mention this locality. I say "hmm, that's a good point" and remove it myself. So, I agree with Icewhiz and do what he wants, yet... he still comes running here with that diff!!! That's some low shit. You can see him actually getting frustrated with me agreeing with him (because that makes it harder for him to try and use this diff to get me sanctioned! How dare I?!?) in this comment where he tries to keep arguing or pretends that I haven't just agreed with him, even after I have. This report just shows how dysfunctional WP:AE has become in the past few months. You incentivize bad behavior, you get bad behavior. (note: Icewhiz went back and changed his ordering and numbering of his diffs, so I don't know if my responses match up properly. I'm not going to waste my time chasing his numbering around) Other WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Icewhiz User:Vanamonde93 mentioned lack of conciseness above, but honestly, if I were to bring every instance of Icewhiz's disruptive behavior to AE it would go on for pages. So, the following episode would be sufficient basis for a separate report on Icewhiz, but since here we are... It illustrates perfectly why it's impossible to have a normal content discussion with Icewhiz, how combative he is, how petty and antagonistic, and how he engages in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior which drives everyone who is forced to deal with him nuts.
This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to a tee. It creates an impossible situation. It's badgering. It's antagonistic. It's WP:BATTLEGROUND. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by PiotrusI am curious if this time Sandstein will find time to review more then 3 diffs. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere
Earlier examples:
Admin notifications: This attitude isn't helpful or fun. François Robere ( talk) 11:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @ Beyond My Ken: This isn't only a matter of group membership, it's also a matter of group dynamics. Some of the other editors are perfectly amiable to discussion and compromise, but when you have people like Bella [35] or Marek around they tend to either disrupt the discussion or affect the rest of the group in ways that are counter-productive. We've already seen some progress since Bella was removed; I believe that if this AE request is accepted things will shift. François Robere ( talk) 18:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @
GoldenRing: Statement by Beyond My KenThis entire situation has moved past ridiculousness into farce. This is very close to a zero-sum situation: either Volunteer Marek and MyMolobyAccount and friends are right, or Icewhiz and Francis Robere and friends are right. These can't both be the case at the same time. One of these two parties is distorting historical fact and using unreliable sources to do so, or misusing reliable sources, and somebody with authority needs to sort through all these claims and diffs and find out who is telling the truth and who is dissembling. It is no longer enough to punt, these need to be settled, or it's going to go on ad infinitum. It is not a matter of a mere content dispute, the very legitimacy of Wikipedia is at stake. We cannot allow our articles to be based on the misrepresentation of reliable sources or the use of unreliable sources, so which ever group is doing so needs to be stopped and shut down. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by EaldgythBMK - feel free to take my source check here and figure out who added what to that article. It took me quite a while to do that and I was trying to model good editing behavior by not digging further to find blame. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBGEcho BMK word by word. ∯WBG converse 14:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Comment by SN54129Those diffs of Icewhizz' require rather an elastic interpretation of the policy ("personal attacks"—upon sources?). If this filing is deemed retaliatory, then, of course, there is only one immediate course of action to be taken here. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by יניב הורוןUser:My very best wishes: Regarding your comment, I think you made a mistake. Refering to a "green" statement Icewhiz made - which he did not actually make - he was quoting a Holocaust historian's assessment of the former literature. Icewhiz actually did not offer his own opinion (which is probably inline with Zimmerman's opinion - and differs from the quote of prior research) - he quoted a fairly respected scholar.... That's not POV pushing!-- יניב הורון (Yaniv) ( talk) 17:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Rusf10I really don't have enough knowledge of the topic to know who's right or wrong in the content dispute. Yes, it should be a long-term goal to figure that out, but its not going to be decided here. What is clear is Volunteer Marek's behavior is extremely disruptive. His constant personal attacks should result in sanctions. He also made unsupported claims of collusion among other editors. His claims that another editor is making too many AE reports is laughable. Overall, Volunteer Marek makes more AE requests that any other single editor. When doing research on AE requests related to Donald Trump, we found that he was involved with 15 cases over the past two years and of those he filed 8, more than any other editor.
[36] Over the same two-year period Volunteer Marek filed 18 AE requests overall. In contrast Icewhiz filed only 11. Many of volunteer marek's requests are frivolous, with at least Statement by TryptofishI had not planned to comment here, but the assertion that filing 18 AE requests is a problem, whereas filing "only 11" is not, seems to me to be rather creative quantitative reasoning. The link to the sandbox study is a link to something that reflects the problems with the AP2 topic area, and the data there should not be taken at face value. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesFirst of all, I agree with GoldenRing and NeilN suggestions, i.e. to request that in the subject area "Only high quality sources may be used... Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source...". This is main issue here, not the alleged incivility or whatever. But I do not think that only English-language sources can be requested. Doing so would be against the policy and beyond the mandate of this noticeboard. Yes, WP:MEDRS might be a good approximation, but it needs to be modified for the area of history. Now, speaking about misrepresenting a source, there is an example of this by Icewhiz: (diff #10 in the previous request). Using this source to justify and promote the idea that the partisans of Home Army were just as dangerous to Jews as were the Nazis is an obvious misrepresentation of this source. In this example, Icewhiz selectively quotes whatever he likes, instead of reading and objectively summarizing the entire publication, just as he fights with historians and sources he does not like. Please see the comment by Nishidani in the previous request for more detail [37]. Was VM engaged in such misrepresentations? No, I do not see it at all. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement K.e.coffmanThe recent AE filings have brought to the surface problematic sourcing and material in articles touching on Polish-Jewish relations during WW2. Some examples:
If I were to pinpoint where the issues exists in Wikipedia articles, it would be the use of shoddy sources and inappropriate synthesis, resulting in distorted content such as the above. I agree that some articles (i.e. Home Army) are a can of worms due to evolving historiography and conflicting academic positions, as GoldenRing points out. However, the murder of Jews during the early months of Barbarossa is not such an area. The scholarship is clear and unambiguous.
K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement IrondomeWe are in a very difficult position due to current profound disagreements between governments and academic schools of thought on this topic. [ [40]]. This, for instance is the latest Yad Vashem statement. The project can only record what is stable and consensual in the academic real world. I would support K.e.coffmans assertion that "Shoddy sources and inappropriate synthesis" being a major factor in our present trouble. I would support K.e's second proposal in the longer term, and in the meantime adopt his first proposal. Irondome ( talk) 00:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzI support what Volunteer Marek wrote. It's time for admins, Sandstein in particular, to stop sheltering Icewhiz and encouraging his behavior. On 30 May, I warned Icewhiz about his disruptive behavior. He e-mailed Sandstein, complaining that I had violated a topic ban two weeks before the topic ban had been imposed. Even more outrageously, Sandstein accepted his accusations at face value. Either Sandstein is a moron or an idiot, but he has no business being an administrator, certainly not passing judgment on those with whom Icewhiz battles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Paul SiebertThese two AE requests actually reflect a broader collision, and this collision is a clash between local nationalistic narratives in the areas that are not in the scope of a broader scientific community. In a situation when high quality sources describing these events are scarce, local writers, journalists or fringe theorists privatised this area and advocate a very specific point of view that support one or another nationalistic myth. Accordingly, some users non-critically choose the sources advocating one or another myth, and in that situation "a plague on both your houses" seems a very reasonable approach. In this battle of nationalistic narratives, poor, questionable and obscure sources become an essential tool. Accordingly, instead of banning certain users, which inevitably is a temporary solution, it would be more productive to apply more strict rule for source selection. That would resolve not only this particular problem, but many problems in this area. I think, Wikipedia in general will benefit if we decide that the articles describing historical events that are covered with ARBEE should be written primarily based on peer-reviewed sources written in English, because western authors are more neutral when they write about EE, and majority of good EE historians either publish their works in the West, or their books or articles are being cited by western peers. In contrast, questionable and poor quality local sources are being essentially ignored in the West. By applying more strict rules in the EE area, we can eliminate the ground for many conflicts. Possible rules may be as follows:
I realise that these rules may lead to deletion of some articles. However, I don't think it is a big problem, because if no good quality sources exists about some topic, Wikipedia as whole will benefit from deletion of such an article: it is better not to have an article at all than to have an article written based on some obscure writings. I think we can easily clean Wikipedia from a significant amount of questionable content if we take these measures in the ARBEE area. For example, such a "renown" author as Volodymyr Viatrovych (one of major nationalistic historians in Ukraine) was cited in the West just 3-4 times, some of citations contain a serious criticism. That means, this "scholar" essentially is not existing for international community, however, his writings fit Wikipeda's sources policy. By applying the procedure proposed above, we can easily get rid of most of highly questionable claims that can be found in Viatrovich's books and decrease tensions around many EE related articles. I am pretty sure the same will work for the articles about Polish, Lithuanian, Russian etc history. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
Statement by MyMoloboaccountAs to Paul Sieberts statement, I have to strongly disagree. We can't change overnight rules on reliable sources that were made in different process and required extensive discussion. Some of the topics of Wikipedia aren't researched in the West at all, others have little coverage.As such information about these will be only found in local reliable sources, however still fulfilling WP:RS criteria. For example information about Wehrmacht war crimes in 1939 Poland is mostly covered by scholarly publications in Poland and there is little information about them in Western sources when it comes to details.Likewise a lot of information about atrocities and resistance in communist occupied Europe will be only found in local sources that of course need to fulfill WP:RS criteria.Again, research or coverage is often scarce in Western literature. We have WP:RS as guidance and for example to ban reputable, scholarly sources if they weren't discussed by Western publications seems too much to me like suble historic colonialist attitude.Also such decision would effect such wide range of articles that much wider discussion than here would be needed to enact such policy.As Wikipedia is a global project, we can't restrict our sourcing to just sources in Anglosphere world. However I think one of the problems is using authors that have been widely criticized as having bias or have been controversial. If a view has been widely seen as controversial and is subject to debate, it should be restricted to the author and not be a basis for writing the whole article from such point of view.I would also be fine with restrictions demanding only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers or that anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 06:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim SystemRegarding the above proposal, I think the deletion of articles where foreign language sources are needed to establish notability would be a problem. Instituting this kind of restriction of sources is not going to be a substitute for addressing behavioral problems. There is no source that is so reliable that it can't be misused by an editor who wants to misuse it. Consulting multiple sources, and varying the sources used, so the article doesn't become too locked into a single narrative is crucial, as is recognizing where the author is developing original ideas the acceptance of which needs to be checked in other secondary sources (easy to spot as it usually follows the format of "The past scholars were wrong. What they didn't understand was x. I propose ....") The main problem presented by foreign language sources is that they can't be verified by other editors. Seraphim System ( talk) 12:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NugTo be honest, the idea of excluding foreign language sources seems somewhat xenophobic. Surely we don't want to go down that path. Given that many WW2 articles use Russian language sources, I don't think Paul Siebert has really thought this proposal through. Paul has just recently returned to Wikipedia after a five year break in April 2018, I'm not sure how much weight should be given to his statement, as it seems more about perpetuating his past battleground grievances rather than any real new insight on the present situation.
One could accuse Volunteer Marek of many things, but misconstruing sources or use of unreliable sources definitely is not one of them. Note that IceWhiz has filed this case against VM two days after a similar case was filed against himself. That smacks of a classic battleground tactic on the part of IceWhiz. I think WP:BOOMERANG applies here. -- Nug ( talk) 01:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by power~enwikiI agree with various editors (including GoldenRing) that this dispute is not suited to WP:AE. I recommend referring this to WP:MEDCOM to attempt to determine which references are reliable on the various disputed articles, with an explicit note that discretionary TBANs of either Volunteer Marek or Icewhiz from ARBEE (excluding MEDCOM proceedings) are permitted to any admin that feels it necessary; I don't believe they are necessary now but feel there is consensus to allow any admin to apply such a TBAN without appeals/drama if these editors continue to be disruptive (though both editors should be allowed to participate in any MEDCOM proceedings). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93After making yet another effort to understand this mess, I have to agree with GoldenRing that understanding who is being disruptive requires understanding who is wrong or right with respect to the source material. I do not believe AE is equipped to handle that, and I do not think we would be serving the encyclopedia if we t-ban both parties simply because we do not have the time and knowledge to discover who is in the right. Aside from being unfair and potentially counter-productive in this case, such a sanction would have the effect of provoking disruption in a number of other areas, because there is no shortage of editors (well, accounts, anyway) who would be willing to face a t-ban if their "opponents" also received one. I acknowledge that I recently recommended a "plague on both your houses approach", but that was in a case where the disagreements did not involve subtle points in non-English sources, and the attitude problems were much worse. My advice at this point would be to kick this to ARBCOM, much as I hate to say so. Vanamonde ( talk) 09:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Volunteer Marek
|
| No action. Sandstein 19:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request for Adamgerber80
Discussion concerning Adamgerber80Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Adamgerber80This seems to be a misrepresentation of the series events of not an assumption of WP:AGF. First, I have numerous (greater than 10 edits) on Regional power going all the way back to 10 September 2017. Also, I have been extremely active on the article talk page regarding discussions of multiple countries (nothing to do with Pakistan's inclusion or exclusion). Yes, that edit was a mistake on my part but not out of malice. If you look carefully, there is another editor [49] who edits (June 28) between the vandal IP edit (June 28) and the restoration of the content by the other IP (July 3). On a page, which sees a high degree of vandalism, I reverted back to an edit by a registered editor. This is what I tend to do and add a summary like back to good version or sourced version. Yes, I should have paid more attention to the content but the gap of days between those edits might have caused me to make a mistake. In my defense, when you have more than 2000 pages on your watchlist with a limited time, one can make a human mistake. Now, I have not edited since then to be able to rectify my mistake which I would not have, given no one notified me including the person who filed this WP:ARE. I do see now that another editor did revert me and there is some discussion regarding that on the article talk page which I will join in. If some admins do feel that I have a partisan view of this (give my nationality), like this editor here, then please feel free to go through my edits( [50], [51], [52], [53]). I have watched over numerous South-Asian military related pages (which is my interest) and have not shown any bias against anyone. On the contrary, I overlook many pages of Pakistani Armed Forces and have reverted vandalism on them multiple times. If it matters, please free to have a look at my block-log which was sometime ago (year 2016) because of a WP:COPYVIO and little understanding of policies. The blocking admin can testify to the fact that I have been very careful since then and even helped her with other WP:COPYVIO issues. Just as a final note, here I am not accusing anyone, but merely making an observation. The filing editor and I have no previous interaction whatsoever. Our intersect of pages is extremely limited and moreover the editor has no contributions on Regional power even now. In a different world, an editor would revert your edit and ask you to explain your edit if they are unfamiliar with you. Here the editor is not even involved on that page and yet files a complaint here based on another editors edit comment. This leads me to believe that there is something more to this complaint then meets the eye. Also, I am happy to have the CU check if the original vandal IP was me in disguise. Happy to answer any more questions or concerns anybody might have. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 20:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by KleuskeFrom an uninvolved standpoint, i'd say Hanlon's Razor applies. Why suspect malice when a mistake suffices to explain the facts presented? Intervening good faith anons have confused me more than once. Errare humanum est. A (lifted) block in 2016 has no bearing on this case. Kleuske ( talk) 20:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by NadirAliI do have some difficulty understanding why Adamgerber80, who says they have been active on Regional power since 2017, did not revert the first IP which did the vandalism instead of the second IP which reverted the vandalism. The vandalism in which Pakistan's name was removed from the list by the IP took place on 28 June. [58] Another IP corrected it on 3 July. [59] Where was Adamgerber80 during those 5 days? His edit history shows he was active in those five days. [60] So why did he not revert the vandal IP? Why did he only step in to revert the vandalism-undoing IP? [61] Of course, Adamgerber80 can be given the benefit of the doubt. So I think this incident can be passed over Nauriya, especially in light of Adamgerber80's retrospective talkpage comment here. [62] But what can't be passed over is the behavior of User:Orientls on that same article. The real problem on Regional power is this edit [63] by Orientls. In it, Orientls basically blanked references added by Mar4d, as well as any old content about Pakistan's status as a regional power, without even providing an edit summary for explanation. This is a vandal as well as tendentious edit. Nor has Orientls been active on the article's talkpage nor had any activity on that article before that. What is interesting is that Orientls is an account which has only made 182 edits in the past 4 years [64] which raises socking and sleeper account questions. His edit history also looks aggressive. See for example his aggressive/incivil comment to Joshua Jonathan here [65] and his condescending demands (to which he has no right anyway) on TurboCop's talkpage here. [66] I would recommend no action, besides perhaps a mild warning, for Adamgerber80. The real problem is Orientls. He is the one admins will need to deal with.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 03:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf@ NadirAli: I haven't got time to look into this in any sort of detail, but if you believe that action against Orientls is needed it will likely be much better to file a separate enforcement action request regarding them as they are neither the filer nor the subject of this request. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by SdmaratheFiler never edited this board before or participated in the discussion or the article and has botched a number of edits while he was filing this report. [67] [68] This is a simple content dispute that has been inflamed by a number of editors preparing for tag team edit warring on an online forum, dedicated towards propaganda and bias. Mar4d used the term "vandalism" for describing a good faith edit. [69] NadirAli is distracting from one-side and blaming other side for their completely constructive edits and calling them a "vandal", "socking", "sleeper" and misrepresenting a valid concern [70] as "condescending demands". @ GoldenRing: have a look at the conduct of NadirAli here, he is again trying to deceive others for clearing editors of one side by engaging in gross misrepresentation, personal attacks and battleground mentality. Also have a look at his recent topic ban violation while he was engaging in same battleground mentality as evidenced by the edit summary he used. [71] I am surprised by the actions of Nauriya, [72] Mar4d [73] and NadirAli [74] that they are deliberately referring a good faith and potentially constructive edit [75] as "vandalism" which strikes me as battleground mentality. NadirAli's misrepresentations are large in quantity. He mentions that Adamgerber80 restored to a "vandalized" version of the page that removed Pakistan. If the NadirAli bothered to look into the diffs, he would realize that the "longstanding" version in fact DOES NOT LIST PAKISTAN as a regional power. Please avoid spreading falsehood NadirAli. The diffs are there for everyone to see :) Sdmarathe ( talk) 16:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by 2JoulesConfirmed sockpuppet's comments removed, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 2Joules ( talk) 08:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93I cannot recall previous interactions with the filer, but I've been on the periphery of this conflict for a while, and am acquainted with the other protagonists. Adamgerber generally keeps their head down and edits with due regard for source material and consensus, rather than blindly warring over content they dislike. In this particular instance, they have stated that the first revert was a mistake (an easy one to make) and I'm inclined to take that at face value. I would not recommend action here. All the rest of you, meanwhile, please go and read WP:NOTVAND. Calling people vandals when they aren't can get you blocked. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dI will just make an exception to Sdmarathe's claim regarding the longstanding version. As was noted in the section below regarding WP:TAGTEAM, the content which got removed has been present in the article along with sources for several years [78]. Please don't attempt to mislead fellow editors on something as obvious and easy to verify. Mar4d ( talk) 11:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by مھتاب احمدThe more I am reading the article histories the more I believe the former AE case did not successfully deal with all the problem editors. Thats why the nationalistic war has, instead of becoming history, has carried on to the remaining editors who escaped the mass topic ban. I think we can add RaviC and Razer2115 to the list of problem editors. RaviC's editing is hostile [79] and he has a habit of reverting others, who are adding non-contentious citations, with vague edit summaries claiming "POV" [80], just like My Lord. [81] Rzvas does the same. [82] The modus operandi of stonewalling is alike. Similar story with Razer2115 who ironically supported the same users at ARCA [83] who he opposed at ARE with aspersions. [84] Adamgerber80 also seems to do edit wars, for example broke 3RR with 4 reverts here [85] [86] [87] [88]. In some of his edit summaries he claimed the IP was a block evading sock. No evidence was provided for this claim. He also edit warred quite a bit on Sindhudesh. [89] [90] [91] — Preceding unsigned comment added by مھتاب احمد ( talk • contribs)
Result concerning Adamgerber80
|
| Blocked indefinitely as a normal administrative action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 13 July 2018 (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 Han Jo Jo
User hasn't (yet?) raised "intelligence" side of WP:ARBRI, but page is under discretionary sanctions regardless. No one makes arguments like these unless on a mission to push some superiority/inferiority narrative. Editor clearly WP:NOTHERE except to abuse WP for trollish crackpot "theories". See, scientists are just doing a WP:GREATWRONG because they aren't classifying us all as Homo sapiens sapiens africanus, H. s. s. caucasensis, etc. So WP:ADVOCACY must be used to stop Wikipedia, since its editors are a sociology conspiracy copy-pasting from fake/obsolete "sources" to hide the WP:TRUTH, which can be got from private e-mails (about something else entirely) that HJJ has in his secret stash. [sigh] We should waste zero more seconds entertaining this stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Notified: [108] Discussion concerning Han Jo JoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Han Jo JoStatement by (username)Statement by PaleoNeonateThanks for filing. I was only an observer of the discussion (although I indeed intervened once to assert that the discussion was undue) and it was clear that the editor had a particular obsession with this article, was determined to endlessly pursue discussion about a fictitious scientific debate in violation of WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. Resorting to attacks against the reliability of existing sources and competency, honesty and good faith of other editors when failing to reach consensus for their suggestions. The "Sad article, sad website" comment somehow appeared familiar... In any case, I agree about the WP:NOTHERE assessment. — Paleo Neonate – 00:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Han Jo Jo
|
| No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:43, 14 July 2018 (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 Orientls
Additional comments: What is interesting is that Orientls is an account which has only made less than 190 edits in the past 4 years [109] which raises socking and sleeper account questions. This diff also seems to indicate a botched attempt of meatpuppetry [110] where he inadvertently seems to have copy pasted something else, probably from a chat browser, which indicates that he is doing edits under instructions for somebody else. This diff [111] confirms my suspicions further. His edit history also looks aggressive. See for example his aggressive/incivil comment to Joshua Jonathan here [112] and his condescending demands (to which he has no right anyway) on TurboCop's talkpage here. [113]-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 00:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
To editor Sdmarathe: This unexplained blanking [115] of old content and sources was vandalism. There is no definition by which it can be called a "constructive edit". This blanking edit was even before Orientls came to the talkpage. This diff
[116] is incivility. Read these parts The message [117] to TurboCop is inappropriate because that disclousre is TurboCop's business and not Orientls'. We can't say its a case of impersonation with certainty when admins have not even decided on that yet. I also find your AE statement inappropriate.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 03:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Notified on talk page-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 00:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning OrientlsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OrientlsResponding as I have been asked below. I wanted to describe my edit [118] on Regional power in edit summary but I pressed "enter" key before I would type edit summary. I have checked before if there is a way to modify edit summary and I never found one. Nonetheless, it is apparent to everyone that the edit was an acknowledgement of the problems with the disputed content that were already described on talk page [119] and the disputed content should not be restored until consensus is reached. On talk page, I have properly backed my argument with high amounts of WP:RS. [120] There was no vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. This report is not making any sense and it is just a personal attack and a clear misrepresentation. I was editing the talk page where I pasted the content twice as my key got stuck and I later removed the duplicate parts. [121] In the last two diffs [122] [123] I raised appropriate concerns that you are not allowed to synthesize content or impersonate identity of other users. You would know better about these edits by reading the whole discussion and conclusion would support that my edits are well within policies and constitutes no violation. Orientls ( talk) 09:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Replying the below message, WP:NPOV is irrelevant because the main concern is with the quality of sources per WP:IRS. If there are quality of sources that support the scholarly consensus then the named country can be added. This source names a few "countries as regional powers" and Pakistan is not included. My comment [124] reads that there are many sources that talks about the regional powers and they don't name Pakistan as the regional power, while my other comment [125] reads that we can't add those sources that fails to describe the context and are contradicting the main article and scholarly consensus regarding the list of regional power. The logic that some sources make mere mention thus they are perfectly acceptable then would you support inclusion of India as Great power? Sources describe India as one, but not all. The same is case with Pakistan when it is about regional power or emerging power. Also read this source that thoroughly describes the issues with this statement, and let me know if you can produce similar source that has also thoroughly studied and described if Pakistan is a regional power. This is why, already I have stated below that RfC or feedback from WikiProjects is needed that how we should organize the list and even if there should be a list as paragraphs are more preferred. Orientls ( talk) 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBG
Statement by SdmaratheRegardless of my above message, NadirAli is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT that there was no vandalism. [126] There is nothing wrong with that message, and this other message was absolutely correct given that impersonation is not allowed and the suspicious account never addressed the impersonation obviously because the account's purpose was to engage in disruption while using identity of a long dormant account. I wonder why NadirAli feels this offended. We cant allow impersonation only because you feel otherwise and you are testing edges of your topic ban by talking about an account who's edits are not supposed to be discussed by you since you are topic banned from the entire subject. [127] NadirAli lacks the understanding of what is a vandalism and wants to treat everyone to be as deceptive as him or even a little bit, given his own history of siteban and topic ban evasion that was never brought into attention until very recently. [128] [129] NadirAli has been making these allegations against other editors [130] by falsely claiming that others are making edits for someone else and he never interacted the editor contrary to great deal of with NadirAli. [131] NadirAli is bordering on objectionable behavior - noting his gross WP:CIR issues and battleground mentality here alone, including the recent topic ban( link) violation where he was engaging in same disruptive battleground mentality per his edit summary. [132] Ping GoldenRing. I think we might need to consider some reprimand about this behavior . Sdmarathe ( talk) 03:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I note that NadirAli and Mar4d have now resorted to misrepresentation of sources on Talk:Regional power and Mar4d has misrepresented sources on Emerging power by making an edit [134] where none of the sources of Mar4d mentions Pakistan as "emerging power". @ Sandstein: Have you confirmed that if Orientls was notified of discretionary sanctions? NadirAli has not mentioned it though he knows it better. I have found that Orientls was not aware of them and according to you as well it is necessary prior the report. [135] Sdmarathe ( talk) 12:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dI'll try to keep this short. The content concerned (which was blanked unilaterally) has been present on the article for several years [136]. Until it was removed in drive-by IP vandalism. I won't comment on Adamgerber80's restoration of the IP, given he has claimed it was in error. But right after a user restored the article to its longstanding version, Sdmarathe's first ever edit on that page is to restore the IP's vandalism. Then Lorstaking makes his first ever edit, restoring the IP's edit with the misleading summary "your SCO/G20 references don't make point", even though it included old references. When the longstanding version was reinstated along with references, Orientls' first ever edit is blanking the section back to Lorstaking's version [137] [138] with no edit summary, which itself should be sanctionable. He did not explain his revert, and commented on the talk 13 hours later. All three of course have no history on the article, but edit the same topics, and added similar original research and personal opinions on the talk. Regarding NadirAli's concerns on WP:MEAT, at the very least there is substantive indication of WP:TAGTEAM which ought not to be ignored. I would like to see scrutiny of the named accounts in addition to monitoring of the article for WP:NPOV issues, and at the very least actionable measures with regard to Orientls to prevent conduct-related damage. Best regards, Mar4d ( talk) 10:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93I have now had a chance to review this. Orientls's behavior on Talk:Regional power is concerning. Their first comment shows a complete misunderstanding of NPOV: they say "We don't have to voice opinion of minority but mainstream", which is a grotesque misrepresentation of WP:DUE. It also provides the following quote "But it also reflects that secondary regional powers and entities such as ASEAN, Russia, South Korea and India have proved unwilling to chose between the two" from this source as evidence that Pakistan is not a regional power. Not only does that source not refer to Pakistan at all, it isn't even describing India as a regional power; indeed that quote says nothing about which entities are regional powers. If Orientls is unable to recognize this, it's a problem. Similarly, this source makes it clear that it isn't providing an exhaustive list of "regional powers". Again, Orientls's comment betrays no awareness of this [139]. Furthermore, Mar4d provided [140] a number of sources. I have spotchecked these sources; the ones I checked support the claim they are used for. Yet Orientls's only engagement with them has been to state "We can't treat opinion of Robert Pastor that is added to the footnote by the source itself[26] and Iraq is not a regional power, thus Pastor's opinion is extremely flawed and same goes for "Buzan, Barry; Wæver, Ole", it is flawed too" [141]. Textbook stonewalling. That said, Orientls has made all of 206 edits to Wikipedia. WP:ROPE would suggest only a warning at this point. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Code16Agree with Vanamonde93, leaving aside the content dispute (which is a whole separate can of worms), Orientls's actions are indeed concerning, but can be attributed to a lack of experience. Erasing reliable sources by claiming they are a "minority view" seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:FRINGE. All FRINGE claims are minority claims, but not all minority claims are FRINGE. There is a difference, and it is an important one for new editors to understand and respect. Since the user is inexperienced, I suggest he be given some advice on this issue by an admin and perhaps a warning. Code16 ( talk) 13:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Orientls
|
| No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:44, 14 July 2018 (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 Mar4d
WP:ARBIPA: Per
[142], topic banned from conflicts between India and Pakistan, with a warning that "
I don't see why Mar4d is even editing this subject of Regional power. It largely borders and is sometimes focused on India-Pakistan conflict when it comes to adding Pakistan to this article. Misconduct is more than just violating topic ban:
Mar4d was already warned by NeilN in June 8 to " This seems like a recurring issue of a long term problematic attitude of Mar4d. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 04:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mar4dStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mar4dStatement by power~enwikiI don't see any of the three diffs listed as violating the TBAN imposed. Linking to an SPI report, or replying to a comment which mentions an India-Pakistan conflict (without discussing that conflict in response) are not violations. While the dispute at Regional power is mostly a content dispute, the behavior at Talk:Regional power may need the attention of admins willing to impose Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SdmaratheTopic ban extends to talk page discussions as well as referring anything that focuses the area from the user is restricted, be it large or minor in form, it is a topic ban violation. @ Power~enwiki: The reports NadirAli and Nauriya had filed above are closed/closing with no action. [166] [167] Both of these editors are on verge of getting blocked indefinitely for their sock puppetry [168] [169] and Nauriya recently started an SPI against 4 opposing editors which included me and the SPI has been closed as insufficient without even a CU. [170] To sum it up, NadirAli and Nauriya are leaving, and only Mar4d is here and he is violating topic ban, calling good-faith edits a vandalism, misrepresenting sources, [171] trying to the last word on talk page while turning them into battleground and that's all after that stringent warning as mentioned already, [172] that any more disruption or testing edges of the ban would lead to topic ban or indefinite block. To add further, I went through a number of discussions on Talk:Kargil War, Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Talk:Battle of Chawinda. These discussions also involved Adamgerber, 1990s guy, Orientls, and they were really smooth and finally ended up supporting the universal consensus regarding these conflicts. You need to think that why those pages didn't had any conflict but only this one article (Regional power) is having the conflict while those India-Pakistan war articles are having no conflicts despite major changes? The answer is pretty obvious. Sdmarathe ( talk) 05:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by VanamondeThis again? The behavior at Talk:Regional power and Talk:Emerging power is bad, and probably requires sanctions on multiple users. It also isn't the best place for t-banned users to be. That said, The diffs as presented are not topic-ban violations. Mar4d is not permitted to discuss the India-Pakistan conflict. He is quite free to participate in discussions on more general issues, even if other participants are discussing the India-Pakistan conflict. It's also worth noting that the t-ban has been brought up in those discussions far more than necessary. In the AE discussion which resulted in the mass topic ban, I had warned that the conflict was likely to spill over into other IPA areas. That's what seems to be happening here. In sum, if sanctions are considered, I would recommend looking at broader topic bans/new topic bans rather than a block. Vanamonde ( talk) 06:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by OrientlsRegional power in the context of India and Pakistan concerns major subjects including the Indo-Pakistani conflict. Initial argument was if Pakistan is mentioned by majority of sources as a regional power and the later argument was about if the sources make efforts to describe the emergence of Pakistan as regional power. Mar4d replied to the sources added by Sdmarathe, detailing India-Pakistani conflicts with relation to emergence as regional power. Mar4d said: "your arguments and sources unfortunately are completely deficient, and therefore have been rejected." [173] Sources have described that India emerged as regional power as a result of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 because Pakistan was divided. [174] [175] [176] [177] I don't see sources that would make efforts to describe Pakistan as a regional power and/or provide significant details about Pakistan's emergence as a regional power. Sources are meant to be detailed and descriptive, more than simply giving a passing mention. Some sources support that India is the only regional power in South Asia. [178] I stopped participating in the talk page because Mar4d has been replying without addressing these issues. This has also happened earlier on Talk:Umayyad campaigns in India#Infobox where he was ignoring every reliable source on the subject. I plan to resolve this by organizing an RfC or seek feedback of multiple WikiProjects. Orientls ( talk) 10:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dConcerning Regional power, please see my comments in the section above. Also, I have not violated any restrictions. Happy to respond if any admins have questions. Mar4d ( talk) 12:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Code16Mentioning the user's topic ban is irrelevant to this "regional power" topic, and seems to be an effort to stifle debate, which is bordering on bad-faith. I suggest that all editors focus on the content and stop attacking and launching arbitration cases against each other ad-hominem. Code16 ( talk) 13:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Mar4d
|
| No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Sdmarathe
Sdmarathe's behavior at Talk:Regional power is in breach of WP:BATTLE. There is an ongoing dispute about whether Pakistan should be listed as a regional power. Stating that it should be listed, Mar4d provided 8 sources: [179]. I spot-checked some of the sources, and they did support the content Mar4d wished to add. These sources were provided partially in response to Sdmarathe asking for them. Sdmarathe's responses have been discouraging. He has indulged in speculation [180], made claims about source misrepresentation [181], and tried to use lists of other regional powers as evidence (a logical fallacy) [182]. Most importantly, he has repeatedly discounted the sources previously presented [183], [184], [185], and then slipped into original research: [186]. While this may seem to be a content dispute, the problem here is not that Sdmarathe has not accepted Mar4d's version of the text. There would be no problem if they were engaging with the material. The problem is that Sdmarathe persistently refused to engage with the sources provided in response to his request, and instead indulged in original research and textbook stonewalling. This behavior wasn't limited to that discussion. Their attitude at SPI and AN has been extremely combative, [187], [188], [189], and a warning from Cullen328 [190] made no difference to their behavior [191]. In sum, Sdmarathe is treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and is not displaying the level of decorum expected in an area under discretionary sanctions.
To be clear; I don't give two hoots whether Pakistan is listed as a regional power or not. Personally, I think the dispute is silly in the extreme; geopolitical power exists on a spectrum, and any such classification is going to engender dispute. I am not exculpating the "other side" in this dispute; the behavior of Mar4d and Nauriya is far from ideal, and in their haste they have obfuscated what some sources say. I'm not excusing Lorstaking and Orientls either. But Sdmarathe's behavior has been a problem, and needs to be looked at: the other users can be dealt with in other sections. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SdmaratheStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SdmaratheFirst set of diffs concern content dispute, as far as I know they are not handled at AE. Still I would like to make a few things clear. First, my arguments are basically policy-based and similar to those put forward by many other editors on that discussion page. I have been analyzing the sources that have been presented so far in accordance with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, a core criteria for evaluating sources. The crux of my argument lies here; the sources provided by Mar4d completely fail the aforementioned criteria since they are making passing mention of Pakistan, just like the sources make passing mention of Venezuela, [192] North Korea, [193] and many other non-regional powers, without actually explaining in detail how and why Pakistan is a regional power; while, on the other hand, I have provided many reliable sources that describe how Pakistan is not a regional power and completely refutes Mar4d's arguments (e.g. [194]) I would not prefer to go into the details regarding the misrepresentation of sources by Mar4d and NadirAli, but just mention a few diffs that illustrate my point: [195] [196] [197] Also noting the existence of reliable sources rejecting Pakistan as a regional power, [198] it is even more necessary to take into account policies like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Generally, it is possible to find two or more sources supporting many types of statements, including pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's why we need sources which completely comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. ScrapIronIV had just restored the version that supported my comments on talk page with edit summary "Per talk page". [199] I understand the concerns. I can only assure the admins that I will be more careful in future, especially in what I say. Also, it must be noted that on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanali.007, my responses were made in response to misleading comments of Nauriya on SPI, [200] and Nauriya had filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RaviC against me in the form of personal attack and harassment. The suspicion, whether it was filed by Nauriya himself or it was provided to him has been raised by an uninvolved editor like Kautilya3, and patrolling admin Abecedare has also talked about it on the SPI. On WP:AN, Nauriya made more false allegations and personal attacks against me and others like, "personnel grudge and vendetta from Indian editors who themselves are involved in sock puppetry and edit warring". [201] This is completely untrue. I will urge the participating admins to check my recent interactions on much more controversial articles like Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox, Talk:Kargil War#Result in infobox, where you won't see a single problem with my conduct. I was mostly concerned about the aforementioned SPI and those continued personal attacks from Nauriya. I acknowledge that this doesn't justify my behavior--but like I said, I will be more careful in what I say. I had already realized after the second reply of Cullen238 [202] to leave it alone and that's why I chose not to engage any further and I started editing something else as my contributions show. [203] I rest my case. Sdmarathe ( talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by OrientlsReplying the ping here. All I have to add is that Sdmarathe is correct with his assessment of sources on Regional power and it is true that the sources in this context are meant to be descriptive per WP:IRS. Mere mentions don't fulfill that necessary requirement. Sources must describe the emergence of Pakistan as a regional power, same way sources describe the emergence of India as a regional power. There should be no contradictions against the generally accepted names. Sdmarathe has only asked for such quality sources while provinding such sources for backing his argument. To make it more simple, can you find a particular date or year when Pakistan is said to have been emerged as a regional power? For India it is 1971. [204] I think you have ignored Mar4d [205] and NadirAli [206] incorrectly claiming that "all" sources mention Pakistan as regional power. There are mere mentions of Pakistan, but also omissions as regional power in many lists, while other sources saying India to be the only regional power in South Asia [207] and/or finding issues with the disputed statement. [208] Such contradictions are concerning and that needs to be addressed properly. Like I have mentioned above, RfC or assistance from WikiProject will help us to decide a standard of sources and if the list needs to be replaced with paragraphs. SPI is still open and unhelpful comments are swiftly removed by the clerks there. If you are observing problems with statements of Sdmarathe then you can ping Bbb23 or Abecedare and request to deal with them. I disagree that his "attitude at SPI and AN has been extremely combative". It was not a very ideal one but you are ignoring that Nauriya filed an extremely flawed SPI [209] with apparent motive to get rid each of the opponents around. I don't see a logic for stoking this sort of rhetoric. I prefer ignoring such reports even though I was also falsely accused of sock puppetry by Nauriya who has assumed bad faith of the highest order. [210] In these circumstances you can expect worse if not better. Bigger concern is that why Nauriya is not addressing the concerns regarding his lack of prior interaction with any of the editors? To be fair, such issues are not really significant and should be best discussed on the relevant talk page since the both discussions (SPI and Regional power) are still open. Orientls ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Code16I will comment on a statement Sdmarathe made above, which indicates bad faith in the context of this dispute, and moreover, a dangerous redefinition of WP guidelines: QUOTE "Generally, it is possible to find two or more sources supporting many types of statements, including pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's why we need sources which completely comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources." END QUOTE. The user is claiming that this argument applies to ignoring sources like Samuel P. Huntington, who is one of the leading scholars in the field?! Wow. If this user was unaware of the difference between FRINGE and RS, I would chalk this up to a misunderstanding. But in this case, he seems to be fully aware of the difference, and has proposed a new synthesized guideline which converts any RS into FRINGE, arbitrarily, based on his own judgement. That is a major red-flag, and should merit more than a mere warning. Code16 ( talk) 13:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Sdmarathe
|
| No action. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2018 (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 Seraphim System
In addition, user violated third ARBPIA bullet as well: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."
Discussion concerning Seraphim SystemStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Seraphim SystemNone of the content in that edit has anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Turkey isn't an Arab country. This has been discussed here before and the result has usually been that the content actually has to be about the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Especially on a broad article like this one, where the article is not actually covered by ARBPIA). And I just want to add that I am not even trying to work on conflict articles, but some of the articles I'm working on like 1973 oil crisis and Terrorism may have some overlap and I try to be careful about it and self-revert when I think it's relevant. I will self-revert here also, but only if admins decide it's within ARBPIA's scope, because I sincerely don't think it is. I first encountered this user when I proposed to move Yom Kippur War to Arab-Israeli War of 1973, ever since then he has followed me around to revert me on multiple articles, some that he had never previously worked on like here removing sourced content with edit summary "restoring sources" and here adding citation needed tags to content that is already sourced (I responded by adding two more sources). I just don't think this edit falls within the scope of ARBPIA, and it's frustrating to have someone following me around and starting ARBPIA-related disputes on articles that are mostly outside the conflict area. I already stopped working on 1973 oil crisis when this happened, which I was hoping to nominate for GA, but he keeps following me from one article to another. This complaint seems like part of the same pattern. Seraphim System ( talk) 22:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC) @ DavidBena: I actually did not remove anything for any reason related to ARBPIA and I didn't remove any content about Gaza or Israel or Arab-Israeli relations. I'm not sure if the editors who are objecting to the removal are doing so based on a thorough understanding of the academic sources available. State-sponsorship is not about inclusion on the FTO list — there has been a lot of academic literature published. A subject like this with an abundance of academic sources available shouldn't have been sourced to media sources in the first place—these sources do not even discuss state sponsorship of terrorism. I'm open to discussion, and I'm sorry this has escalated to another routine ARBPIA dispute. I'm entirely indifferent as to whether the content is included in another article. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by DavidbenaI find it strange that our co-editor, Seraphim System, defends his deletion of well-sourced material in an article entitled State-sponsored terrorism, and yet claims that the edit had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, for which reason he deleted it. I'm astounded, insofar that while the article does NOT limit itself to the Arab-Israeli conflict (ARBPIA), it does treat on terrorism in a general way, including what happens in Gaza under Hamas rule. The edit, therefore, was applicable and should not have been deleted by Seraphim System. Davidbena ( talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizRelations with Hamas (hosting a HQ, etc.) is clearly ARBPIA related, Hamas being a Palestinian movement that is a side to the conflict - this is ARBPIA not because of Turkey, but due to Hamas. Icewhiz ( talk) 03:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlishARBPIA scope seems pretty firm to me, Hamas being deeply embedded in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Whether Turkey qualifies or not is immaterial (though it does; it's an 82% Muslim country (the rest being almost entirely secular, not Jewish or Christian), barely on any kind of speaking terms with Israel at all, and threatening to break off all diplomatic relations with Israel again – i.e., to once again be allied with Arabs and the rest of the Muslim world against Israel – since 2017). The disruptive nature of nuking the entire section of source information because Seraphim System prefers "some academic sources", and then editwarring to re-delete it all is clearly within DS range. The fact that Seraphim System doesn't seem to recognize that this kind of thing is disruptive, and just wants to wikilawyer about whether the page qualifies under ARBPIA then disclaim involvement in the topic area, is a strong indication such behavior will continue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwikiSimilar to Iran-Israel, Turkey-Israel relations generally do not fall under the ARBPIA sanctions, but they can when they relate to support for Hamas. The page State-sponsored terrorism does not appear to explicitly be under any page-level Discretionary Sanctions, though content on the page might fall under several different sanctions (American Politics, Syrian Civil War, India-Pakistan). As discussion of the content dispute is now proceeding on the talk page, I see no reason for any action against any editor, though there may be a need for additional page-restrictions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 06:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mhhossein@ Black Kite: That GMAE is not something new by the mentioned user. You might want to see this archived AE report, specially [212] and [213]. -- Mhhossein talk 13:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by [username]Result concerning Seraphim System
|
| Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz are topic-banned from the history of Poland in World War II (1933-45) for three months for treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sandstein 20:29, 7 July 2018 (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 Volunteer Marek
VM has also been showing up quite frequently at articles I've edited, including articles he's never edited, and his main contribution has been reverting - see editor interaction tool with 1 March 2018 start date. There are also issues with misrepresenting Polish language sources (general stmts on Jews in an area => specific Jews, specific Jews => general stmts on Jews), which I did not present, but diffs are available (requires reading the Polish). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer MarekLol. Obvious "revenge report". Did I mention Icewhiz has a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem? Since April of this year - in the last three months, there has been a total of ELEVEN WP:AE reports in this topic area. For comparison, between April 2015 and April 2018 there have been FIVE total reports in this topic area. This means that regarding Eastern Europe, there have been twice as many reports in last 3 months as there have been in the preceding 3 years! Something's obviously not working. Guess what the common factor is? That's right, all eleven of those reports had involvement from Icewhiz (6 as filer, 5 as subject, 1 as commentator casting WP:ASPERSIONS). Why is April 2018 the month in which the number of WP:AE reports in EE just exploded? Well, March 2018 is when Icewhiz began editing this topic area aggressively, quickly coming into conflict with every established editor in the topic area, from User:Malik Shabazz, to User:Piotrus, to User:E-960, to myself, to users which avoid WP:AE (such as Chumchum7 and Nihil novi). Why has he pursued this strategy? Because his behavior has been tolerated and rewarded. And this is of course ignoring all the WP:AE reports that Icewhiz has been involved in other topic areas, such as Palestinian-Israeli topics. He uses WP:AE as a weapon. And admins here tolerate it. Anyway. #1 not a PA. I sincerely couldn't understand what the user was saying. #2, #3 not an aspersion but explanation of policy to a user who showed up to support Icewhiz in an edit war and make WP:IJUSTLIKEIT votes in support of Icewhiz, without prior engagement on talk. #3 uhh, what? Wait, wait, wait... #4 isn't even from this topic area. Icewhiz is just diff-stuffing. 6,7,8 - yes, comparing the main Polish anti-Nazi organization to the Nazi party is extremely biased not to mention offensive. Only reason I can think of why Icewhiz would make such a claim is that he was attempting to provoke other editors ... so that he could use the diffs at WP:AE. Hey! That's exactly what he's trying to do! Whoa! This is covered in MyMoloboaccount's report above. 9 Actually Icewhiz has already brought this one up at User:NeilN's talk page [3]. NeilN already explained to him [4] why this wasn't a problematic statement. So this is Icewhiz WP:FORUMSHOPPING for a sanction. 10 Same as #9, already discussed at NeilN's page. And yes, the source did have serious nonsense in it (it claimed that a local partisan commander and a major in Abwehr had the authority to negotiate over Poland's post war borders!) 11 Same as #9, already discussed at NeilN's page. 12 ... just ridiculous. Criticism and evaluation of a source is not an "attack". 13 Same as #12. The individual in question is actually a photographer. 14 Content dispute, discussed extensively on talk. After failing to obtain consensus for this material in early June, Icewhiz snuck back to the article about a month later and tried to reinsert his WP:OWN version again, without discussing on talk. I have no idea how there is suppose to be a BLP issue here. Icewhiz regularly makes false allegations along these lines. See for example this discussion where Icewhiz made particularly fantastical false claims of BLP vios. I didn't include that in my report above so as to keep it concise. But if you want to see WP:GAMEing in action, there you go. 15 This was shortly after Icewhiz was caught falsifying sources and using far-right anti-semitic sources on the Chodakiewicz BLP as described in my report above (though that happened earlier, it wasn't discovered till then). 16 Argument on User:Ealdgyth's talk page. What exactly is suppose to be actionable? There was no "HOAX". Icewhiz was just using hyperbolic language to attack and misrepresent other editors. 17 Again, not everything that Icewhiz disagrees with is a "HOAX". The fact that he chooses such language is a problem itself. This one actually demonstrates just how WP:BATTLEGROUND Icewhiz's approach is. See discussion on talk [5]. Initially Icewhiz argued that Dov Levin was being misrepresented. I disagreed, because, well, he wasn't (certainly not a "HOAX"). Then Icewhiz said that Levin's statement does not specifically mention this locality. I say "hmm, that's a good point" and remove it myself. So, I agree with Icewhiz and do what he wants, yet... he still comes running here with that diff!!! That's some low shit. You can see him actually getting frustrated with me agreeing with him (because that makes it harder for him to try and use this diff to get me sanctioned! How dare I?!?) in this comment where he tries to keep arguing or pretends that I haven't just agreed with him, even after I have. This report just shows how dysfunctional WP:AE has become in the past few months. You incentivize bad behavior, you get bad behavior. (note: Icewhiz went back and changed his ordering and numbering of his diffs, so I don't know if my responses match up properly. I'm not going to waste my time chasing his numbering around) Other WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Icewhiz User:Vanamonde93 mentioned lack of conciseness above, but honestly, if I were to bring every instance of Icewhiz's disruptive behavior to AE it would go on for pages. So, the following episode would be sufficient basis for a separate report on Icewhiz, but since here we are... It illustrates perfectly why it's impossible to have a normal content discussion with Icewhiz, how combative he is, how petty and antagonistic, and how he engages in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior which drives everyone who is forced to deal with him nuts.
This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to a tee. It creates an impossible situation. It's badgering. It's antagonistic. It's WP:BATTLEGROUND. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by PiotrusI am curious if this time Sandstein will find time to review more then 3 diffs. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere
Earlier examples:
Admin notifications: This attitude isn't helpful or fun. François Robere ( talk) 11:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @ Beyond My Ken: This isn't only a matter of group membership, it's also a matter of group dynamics. Some of the other editors are perfectly amiable to discussion and compromise, but when you have people like Bella [35] or Marek around they tend to either disrupt the discussion or affect the rest of the group in ways that are counter-productive. We've already seen some progress since Bella was removed; I believe that if this AE request is accepted things will shift. François Robere ( talk) 18:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @
GoldenRing: Statement by Beyond My KenThis entire situation has moved past ridiculousness into farce. This is very close to a zero-sum situation: either Volunteer Marek and MyMolobyAccount and friends are right, or Icewhiz and Francis Robere and friends are right. These can't both be the case at the same time. One of these two parties is distorting historical fact and using unreliable sources to do so, or misusing reliable sources, and somebody with authority needs to sort through all these claims and diffs and find out who is telling the truth and who is dissembling. It is no longer enough to punt, these need to be settled, or it's going to go on ad infinitum. It is not a matter of a mere content dispute, the very legitimacy of Wikipedia is at stake. We cannot allow our articles to be based on the misrepresentation of reliable sources or the use of unreliable sources, so which ever group is doing so needs to be stopped and shut down. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by EaldgythBMK - feel free to take my source check here and figure out who added what to that article. It took me quite a while to do that and I was trying to model good editing behavior by not digging further to find blame. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBGEcho BMK word by word. ∯WBG converse 14:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Comment by SN54129Those diffs of Icewhizz' require rather an elastic interpretation of the policy ("personal attacks"—upon sources?). If this filing is deemed retaliatory, then, of course, there is only one immediate course of action to be taken here. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by יניב הורוןUser:My very best wishes: Regarding your comment, I think you made a mistake. Refering to a "green" statement Icewhiz made - which he did not actually make - he was quoting a Holocaust historian's assessment of the former literature. Icewhiz actually did not offer his own opinion (which is probably inline with Zimmerman's opinion - and differs from the quote of prior research) - he quoted a fairly respected scholar.... That's not POV pushing!-- יניב הורון (Yaniv) ( talk) 17:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Rusf10I really don't have enough knowledge of the topic to know who's right or wrong in the content dispute. Yes, it should be a long-term goal to figure that out, but its not going to be decided here. What is clear is Volunteer Marek's behavior is extremely disruptive. His constant personal attacks should result in sanctions. He also made unsupported claims of collusion among other editors. His claims that another editor is making too many AE reports is laughable. Overall, Volunteer Marek makes more AE requests that any other single editor. When doing research on AE requests related to Donald Trump, we found that he was involved with 15 cases over the past two years and of those he filed 8, more than any other editor.
[36] Over the same two-year period Volunteer Marek filed 18 AE requests overall. In contrast Icewhiz filed only 11. Many of volunteer marek's requests are frivolous, with at least Statement by TryptofishI had not planned to comment here, but the assertion that filing 18 AE requests is a problem, whereas filing "only 11" is not, seems to me to be rather creative quantitative reasoning. The link to the sandbox study is a link to something that reflects the problems with the AP2 topic area, and the data there should not be taken at face value. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesFirst of all, I agree with GoldenRing and NeilN suggestions, i.e. to request that in the subject area "Only high quality sources may be used... Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source...". This is main issue here, not the alleged incivility or whatever. But I do not think that only English-language sources can be requested. Doing so would be against the policy and beyond the mandate of this noticeboard. Yes, WP:MEDRS might be a good approximation, but it needs to be modified for the area of history. Now, speaking about misrepresenting a source, there is an example of this by Icewhiz: (diff #10 in the previous request). Using this source to justify and promote the idea that the partisans of Home Army were just as dangerous to Jews as were the Nazis is an obvious misrepresentation of this source. In this example, Icewhiz selectively quotes whatever he likes, instead of reading and objectively summarizing the entire publication, just as he fights with historians and sources he does not like. Please see the comment by Nishidani in the previous request for more detail [37]. Was VM engaged in such misrepresentations? No, I do not see it at all. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement K.e.coffmanThe recent AE filings have brought to the surface problematic sourcing and material in articles touching on Polish-Jewish relations during WW2. Some examples:
If I were to pinpoint where the issues exists in Wikipedia articles, it would be the use of shoddy sources and inappropriate synthesis, resulting in distorted content such as the above. I agree that some articles (i.e. Home Army) are a can of worms due to evolving historiography and conflicting academic positions, as GoldenRing points out. However, the murder of Jews during the early months of Barbarossa is not such an area. The scholarship is clear and unambiguous.
K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement IrondomeWe are in a very difficult position due to current profound disagreements between governments and academic schools of thought on this topic. [ [40]]. This, for instance is the latest Yad Vashem statement. The project can only record what is stable and consensual in the academic real world. I would support K.e.coffmans assertion that "Shoddy sources and inappropriate synthesis" being a major factor in our present trouble. I would support K.e's second proposal in the longer term, and in the meantime adopt his first proposal. Irondome ( talk) 00:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzI support what Volunteer Marek wrote. It's time for admins, Sandstein in particular, to stop sheltering Icewhiz and encouraging his behavior. On 30 May, I warned Icewhiz about his disruptive behavior. He e-mailed Sandstein, complaining that I had violated a topic ban two weeks before the topic ban had been imposed. Even more outrageously, Sandstein accepted his accusations at face value. Either Sandstein is a moron or an idiot, but he has no business being an administrator, certainly not passing judgment on those with whom Icewhiz battles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Paul SiebertThese two AE requests actually reflect a broader collision, and this collision is a clash between local nationalistic narratives in the areas that are not in the scope of a broader scientific community. In a situation when high quality sources describing these events are scarce, local writers, journalists or fringe theorists privatised this area and advocate a very specific point of view that support one or another nationalistic myth. Accordingly, some users non-critically choose the sources advocating one or another myth, and in that situation "a plague on both your houses" seems a very reasonable approach. In this battle of nationalistic narratives, poor, questionable and obscure sources become an essential tool. Accordingly, instead of banning certain users, which inevitably is a temporary solution, it would be more productive to apply more strict rule for source selection. That would resolve not only this particular problem, but many problems in this area. I think, Wikipedia in general will benefit if we decide that the articles describing historical events that are covered with ARBEE should be written primarily based on peer-reviewed sources written in English, because western authors are more neutral when they write about EE, and majority of good EE historians either publish their works in the West, or their books or articles are being cited by western peers. In contrast, questionable and poor quality local sources are being essentially ignored in the West. By applying more strict rules in the EE area, we can eliminate the ground for many conflicts. Possible rules may be as follows:
I realise that these rules may lead to deletion of some articles. However, I don't think it is a big problem, because if no good quality sources exists about some topic, Wikipedia as whole will benefit from deletion of such an article: it is better not to have an article at all than to have an article written based on some obscure writings. I think we can easily clean Wikipedia from a significant amount of questionable content if we take these measures in the ARBEE area. For example, such a "renown" author as Volodymyr Viatrovych (one of major nationalistic historians in Ukraine) was cited in the West just 3-4 times, some of citations contain a serious criticism. That means, this "scholar" essentially is not existing for international community, however, his writings fit Wikipeda's sources policy. By applying the procedure proposed above, we can easily get rid of most of highly questionable claims that can be found in Viatrovich's books and decrease tensions around many EE related articles. I am pretty sure the same will work for the articles about Polish, Lithuanian, Russian etc history. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
Statement by MyMoloboaccountAs to Paul Sieberts statement, I have to strongly disagree. We can't change overnight rules on reliable sources that were made in different process and required extensive discussion. Some of the topics of Wikipedia aren't researched in the West at all, others have little coverage.As such information about these will be only found in local reliable sources, however still fulfilling WP:RS criteria. For example information about Wehrmacht war crimes in 1939 Poland is mostly covered by scholarly publications in Poland and there is little information about them in Western sources when it comes to details.Likewise a lot of information about atrocities and resistance in communist occupied Europe will be only found in local sources that of course need to fulfill WP:RS criteria.Again, research or coverage is often scarce in Western literature. We have WP:RS as guidance and for example to ban reputable, scholarly sources if they weren't discussed by Western publications seems too much to me like suble historic colonialist attitude.Also such decision would effect such wide range of articles that much wider discussion than here would be needed to enact such policy.As Wikipedia is a global project, we can't restrict our sourcing to just sources in Anglosphere world. However I think one of the problems is using authors that have been widely criticized as having bias or have been controversial. If a view has been widely seen as controversial and is subject to debate, it should be restricted to the author and not be a basis for writing the whole article from such point of view.I would also be fine with restrictions demanding only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers or that anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 06:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim SystemRegarding the above proposal, I think the deletion of articles where foreign language sources are needed to establish notability would be a problem. Instituting this kind of restriction of sources is not going to be a substitute for addressing behavioral problems. There is no source that is so reliable that it can't be misused by an editor who wants to misuse it. Consulting multiple sources, and varying the sources used, so the article doesn't become too locked into a single narrative is crucial, as is recognizing where the author is developing original ideas the acceptance of which needs to be checked in other secondary sources (easy to spot as it usually follows the format of "The past scholars were wrong. What they didn't understand was x. I propose ....") The main problem presented by foreign language sources is that they can't be verified by other editors. Seraphim System ( talk) 12:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NugTo be honest, the idea of excluding foreign language sources seems somewhat xenophobic. Surely we don't want to go down that path. Given that many WW2 articles use Russian language sources, I don't think Paul Siebert has really thought this proposal through. Paul has just recently returned to Wikipedia after a five year break in April 2018, I'm not sure how much weight should be given to his statement, as it seems more about perpetuating his past battleground grievances rather than any real new insight on the present situation.
One could accuse Volunteer Marek of many things, but misconstruing sources or use of unreliable sources definitely is not one of them. Note that IceWhiz has filed this case against VM two days after a similar case was filed against himself. That smacks of a classic battleground tactic on the part of IceWhiz. I think WP:BOOMERANG applies here. -- Nug ( talk) 01:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by power~enwikiI agree with various editors (including GoldenRing) that this dispute is not suited to WP:AE. I recommend referring this to WP:MEDCOM to attempt to determine which references are reliable on the various disputed articles, with an explicit note that discretionary TBANs of either Volunteer Marek or Icewhiz from ARBEE (excluding MEDCOM proceedings) are permitted to any admin that feels it necessary; I don't believe they are necessary now but feel there is consensus to allow any admin to apply such a TBAN without appeals/drama if these editors continue to be disruptive (though both editors should be allowed to participate in any MEDCOM proceedings). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93After making yet another effort to understand this mess, I have to agree with GoldenRing that understanding who is being disruptive requires understanding who is wrong or right with respect to the source material. I do not believe AE is equipped to handle that, and I do not think we would be serving the encyclopedia if we t-ban both parties simply because we do not have the time and knowledge to discover who is in the right. Aside from being unfair and potentially counter-productive in this case, such a sanction would have the effect of provoking disruption in a number of other areas, because there is no shortage of editors (well, accounts, anyway) who would be willing to face a t-ban if their "opponents" also received one. I acknowledge that I recently recommended a "plague on both your houses approach", but that was in a case where the disagreements did not involve subtle points in non-English sources, and the attitude problems were much worse. My advice at this point would be to kick this to ARBCOM, much as I hate to say so. Vanamonde ( talk) 09:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Volunteer Marek
|
| No action. Sandstein 19:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request for Adamgerber80
Discussion concerning Adamgerber80Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Adamgerber80This seems to be a misrepresentation of the series events of not an assumption of WP:AGF. First, I have numerous (greater than 10 edits) on Regional power going all the way back to 10 September 2017. Also, I have been extremely active on the article talk page regarding discussions of multiple countries (nothing to do with Pakistan's inclusion or exclusion). Yes, that edit was a mistake on my part but not out of malice. If you look carefully, there is another editor [49] who edits (June 28) between the vandal IP edit (June 28) and the restoration of the content by the other IP (July 3). On a page, which sees a high degree of vandalism, I reverted back to an edit by a registered editor. This is what I tend to do and add a summary like back to good version or sourced version. Yes, I should have paid more attention to the content but the gap of days between those edits might have caused me to make a mistake. In my defense, when you have more than 2000 pages on your watchlist with a limited time, one can make a human mistake. Now, I have not edited since then to be able to rectify my mistake which I would not have, given no one notified me including the person who filed this WP:ARE. I do see now that another editor did revert me and there is some discussion regarding that on the article talk page which I will join in. If some admins do feel that I have a partisan view of this (give my nationality), like this editor here, then please feel free to go through my edits( [50], [51], [52], [53]). I have watched over numerous South-Asian military related pages (which is my interest) and have not shown any bias against anyone. On the contrary, I overlook many pages of Pakistani Armed Forces and have reverted vandalism on them multiple times. If it matters, please free to have a look at my block-log which was sometime ago (year 2016) because of a WP:COPYVIO and little understanding of policies. The blocking admin can testify to the fact that I have been very careful since then and even helped her with other WP:COPYVIO issues. Just as a final note, here I am not accusing anyone, but merely making an observation. The filing editor and I have no previous interaction whatsoever. Our intersect of pages is extremely limited and moreover the editor has no contributions on Regional power even now. In a different world, an editor would revert your edit and ask you to explain your edit if they are unfamiliar with you. Here the editor is not even involved on that page and yet files a complaint here based on another editors edit comment. This leads me to believe that there is something more to this complaint then meets the eye. Also, I am happy to have the CU check if the original vandal IP was me in disguise. Happy to answer any more questions or concerns anybody might have. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 20:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by KleuskeFrom an uninvolved standpoint, i'd say Hanlon's Razor applies. Why suspect malice when a mistake suffices to explain the facts presented? Intervening good faith anons have confused me more than once. Errare humanum est. A (lifted) block in 2016 has no bearing on this case. Kleuske ( talk) 20:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by NadirAliI do have some difficulty understanding why Adamgerber80, who says they have been active on Regional power since 2017, did not revert the first IP which did the vandalism instead of the second IP which reverted the vandalism. The vandalism in which Pakistan's name was removed from the list by the IP took place on 28 June. [58] Another IP corrected it on 3 July. [59] Where was Adamgerber80 during those 5 days? His edit history shows he was active in those five days. [60] So why did he not revert the vandal IP? Why did he only step in to revert the vandalism-undoing IP? [61] Of course, Adamgerber80 can be given the benefit of the doubt. So I think this incident can be passed over Nauriya, especially in light of Adamgerber80's retrospective talkpage comment here. [62] But what can't be passed over is the behavior of User:Orientls on that same article. The real problem on Regional power is this edit [63] by Orientls. In it, Orientls basically blanked references added by Mar4d, as well as any old content about Pakistan's status as a regional power, without even providing an edit summary for explanation. This is a vandal as well as tendentious edit. Nor has Orientls been active on the article's talkpage nor had any activity on that article before that. What is interesting is that Orientls is an account which has only made 182 edits in the past 4 years [64] which raises socking and sleeper account questions. His edit history also looks aggressive. See for example his aggressive/incivil comment to Joshua Jonathan here [65] and his condescending demands (to which he has no right anyway) on TurboCop's talkpage here. [66] I would recommend no action, besides perhaps a mild warning, for Adamgerber80. The real problem is Orientls. He is the one admins will need to deal with.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 03:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf@ NadirAli: I haven't got time to look into this in any sort of detail, but if you believe that action against Orientls is needed it will likely be much better to file a separate enforcement action request regarding them as they are neither the filer nor the subject of this request. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by SdmaratheFiler never edited this board before or participated in the discussion or the article and has botched a number of edits while he was filing this report. [67] [68] This is a simple content dispute that has been inflamed by a number of editors preparing for tag team edit warring on an online forum, dedicated towards propaganda and bias. Mar4d used the term "vandalism" for describing a good faith edit. [69] NadirAli is distracting from one-side and blaming other side for their completely constructive edits and calling them a "vandal", "socking", "sleeper" and misrepresenting a valid concern [70] as "condescending demands". @ GoldenRing: have a look at the conduct of NadirAli here, he is again trying to deceive others for clearing editors of one side by engaging in gross misrepresentation, personal attacks and battleground mentality. Also have a look at his recent topic ban violation while he was engaging in same battleground mentality as evidenced by the edit summary he used. [71] I am surprised by the actions of Nauriya, [72] Mar4d [73] and NadirAli [74] that they are deliberately referring a good faith and potentially constructive edit [75] as "vandalism" which strikes me as battleground mentality. NadirAli's misrepresentations are large in quantity. He mentions that Adamgerber80 restored to a "vandalized" version of the page that removed Pakistan. If the NadirAli bothered to look into the diffs, he would realize that the "longstanding" version in fact DOES NOT LIST PAKISTAN as a regional power. Please avoid spreading falsehood NadirAli. The diffs are there for everyone to see :) Sdmarathe ( talk) 16:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by 2JoulesConfirmed sockpuppet's comments removed, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 2Joules ( talk) 08:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93I cannot recall previous interactions with the filer, but I've been on the periphery of this conflict for a while, and am acquainted with the other protagonists. Adamgerber generally keeps their head down and edits with due regard for source material and consensus, rather than blindly warring over content they dislike. In this particular instance, they have stated that the first revert was a mistake (an easy one to make) and I'm inclined to take that at face value. I would not recommend action here. All the rest of you, meanwhile, please go and read WP:NOTVAND. Calling people vandals when they aren't can get you blocked. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dI will just make an exception to Sdmarathe's claim regarding the longstanding version. As was noted in the section below regarding WP:TAGTEAM, the content which got removed has been present in the article along with sources for several years [78]. Please don't attempt to mislead fellow editors on something as obvious and easy to verify. Mar4d ( talk) 11:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by مھتاب احمدThe more I am reading the article histories the more I believe the former AE case did not successfully deal with all the problem editors. Thats why the nationalistic war has, instead of becoming history, has carried on to the remaining editors who escaped the mass topic ban. I think we can add RaviC and Razer2115 to the list of problem editors. RaviC's editing is hostile [79] and he has a habit of reverting others, who are adding non-contentious citations, with vague edit summaries claiming "POV" [80], just like My Lord. [81] Rzvas does the same. [82] The modus operandi of stonewalling is alike. Similar story with Razer2115 who ironically supported the same users at ARCA [83] who he opposed at ARE with aspersions. [84] Adamgerber80 also seems to do edit wars, for example broke 3RR with 4 reverts here [85] [86] [87] [88]. In some of his edit summaries he claimed the IP was a block evading sock. No evidence was provided for this claim. He also edit warred quite a bit on Sindhudesh. [89] [90] [91] — Preceding unsigned comment added by مھتاب احمد ( talk • contribs)
Result concerning Adamgerber80
|
| Blocked indefinitely as a normal administrative action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 13 July 2018 (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 Han Jo Jo
User hasn't (yet?) raised "intelligence" side of WP:ARBRI, but page is under discretionary sanctions regardless. No one makes arguments like these unless on a mission to push some superiority/inferiority narrative. Editor clearly WP:NOTHERE except to abuse WP for trollish crackpot "theories". See, scientists are just doing a WP:GREATWRONG because they aren't classifying us all as Homo sapiens sapiens africanus, H. s. s. caucasensis, etc. So WP:ADVOCACY must be used to stop Wikipedia, since its editors are a sociology conspiracy copy-pasting from fake/obsolete "sources" to hide the WP:TRUTH, which can be got from private e-mails (about something else entirely) that HJJ has in his secret stash. [sigh] We should waste zero more seconds entertaining this stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Notified: [108] Discussion concerning Han Jo JoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Han Jo JoStatement by (username)Statement by PaleoNeonateThanks for filing. I was only an observer of the discussion (although I indeed intervened once to assert that the discussion was undue) and it was clear that the editor had a particular obsession with this article, was determined to endlessly pursue discussion about a fictitious scientific debate in violation of WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. Resorting to attacks against the reliability of existing sources and competency, honesty and good faith of other editors when failing to reach consensus for their suggestions. The "Sad article, sad website" comment somehow appeared familiar... In any case, I agree about the WP:NOTHERE assessment. — Paleo Neonate – 00:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Han Jo Jo
|
| No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:43, 14 July 2018 (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 Orientls
Additional comments: What is interesting is that Orientls is an account which has only made less than 190 edits in the past 4 years [109] which raises socking and sleeper account questions. This diff also seems to indicate a botched attempt of meatpuppetry [110] where he inadvertently seems to have copy pasted something else, probably from a chat browser, which indicates that he is doing edits under instructions for somebody else. This diff [111] confirms my suspicions further. His edit history also looks aggressive. See for example his aggressive/incivil comment to Joshua Jonathan here [112] and his condescending demands (to which he has no right anyway) on TurboCop's talkpage here. [113]-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 00:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
To editor Sdmarathe: This unexplained blanking [115] of old content and sources was vandalism. There is no definition by which it can be called a "constructive edit". This blanking edit was even before Orientls came to the talkpage. This diff
[116] is incivility. Read these parts The message [117] to TurboCop is inappropriate because that disclousre is TurboCop's business and not Orientls'. We can't say its a case of impersonation with certainty when admins have not even decided on that yet. I also find your AE statement inappropriate.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 03:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Notified on talk page-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 00:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning OrientlsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OrientlsResponding as I have been asked below. I wanted to describe my edit [118] on Regional power in edit summary but I pressed "enter" key before I would type edit summary. I have checked before if there is a way to modify edit summary and I never found one. Nonetheless, it is apparent to everyone that the edit was an acknowledgement of the problems with the disputed content that were already described on talk page [119] and the disputed content should not be restored until consensus is reached. On talk page, I have properly backed my argument with high amounts of WP:RS. [120] There was no vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. This report is not making any sense and it is just a personal attack and a clear misrepresentation. I was editing the talk page where I pasted the content twice as my key got stuck and I later removed the duplicate parts. [121] In the last two diffs [122] [123] I raised appropriate concerns that you are not allowed to synthesize content or impersonate identity of other users. You would know better about these edits by reading the whole discussion and conclusion would support that my edits are well within policies and constitutes no violation. Orientls ( talk) 09:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Replying the below message, WP:NPOV is irrelevant because the main concern is with the quality of sources per WP:IRS. If there are quality of sources that support the scholarly consensus then the named country can be added. This source names a few "countries as regional powers" and Pakistan is not included. My comment [124] reads that there are many sources that talks about the regional powers and they don't name Pakistan as the regional power, while my other comment [125] reads that we can't add those sources that fails to describe the context and are contradicting the main article and scholarly consensus regarding the list of regional power. The logic that some sources make mere mention thus they are perfectly acceptable then would you support inclusion of India as Great power? Sources describe India as one, but not all. The same is case with Pakistan when it is about regional power or emerging power. Also read this source that thoroughly describes the issues with this statement, and let me know if you can produce similar source that has also thoroughly studied and described if Pakistan is a regional power. This is why, already I have stated below that RfC or feedback from WikiProjects is needed that how we should organize the list and even if there should be a list as paragraphs are more preferred. Orientls ( talk) 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBG
Statement by SdmaratheRegardless of my above message, NadirAli is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT that there was no vandalism. [126] There is nothing wrong with that message, and this other message was absolutely correct given that impersonation is not allowed and the suspicious account never addressed the impersonation obviously because the account's purpose was to engage in disruption while using identity of a long dormant account. I wonder why NadirAli feels this offended. We cant allow impersonation only because you feel otherwise and you are testing edges of your topic ban by talking about an account who's edits are not supposed to be discussed by you since you are topic banned from the entire subject. [127] NadirAli lacks the understanding of what is a vandalism and wants to treat everyone to be as deceptive as him or even a little bit, given his own history of siteban and topic ban evasion that was never brought into attention until very recently. [128] [129] NadirAli has been making these allegations against other editors [130] by falsely claiming that others are making edits for someone else and he never interacted the editor contrary to great deal of with NadirAli. [131] NadirAli is bordering on objectionable behavior - noting his gross WP:CIR issues and battleground mentality here alone, including the recent topic ban( link) violation where he was engaging in same disruptive battleground mentality per his edit summary. [132] Ping GoldenRing. I think we might need to consider some reprimand about this behavior . Sdmarathe ( talk) 03:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I note that NadirAli and Mar4d have now resorted to misrepresentation of sources on Talk:Regional power and Mar4d has misrepresented sources on Emerging power by making an edit [134] where none of the sources of Mar4d mentions Pakistan as "emerging power". @ Sandstein: Have you confirmed that if Orientls was notified of discretionary sanctions? NadirAli has not mentioned it though he knows it better. I have found that Orientls was not aware of them and according to you as well it is necessary prior the report. [135] Sdmarathe ( talk) 12:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dI'll try to keep this short. The content concerned (which was blanked unilaterally) has been present on the article for several years [136]. Until it was removed in drive-by IP vandalism. I won't comment on Adamgerber80's restoration of the IP, given he has claimed it was in error. But right after a user restored the article to its longstanding version, Sdmarathe's first ever edit on that page is to restore the IP's vandalism. Then Lorstaking makes his first ever edit, restoring the IP's edit with the misleading summary "your SCO/G20 references don't make point", even though it included old references. When the longstanding version was reinstated along with references, Orientls' first ever edit is blanking the section back to Lorstaking's version [137] [138] with no edit summary, which itself should be sanctionable. He did not explain his revert, and commented on the talk 13 hours later. All three of course have no history on the article, but edit the same topics, and added similar original research and personal opinions on the talk. Regarding NadirAli's concerns on WP:MEAT, at the very least there is substantive indication of WP:TAGTEAM which ought not to be ignored. I would like to see scrutiny of the named accounts in addition to monitoring of the article for WP:NPOV issues, and at the very least actionable measures with regard to Orientls to prevent conduct-related damage. Best regards, Mar4d ( talk) 10:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93I have now had a chance to review this. Orientls's behavior on Talk:Regional power is concerning. Their first comment shows a complete misunderstanding of NPOV: they say "We don't have to voice opinion of minority but mainstream", which is a grotesque misrepresentation of WP:DUE. It also provides the following quote "But it also reflects that secondary regional powers and entities such as ASEAN, Russia, South Korea and India have proved unwilling to chose between the two" from this source as evidence that Pakistan is not a regional power. Not only does that source not refer to Pakistan at all, it isn't even describing India as a regional power; indeed that quote says nothing about which entities are regional powers. If Orientls is unable to recognize this, it's a problem. Similarly, this source makes it clear that it isn't providing an exhaustive list of "regional powers". Again, Orientls's comment betrays no awareness of this [139]. Furthermore, Mar4d provided [140] a number of sources. I have spotchecked these sources; the ones I checked support the claim they are used for. Yet Orientls's only engagement with them has been to state "We can't treat opinion of Robert Pastor that is added to the footnote by the source itself[26] and Iraq is not a regional power, thus Pastor's opinion is extremely flawed and same goes for "Buzan, Barry; Wæver, Ole", it is flawed too" [141]. Textbook stonewalling. That said, Orientls has made all of 206 edits to Wikipedia. WP:ROPE would suggest only a warning at this point. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Code16Agree with Vanamonde93, leaving aside the content dispute (which is a whole separate can of worms), Orientls's actions are indeed concerning, but can be attributed to a lack of experience. Erasing reliable sources by claiming they are a "minority view" seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:FRINGE. All FRINGE claims are minority claims, but not all minority claims are FRINGE. There is a difference, and it is an important one for new editors to understand and respect. Since the user is inexperienced, I suggest he be given some advice on this issue by an admin and perhaps a warning. Code16 ( talk) 13:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Orientls
|
| No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:44, 14 July 2018 (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 Mar4d
WP:ARBIPA: Per
[142], topic banned from conflicts between India and Pakistan, with a warning that "
I don't see why Mar4d is even editing this subject of Regional power. It largely borders and is sometimes focused on India-Pakistan conflict when it comes to adding Pakistan to this article. Misconduct is more than just violating topic ban:
Mar4d was already warned by NeilN in June 8 to " This seems like a recurring issue of a long term problematic attitude of Mar4d. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 04:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mar4dStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mar4dStatement by power~enwikiI don't see any of the three diffs listed as violating the TBAN imposed. Linking to an SPI report, or replying to a comment which mentions an India-Pakistan conflict (without discussing that conflict in response) are not violations. While the dispute at Regional power is mostly a content dispute, the behavior at Talk:Regional power may need the attention of admins willing to impose Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SdmaratheTopic ban extends to talk page discussions as well as referring anything that focuses the area from the user is restricted, be it large or minor in form, it is a topic ban violation. @ Power~enwiki: The reports NadirAli and Nauriya had filed above are closed/closing with no action. [166] [167] Both of these editors are on verge of getting blocked indefinitely for their sock puppetry [168] [169] and Nauriya recently started an SPI against 4 opposing editors which included me and the SPI has been closed as insufficient without even a CU. [170] To sum it up, NadirAli and Nauriya are leaving, and only Mar4d is here and he is violating topic ban, calling good-faith edits a vandalism, misrepresenting sources, [171] trying to the last word on talk page while turning them into battleground and that's all after that stringent warning as mentioned already, [172] that any more disruption or testing edges of the ban would lead to topic ban or indefinite block. To add further, I went through a number of discussions on Talk:Kargil War, Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Talk:Battle of Chawinda. These discussions also involved Adamgerber, 1990s guy, Orientls, and they were really smooth and finally ended up supporting the universal consensus regarding these conflicts. You need to think that why those pages didn't had any conflict but only this one article (Regional power) is having the conflict while those India-Pakistan war articles are having no conflicts despite major changes? The answer is pretty obvious. Sdmarathe ( talk) 05:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by VanamondeThis again? The behavior at Talk:Regional power and Talk:Emerging power is bad, and probably requires sanctions on multiple users. It also isn't the best place for t-banned users to be. That said, The diffs as presented are not topic-ban violations. Mar4d is not permitted to discuss the India-Pakistan conflict. He is quite free to participate in discussions on more general issues, even if other participants are discussing the India-Pakistan conflict. It's also worth noting that the t-ban has been brought up in those discussions far more than necessary. In the AE discussion which resulted in the mass topic ban, I had warned that the conflict was likely to spill over into other IPA areas. That's what seems to be happening here. In sum, if sanctions are considered, I would recommend looking at broader topic bans/new topic bans rather than a block. Vanamonde ( talk) 06:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by OrientlsRegional power in the context of India and Pakistan concerns major subjects including the Indo-Pakistani conflict. Initial argument was if Pakistan is mentioned by majority of sources as a regional power and the later argument was about if the sources make efforts to describe the emergence of Pakistan as regional power. Mar4d replied to the sources added by Sdmarathe, detailing India-Pakistani conflicts with relation to emergence as regional power. Mar4d said: "your arguments and sources unfortunately are completely deficient, and therefore have been rejected." [173] Sources have described that India emerged as regional power as a result of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 because Pakistan was divided. [174] [175] [176] [177] I don't see sources that would make efforts to describe Pakistan as a regional power and/or provide significant details about Pakistan's emergence as a regional power. Sources are meant to be detailed and descriptive, more than simply giving a passing mention. Some sources support that India is the only regional power in South Asia. [178] I stopped participating in the talk page because Mar4d has been replying without addressing these issues. This has also happened earlier on Talk:Umayyad campaigns in India#Infobox where he was ignoring every reliable source on the subject. I plan to resolve this by organizing an RfC or seek feedback of multiple WikiProjects. Orientls ( talk) 10:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dConcerning Regional power, please see my comments in the section above. Also, I have not violated any restrictions. Happy to respond if any admins have questions. Mar4d ( talk) 12:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Code16Mentioning the user's topic ban is irrelevant to this "regional power" topic, and seems to be an effort to stifle debate, which is bordering on bad-faith. I suggest that all editors focus on the content and stop attacking and launching arbitration cases against each other ad-hominem. Code16 ( talk) 13:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Mar4d
|
| No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Sdmarathe
Sdmarathe's behavior at Talk:Regional power is in breach of WP:BATTLE. There is an ongoing dispute about whether Pakistan should be listed as a regional power. Stating that it should be listed, Mar4d provided 8 sources: [179]. I spot-checked some of the sources, and they did support the content Mar4d wished to add. These sources were provided partially in response to Sdmarathe asking for them. Sdmarathe's responses have been discouraging. He has indulged in speculation [180], made claims about source misrepresentation [181], and tried to use lists of other regional powers as evidence (a logical fallacy) [182]. Most importantly, he has repeatedly discounted the sources previously presented [183], [184], [185], and then slipped into original research: [186]. While this may seem to be a content dispute, the problem here is not that Sdmarathe has not accepted Mar4d's version of the text. There would be no problem if they were engaging with the material. The problem is that Sdmarathe persistently refused to engage with the sources provided in response to his request, and instead indulged in original research and textbook stonewalling. This behavior wasn't limited to that discussion. Their attitude at SPI and AN has been extremely combative, [187], [188], [189], and a warning from Cullen328 [190] made no difference to their behavior [191]. In sum, Sdmarathe is treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and is not displaying the level of decorum expected in an area under discretionary sanctions.
To be clear; I don't give two hoots whether Pakistan is listed as a regional power or not. Personally, I think the dispute is silly in the extreme; geopolitical power exists on a spectrum, and any such classification is going to engender dispute. I am not exculpating the "other side" in this dispute; the behavior of Mar4d and Nauriya is far from ideal, and in their haste they have obfuscated what some sources say. I'm not excusing Lorstaking and Orientls either. But Sdmarathe's behavior has been a problem, and needs to be looked at: the other users can be dealt with in other sections. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SdmaratheStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SdmaratheFirst set of diffs concern content dispute, as far as I know they are not handled at AE. Still I would like to make a few things clear. First, my arguments are basically policy-based and similar to those put forward by many other editors on that discussion page. I have been analyzing the sources that have been presented so far in accordance with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, a core criteria for evaluating sources. The crux of my argument lies here; the sources provided by Mar4d completely fail the aforementioned criteria since they are making passing mention of Pakistan, just like the sources make passing mention of Venezuela, [192] North Korea, [193] and many other non-regional powers, without actually explaining in detail how and why Pakistan is a regional power; while, on the other hand, I have provided many reliable sources that describe how Pakistan is not a regional power and completely refutes Mar4d's arguments (e.g. [194]) I would not prefer to go into the details regarding the misrepresentation of sources by Mar4d and NadirAli, but just mention a few diffs that illustrate my point: [195] [196] [197] Also noting the existence of reliable sources rejecting Pakistan as a regional power, [198] it is even more necessary to take into account policies like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Generally, it is possible to find two or more sources supporting many types of statements, including pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's why we need sources which completely comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. ScrapIronIV had just restored the version that supported my comments on talk page with edit summary "Per talk page". [199] I understand the concerns. I can only assure the admins that I will be more careful in future, especially in what I say. Also, it must be noted that on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanali.007, my responses were made in response to misleading comments of Nauriya on SPI, [200] and Nauriya had filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RaviC against me in the form of personal attack and harassment. The suspicion, whether it was filed by Nauriya himself or it was provided to him has been raised by an uninvolved editor like Kautilya3, and patrolling admin Abecedare has also talked about it on the SPI. On WP:AN, Nauriya made more false allegations and personal attacks against me and others like, "personnel grudge and vendetta from Indian editors who themselves are involved in sock puppetry and edit warring". [201] This is completely untrue. I will urge the participating admins to check my recent interactions on much more controversial articles like Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox, Talk:Kargil War#Result in infobox, where you won't see a single problem with my conduct. I was mostly concerned about the aforementioned SPI and those continued personal attacks from Nauriya. I acknowledge that this doesn't justify my behavior--but like I said, I will be more careful in what I say. I had already realized after the second reply of Cullen238 [202] to leave it alone and that's why I chose not to engage any further and I started editing something else as my contributions show. [203] I rest my case. Sdmarathe ( talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by OrientlsReplying the ping here. All I have to add is that Sdmarathe is correct with his assessment of sources on Regional power and it is true that the sources in this context are meant to be descriptive per WP:IRS. Mere mentions don't fulfill that necessary requirement. Sources must describe the emergence of Pakistan as a regional power, same way sources describe the emergence of India as a regional power. There should be no contradictions against the generally accepted names. Sdmarathe has only asked for such quality sources while provinding such sources for backing his argument. To make it more simple, can you find a particular date or year when Pakistan is said to have been emerged as a regional power? For India it is 1971. [204] I think you have ignored Mar4d [205] and NadirAli [206] incorrectly claiming that "all" sources mention Pakistan as regional power. There are mere mentions of Pakistan, but also omissions as regional power in many lists, while other sources saying India to be the only regional power in South Asia [207] and/or finding issues with the disputed statement. [208] Such contradictions are concerning and that needs to be addressed properly. Like I have mentioned above, RfC or assistance from WikiProject will help us to decide a standard of sources and if the list needs to be replaced with paragraphs. SPI is still open and unhelpful comments are swiftly removed by the clerks there. If you are observing problems with statements of Sdmarathe then you can ping Bbb23 or Abecedare and request to deal with them. I disagree that his "attitude at SPI and AN has been extremely combative". It was not a very ideal one but you are ignoring that Nauriya filed an extremely flawed SPI [209] with apparent motive to get rid each of the opponents around. I don't see a logic for stoking this sort of rhetoric. I prefer ignoring such reports even though I was also falsely accused of sock puppetry by Nauriya who has assumed bad faith of the highest order. [210] In these circumstances you can expect worse if not better. Bigger concern is that why Nauriya is not addressing the concerns regarding his lack of prior interaction with any of the editors? To be fair, such issues are not really significant and should be best discussed on the relevant talk page since the both discussions (SPI and Regional power) are still open. Orientls ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Code16I will comment on a statement Sdmarathe made above, which indicates bad faith in the context of this dispute, and moreover, a dangerous redefinition of WP guidelines: QUOTE "Generally, it is possible to find two or more sources supporting many types of statements, including pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's why we need sources which completely comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources." END QUOTE. The user is claiming that this argument applies to ignoring sources like Samuel P. Huntington, who is one of the leading scholars in the field?! Wow. If this user was unaware of the difference between FRINGE and RS, I would chalk this up to a misunderstanding. But in this case, he seems to be fully aware of the difference, and has proposed a new synthesized guideline which converts any RS into FRINGE, arbitrarily, based on his own judgement. That is a major red-flag, and should merit more than a mere warning. Code16 ( talk) 13:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Sdmarathe
|
| No action. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2018 (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 Seraphim System
In addition, user violated third ARBPIA bullet as well: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."
Discussion concerning Seraphim SystemStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Seraphim SystemNone of the content in that edit has anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Turkey isn't an Arab country. This has been discussed here before and the result has usually been that the content actually has to be about the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Especially on a broad article like this one, where the article is not actually covered by ARBPIA). And I just want to add that I am not even trying to work on conflict articles, but some of the articles I'm working on like 1973 oil crisis and Terrorism may have some overlap and I try to be careful about it and self-revert when I think it's relevant. I will self-revert here also, but only if admins decide it's within ARBPIA's scope, because I sincerely don't think it is. I first encountered this user when I proposed to move Yom Kippur War to Arab-Israeli War of 1973, ever since then he has followed me around to revert me on multiple articles, some that he had never previously worked on like here removing sourced content with edit summary "restoring sources" and here adding citation needed tags to content that is already sourced (I responded by adding two more sources). I just don't think this edit falls within the scope of ARBPIA, and it's frustrating to have someone following me around and starting ARBPIA-related disputes on articles that are mostly outside the conflict area. I already stopped working on 1973 oil crisis when this happened, which I was hoping to nominate for GA, but he keeps following me from one article to another. This complaint seems like part of the same pattern. Seraphim System ( talk) 22:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC) @ DavidBena: I actually did not remove anything for any reason related to ARBPIA and I didn't remove any content about Gaza or Israel or Arab-Israeli relations. I'm not sure if the editors who are objecting to the removal are doing so based on a thorough understanding of the academic sources available. State-sponsorship is not about inclusion on the FTO list — there has been a lot of academic literature published. A subject like this with an abundance of academic sources available shouldn't have been sourced to media sources in the first place—these sources do not even discuss state sponsorship of terrorism. I'm open to discussion, and I'm sorry this has escalated to another routine ARBPIA dispute. I'm entirely indifferent as to whether the content is included in another article. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by DavidbenaI find it strange that our co-editor, Seraphim System, defends his deletion of well-sourced material in an article entitled State-sponsored terrorism, and yet claims that the edit had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, for which reason he deleted it. I'm astounded, insofar that while the article does NOT limit itself to the Arab-Israeli conflict (ARBPIA), it does treat on terrorism in a general way, including what happens in Gaza under Hamas rule. The edit, therefore, was applicable and should not have been deleted by Seraphim System. Davidbena ( talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizRelations with Hamas (hosting a HQ, etc.) is clearly ARBPIA related, Hamas being a Palestinian movement that is a side to the conflict - this is ARBPIA not because of Turkey, but due to Hamas. Icewhiz ( talk) 03:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlishARBPIA scope seems pretty firm to me, Hamas being deeply embedded in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Whether Turkey qualifies or not is immaterial (though it does; it's an 82% Muslim country (the rest being almost entirely secular, not Jewish or Christian), barely on any kind of speaking terms with Israel at all, and threatening to break off all diplomatic relations with Israel again – i.e., to once again be allied with Arabs and the rest of the Muslim world against Israel – since 2017). The disruptive nature of nuking the entire section of source information because Seraphim System prefers "some academic sources", and then editwarring to re-delete it all is clearly within DS range. The fact that Seraphim System doesn't seem to recognize that this kind of thing is disruptive, and just wants to wikilawyer about whether the page qualifies under ARBPIA then disclaim involvement in the topic area, is a strong indication such behavior will continue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwikiSimilar to Iran-Israel, Turkey-Israel relations generally do not fall under the ARBPIA sanctions, but they can when they relate to support for Hamas. The page State-sponsored terrorism does not appear to explicitly be under any page-level Discretionary Sanctions, though content on the page might fall under several different sanctions (American Politics, Syrian Civil War, India-Pakistan). As discussion of the content dispute is now proceeding on the talk page, I see no reason for any action against any editor, though there may be a need for additional page-restrictions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 06:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mhhossein@ Black Kite: That GMAE is not something new by the mentioned user. You might want to see this archived AE report, specially [212] and [213]. -- Mhhossein talk 13:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by [username]Result concerning Seraphim System
|