This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Yeah I was too hot-headed and edit-warred a lot. I've cooled off and have a firmer understanding of the revert rules. Plus I am under a 0rrr for about another 2 months and than a 1rrr for another three, so I will not be engaging in any wars. I have not had any issues since coming back regarding edit-warring or clashing with other editors. I have no intention of starting any fight over this sensitive topic, just plan to patch up pages and make the odd addition. Since Newslinger has not responded to my request on his page, which is understandable given the circumstances, I am asking for it to occur here. Hope this clears things up. Thanks. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 02:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking over their history, I think 3Kingdoms may have breached their 0RR restriction recently; very shortly after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction, they went through a large number of articles to partially or completely remove this text ( [4], many others.) That text had been the subject of a revert war (often with IPs) on at least some of those articles; see eg. [5]. The full list of articles would be a massive number of diffs but can easily be seen in 3Kingdoms' edit history. And 3Kingdoms knows this was a past dispute, in a way that makes it hard to imagine they were unaware that they were reverting someone - when challenged about the rationale for removing the text, they cited a (nonexistent) consensus to omit it, which by definition requires that it was added and removed previously. I feel that this is enough to at least seriously consider revoking 3Kingdoms' appeal and re-instating their ban; but it's certainly enough of a reason to not further remove their restrictions given what they did immediately after getting the previous one removed, ie. instantly diving into controversial topic areas and removing massive swaths of text.
See also eg. [6] [7] - there are several others; some of 3Kingdoms' first actions after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction and a promise to be less hot-headed were to go down a list of articles (largely related to abortion, Catholicism, and right-wing politics) and remove large swaths of text. I am sympathetic to the fact that for a 0RR in particular we have to be cautious about the "every removal is technically a revert" logic, and I do accept the need to fix similar problems on multiple articles, but someone who just got back from a ban by promising to be less hot-headed and who is now asking for another sanction to be relaxed needs to be on their best behavior. To make these sweeping removals of clearly-controversial content that they could reasonably know had been previously contested, often with no explanation, immediately after being let back in, and then to come to AE and to ask for sanctions to be relaxed further, seems like a bit much. And saying that they were too hot-headed in the past but are calmer now doesn't seem particularly compatible with this.
I will also point out that 3Kingdoms' previous appeal for this restriction looked very similar to this one (they were blocked for revert-warring elsewhere after that), and in the appeal for their first indefinite block, before that, they said essentially the same thing. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The probblem isnt understanding the revert rules, thats the bare minimum of being able to count to 1 or 3. The problem is understanding what edit-warring is, that reverting once a day is still edti-warring, that attempting to enforce your view through reversions is edit-warring. The problem was the total disdain for anybody else's view in any editing conflict. Thats what needs to be shown to have changed, not that he is now willing to count to 1. nableezy - 14:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Abrvagl is formally warned for edit warring. Any further instances, including slow motion edit warring, will result in sanctions. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Abrvagl
Abrvagl repeatedly tries to remove the 2020 Ganja missile attacks being a response for the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert from the lead, despite there being multiple sources confirming this, as has been explained to Abrvagl many time on the talk page. Abrvagl also tries to add expressions of MOS:DOUBT further down in the article by writing, "According the Armenian sources, Ganja was hit in response to...". Eurasianet is clearly not an Armenian source, and the article leaves no doubt about what Abrvagl is trying to dispute: "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja." [8]. The constant WP:SEALIONING of the issue on the talk page, edit-wars, and refusal to drop the stick (doing the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edit even after a month) leaves me no choice but to bring this to AE's attention. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AbrvaglStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AbrvaglI NEVER removed sourced information. 1.14 April 2022 [15] [16] I rephrased the statement. Reverted by ZaniGiovanni [17]. 2. 16 April 2022, I reviewed the case in details, and identified following: - The statement was added by banned [18] user Steverci. Diff: [19]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR. - Provided sources didnot support the statement. All sources are either primary or just quotes primary sources. The statement is WP:SYNTH and not in line with WP:NPOV. Considering the above, I removed the statement, and in detail explained myself on the talk-page
[20]. Zani replied
[21], but his reply was ignoring my points. So I wrote even more detailed explanation for him
[22]. Number of times I tried to get solid justifications and answers to my concerns from the Zani
[23]
[24]
[25], but Zani continued repeating 3. On 29 April 2022 [26] I reviewed case again, ensured that statement definitely violates Wikipedia policies, and removed it again. On 30 April 2022 ZaniReverted edit [27]. 4. On 31 April 2022 [28] ZaniGiovanni added new source. As new source was supporting the statement partially, I proposed a consensus [29], but Zani ignored me for 3 weeks. 5. On 22 May 2022 I rephrased the statement in line with WP:OR and WP:NPOV and according to last source provided by Zani, in order to reach consensus. Also removed unrelated sources [30]. I left a note on the talk-page [31]. I attributed it to Armenian sources, as an article in the body referring to the Armenian sources. Then I was going to take it to the NPOV/noticeboard because experts who conducted investigation do not support above statement HRW Amnesty. The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral. ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [32] and personal attacks [33] [34]. I observe the same behaviour against me: 1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing. 2.
Here, I
raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani
responded: ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [35] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN [36]. He stopped only after warned [37]. Here [38] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times. Here [39] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN [40] and RfC [41]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry. Reply 2 Rosguill, This is not a case of WP:BRD. The statement was added by the Steverci, who knew that majority of the editors are against his edits on Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks#2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, and it was left unnoticed for a while. However, that was not the reason for my edits. My point was that the initial statement was WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Provided sources didn't support the statement at all. Later, Zani provided a Eurasianet article that partially supported the statement, based on which, as I explained earlier, tried to reach a temporary consensus. I did not remove but rephrased my first and last edits [42] [43]. The last edit was done after I made a consensus proposal on the talk-page but was ignored for weeks. Only then I made an edit to see if there will be any positive or negative reactions to my proposal. I also left a note on the Talk-Page about that. By the way, I summarized my point on the Talk-Page [44] of the article. It is not for this report, but you can look at it to see the full picture behind my decisions. I want to assure you that I had no intent to edit war, and my active participation on the talk-page also supports that. Edit wars are disruptive and never help reach consensus, and we should avoid them. I always tried to stick to the 3 revert rule. From now on I will do my best to stick to the one revert rule, to eliminate misunderstanding. However, I'm not sure what to do when another editor is ignoring me or reverting my edits without proper justification. However, assuming good faith and keeping everything civil is as important as avoiding edit wars. Reviewing this case, please consider that ZaniGiovanni continuously breaking civility rules. He often gives personal remarks and uses hostile language. This creates a hostile environment, inflames disputes and ruins the collaborative atmosphere. It is visible even from his replies on this report: "groundless and disgusting rant you posted", "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions", "What the actual f*ck is happening", and examples I brought earlier. All editors are equal in Wikipedia. I may be right or wrong; I might make mistakes, which is normal. We are all humans, and we are not perfect. But it does not matter if the editor is wrong or right or makes a mistake; no one has a right to use hostile language and mock editors for their views or errors or past. I find the tone/words that Zani uses insulting. -- Abrvagl ( talk) 09:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by Armatura#diff It seems that user Abrvagl is struggling to grasp the meaning of BLD, simply reverting when he disagrees, even when he already knows there will be disagreement. I would support a warning at this stage (hoping he truly doesn't yet understand well how Wikipedia operates, being a relatively new user) and if he keeps beating the dead horse as he has done here in a discussion innvolving myself, he may need another review. --Armatura ( talk) 17:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Abrvagl
|
The consensus is that the addition of a reference was not a violation. The second edit likely was, but is a very technical and clearly not malicious violation. Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Rp2006
Also see this relevant discussion on talk page [45]
Discussion concerning Rp2006Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rp2006Statement by Geogene (filer)Pinging @ Firefangledfeathers: and @ ScottishFinnishRadish: since they participated in that user talkpage thread I linked to. Geogene ( talk) 00:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishOh good. I noticed this back when it happened, and reached out to a couple editors that would be more likely to be seen as neutral to see if they would bring it up to Rp2006, and failing that, I ignored it and hoped it would go away, which apparently it didn't. To address a couple of the points here:
They've made fewer than 100 mainspace edits since the topic ban, and at least three of those edits have been topic ban violations. A warning here that they should probably put a bit more care into not violating their topic ban, and clarifying the ban itself would probably be helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Rp2006
|
Blocked as a sock -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Спидвагона
Extended confirmed restriction
N/A
N/A as a general sanction, but informed here. pretty obviously a sock account, but no matter, should be blocked as an account whose single purpose is to violate an arbitration restriction.
Every single edit by this user since registering has been a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction.
Discussion concerning СпидвагонаStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by СпидвагонаStatement by (username)Result concerning Спидвагона
|
Blocked; nothing more to do -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 73.158.47.129
The IP editor claims to be the article subject, but the article subject is blocked from using Wikipedia. This appears to be a case of block evasion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 73.158.47.129Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 73.158.47.129Hello, I posted on a discussion page that was directly about me, and immediately identified myself and the ban. As for the ban, I was never told why I was banned other than "offline & online conduct." I was never even told I was even being investigated. I had no notice negative action would be taken against me. In fact i had reported misconduct against me, and the investigation apparently pivoted to *me* at some point. I was given no warnings, ever. My account was in use for over a decade with no prior warnings & only praise. There was no specific ban/block before a wider ban/block, there was no temporary ban before an indefinite ban. was never provided an explanation of why I was banned or how to appeal, or if I could appeal. I was told I was banned from editing, but it was unclear if that meant only editing articles or if that also applied to administrative matters, like an article deletion discussion. The order was vague and overbroad, and I've struggled to interpret it. It does seem quite unfair to prevent me from weighing in on a deletion discussion about the article about me, without explicitly telling me the ban applies to administration discussions as well as articles. In fact, I was given notice and this text box to edit as part of this enforcement notice, which is confusing if I'm supposed to be banned. Why would I get notice or an opportunity to provide input, if i was prohibited from providing input? I worry that I'm violating the ban again by even responding now here. 73.158.47.129 ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 73.158.47.129
|
No violation. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Seggallion
Here, the response also indicates awareness about reverts
The editor when initially requested to self revert expressed confusion about how one edit was a breach of 1RR. When eventually explained here the response was to blank the page. When given a final chance to self revert here the response was again to blank with edit summary "Did not breach anything. Why threaten like this?". This pattern may by now be familiar, an editor reaches 500 edits and immediately jumps into the middle of an ongoing content dispute.
Discussion concerning SeggallionStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SeggallionWhy was my name wrong in some sections here? I made one edit to the article and one edit is just one revert. I was told by Selfstudier on April 9th to wait until I had 500 edits before more Arab-Israel edits. I had around 400 edits then. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1081780290&oldid=1081732694 I followed instructions and waited. At the end of May I saw a requested move advertised on the al-Aqsa article and I voted on it, just like I voted on other advertised moves. I checked before voting that I met the rule. The changes to the naming have been opposed by other users too, I have been watching this pair of articles since the requested move. I didn't wait until 500 to edit the topic. I was told to wait by Selfstudier after I edited a church in April that he thought was in the topic. I also made a request in January to edit an article in topic I was blocked from. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ramla&diff=prev&oldid=1065377343 In this month I saw the Aqsa move advertised. Also fixing errors like novellist https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Marie_Linde&diff=prev&oldid=1065211857 scheluded https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pedro_Antonio_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1065794748 Borwn https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abortion_in_Mississippi&diff=prev&oldid=1072564164 Mississipi, not p but pp, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nate_Dogg&diff=prev&oldid=1072762154 Is not a game. Can someone scrutinize Selfstudier's reverts and threat on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092010968&oldid=1092010433 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092012794&oldid=1092012058 I felt under the gun with last one. Statement by NableezyThat's a single revert, it does not matter how many edits were reverted if it happened in a single revert. However there is blatant extended confirmed permissions gaming, with the overwhelming majority of their first 500 edits being single byte additions and removals. Then their 501st edit is to a restricted topic's requested move here. Curiously, the single byte changes started to pick up steam right around when this happened. nableezy - 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323It is a single reversion, but by undoing the work of two other editors, it is also in essence a restoration of a prior version. The basic requirement with any revert, not least a restoration effectively rollbacking edits by multiple other editors, is a fairly fulsome explanation of the reasons why it is being done, and
Statement by OnceinawhileI would also like to discuss what can be done about 500/30 gaming. Coming up to 500 edits through mass automated / semi-automated / very minor edits is not consistent with the spirit of the rule. This editor made >350 edits in Jan/Feb this year, by finding and replacing common typos. A useful job of course, but the interest in clean-up edits disappears at 500. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by ShrikeFirst of all the premise of this filing is frivolous the filer is experienced enough to understand what revert is. Regrading the gaming it seems that users has continued to do minor edits in other topics contrary to what claimed here so it doesn't seem like gaming to me -- Shrike ( talk) 04:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBellaSeggallion, could you explain why you didn't sign your comments above and you formatted the links so poorly? You displayed a deep knowlege of the links formating (note "here" added) back in February [55] and you also nicely signed your comment. What happened? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Seggallion
|
Two edits with the discretionary sanctions alert issued after the first does not warrant a sanction. Zusty001 is advised to discuss issues on article talk and not repeat challenged edits in a topic under discretionary sanction. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Zusty001
From the edit summary at
[58] they knew they are fighting against
WP:CONSENSUS, nevertheless chose to put What does it mean that the meaning of pseudoscience is oblique? What does it mean that it is occulted? Who treated pseudoscience as monolithic and what's the evidence that they did so? The talk page of the article is crammed with explanations about WP:PSCI, so I felt no need of adding extra explanations. The problem with Steiner's fans is that they have a thoroughly in-universe view and no longer know how mainstream science views Steiner. But I once met an important Anthroposophist who was fully aware that the Institute for Beautiful Sciences (Schöne Wissenschaften) sounds completely ridiculous to outsiders. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zusty001Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zusty001SeraphimBlade, my reasons were explained essentially in the comments of the relevant edits. If this is not deemed sufficient, and if these comments can be viewed anywhere (It appears cut off in the public view of the edit), then I do not think I should try strenuously to achieve some victory in a litigatory struggle against a user of this site far more prolific and powerful than myself. I would explain myself more elsewhere outside of this context, but here I will, for the most part, simply note that in the wide array of citations attached to the section initially removed by myself, there are a great many in which 'expertise' or authority is simply not there, even in some academic sense. (The latter part may be the more considerable here. I noted the use of Dan Dugan in my original comment as a particularly striking example, whom is also used as a main and positive, or encyclopedic, source for another section of the article which I have not edited.) I do not regret noting such 'expertise' in quotations, here or in my edit. As for the 'anonymous' edits you note, I should say that they are not my own. Statement by (username)Result concerning Zusty001
|
LearnIndology is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed ( WP:ARBIPA). Johnuniq ( talk) 11:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Request concerning LearnIndology
LearnIndology (LI) is not a prolific editor: they are often inactive for weeks and engages in routine anti-vandalism, maintenance tasks etc. This necessitates a scrutiny into their activities across a long span of time, which might be unnecessary otherwise. The evidence presented above supports that the losses accrued by letting LI edit in this area — reduction in content accuracy as well as waste of editorial resources in combating his POV-laden activities — outweighs the positives. I wish to emphasize that LI is cautious enough to not run afoul of any bright-line rule but nonetheless, tests the boundaries as evident from the 3RRN example. Multiple established editors — me, Kautilya3, Fowler&Fowler, RegentsPark, Joshua Jonathan, and maybe others — have warned him about NPOV violations but they show little effect.
Discussion concerning LearnIndologyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LearnIndologyNearly all of the diffs are dating back to 2020 and 2021 and concern some usual content disputes and some include misleading claims such that I created this article. I find this reporting to be lacking any sense. Though I would still comment on the recent diffs. 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy was created [61] over 28 hours after Nupur Sharma (politician) was created. [62] It was being redirected to Nupur Sharma because it was a complete POVFORK created in violation of copyrights per WP:CWW. Just compare these two versions: [63], [64]. Only difference was the creation of more sub-sections and some quotefarming, but that was also insignificant. The discussion on Talk:2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy#Opinion of Dutch politician and Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability shows that I am regularly responsive and abiding by the consensus. My edits aren't even violating WP:SYNTH like your recent edits on this page, let alone justifying them like you are doing. ARE shouldn't be misused just because you disagree with some of my edits. LearnIndology ( talk) 11:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Abecedare: With this message I was saying that either we should keep statements like that of Dutch politicians and others, or we should only keep statements related to the foreign ministry and the main administration. At that time there was no particular criteria set, and selective removal was not helping in setting consensus this is why I only restored the stable version with that regard. This is not mind-boggling because ultimately the consensus supported my view, contrary to the view of those who wanted to only remove the statement of the Dutch politician but keep statements of politicians who are not even notable. @ Bishonen: There is clearly no doubt that I did a number of mistakes at Romila Thapar dispute in Feb 2021 but I learned a lot from that and have made more than 1,300 edits since. By saying "per discussion" on this edit summary I was talking about this discussion where I had mentioned the sources. While there was a content dispute at the Religion of the IVC article, I was correct with each of my messages there as it can be read here but TrangaBellam's main objection was that the article is a POV fork and should be a redirect. [66] The ultimate consensus was against this view. LearnIndology ( talk) 01:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Post-filing statements and responses by TrangaBellam
Statement by VanamondeResponding to Abecedare's ping. I do not recall whether I have interacted with LI in a non-administrative capacity. I'm traveling and have limited internet, so I cannot research it either; so I'm posting here, out of an abundance of caution. I find numerous diffs here to be seriously concerning. This diff (The Mughal Harem) is appalling; in an experienced editor, that alone would be something I'd recommend sanctions for. The double standards on display here (Nupur Sharma's remarks) equally so. I recall some of the dispute about links between the IVC and Hinduism; the diffs here substantiate my memory that LI was more interested in digging up any source that supported what he wanted to see, rather than dispassionately summarizing the sources. A similar problem is evident here (Raksha Bandhan); I would guess, though I cannot be sure, that LI began be googling the sentence he wished to add to the article, rather than by reading the best sources about the subject. Given that this is a long-term issue, with innumerable warnings along the way, a TBAN seems very necessary. I see the crux of the issue being the application of the labels "Hindu" and "Indian" to various aspects of culture and history; but I don't see a clean way to delineate a TBAN around those. I believe any of the proposed TBANs ought to work, but my recommendation would be "history and politics within ARBIPA". I don't think the line around history is very fuzzy in this case; conversely, the Indian-not-Indian debate has been a problem area, and I suspect it'd lead to more wikilawyering. 22:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Statement by (username)Result concerning LearnIndology
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
I'm following up on this as I find Abrvagl is still being problematic and needs AE's attention. The first diff is a WP:HOUNDING by them, where they randomly "jumped" into a discussion between me and another user. This confused me at the time but I tried to not pay attention to it. However, because of their recent repeated hounding, I couldn't just restrain myself and ignore it; after my edits yesterday in Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, made this edit in the article among others, hours after me. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language [79], which isn't an improvement and shouldn't have been added. This kind of behavior with hounding is unpleasant to me and discourages me as an editor.
Third diff; some time after the previous AE case, they left this comment in the same discussion, which I believe breaches WP:PACT and WP:GAMING and I'll explain why shortly; considering the fact that Talk:2020_Ganja_missile_attacks#The_missile_attacks_happened_one_week_after_Azerbaijan_began discussion was linked in that previous AE case and Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;
And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.. Please also keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me on the talk page ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Seriously Zani, you could have at least tried to talk to me before dragging me into this unnecessary AE only 9 days after your last report.
1.
29 May 2022 This page and talk page are in my watchlist. I saw a conversation between two editors and shared my own view on the conversation. How is it Hounding?
WP:HOUNDING clearly states: if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behaviour
, my comment did not mean any of that. it was aimed to help conversation. It is really strange to hear such concerns. If my comment is hounding, what is this then, where you jumped into a discussion with
+1,879 bytes of text and raising personal remarks about me? I believed you did that with good intentions because I assumed good faith every time you joined discussions like this and expected the same from you. But it seems I shouldn't have.
2.
20 June 2022 No hounding or else here. Page is on my watch list. It brought my attention because there were recent changes. I actually expanded and improved the article. Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week,
- as I mentioned earlier
[88], I had emergency surgery and was having a rest. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language
-
[89] is the official webpage of State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, which is perfectly fine for statistical information about missing persons, especially considering that I correctly attributed it in the article. If you believe that source is not RS for that information, you could have talked to me or at least raise it to RS board.
3.
21 June 2022 - not sure how me asking you to stop writing personal remarks on the talk pages and informing you that we need to take this case to the dispute resolution is
WP:PACT and
WP:GAMING. Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;
I never said that Eurasianet is not reliable. You actually cut the conclusion out of the context which may lead to misunderstanding. Here is the full comment
[90] read the paragraphs 9 and 11 about Euroasianet. And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.
- Zani, making personal remarks on the article talk page is not appropriate, I and other editors
[91]
[92] already told you that many times. If you want to discuss anything unrelated to the article you are always welcome to use the editor's talk page. keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me
- this third-party editor did not sufficiently substantiate his comment
[93], as I already told him
[94].
Reply 2
Rosguill I am not sure why Zani brought up diffs which are more than 2 months old and was not even related to him to say that I am hounding.
Diffs mentioned by Zani were a case when I noted that one of the editors was going through the Azerbaijan-related articles and removing tons of information(sometimes obvious information) from the articles with "unsourced" comments. At first look, it may look like edit warring, but in reality, I was reinstating removed material and adding sources. For example: Revert [95] and added source [96]. Revert [97] and adding source [98]. Revert [99] and added source [100] and so on.
ZaniGiovanni, didn't link my reply to you [26].
- I did not, because I did not want to show you in a bad light as you were making personal remarks about me there
[101].
Zani, we shall always judge other people as we judge ourselves. If you saying that my good faith edits are Hounding, then can you please explain a few examples listed below? Do you think that they can be considered as hounding? I personally don't, as I assume good faith, but looks like you have a different view on what the hounding is.
you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article
- I agree that the
source generally not reliable as it is not this party source, however official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Not sure how it is hounding, but you could talk to me if you had concerns or at least take it to the RS board.
Zani, again, we shall judge others such as we judge ourselves. Here
[105] you added two sources about the living person(
WP:BLP). One of the sources is the Russian search engine Rambler.ru
[106], which refers to not existing webpage Kdpconsulting.ru. When you click to open Kdpconsulting.ru, it actually opens an unknown yellow pages website runews.biz. The second source
[107], which seems to be personal blog
[108] focusing on IT from France perspective, does not even know if Kadyrova is male or female, and wrongly says that she is male, and focuses on her nationality calling her Azerbaijani journalist, while not mentioning that she is actually Russian journalist ...Azerbaijani journalist Saadat Kadyrova revealed to the Russian TV... He compared the residents to terrorists.
Do you believe that sources are reliable for information about the living person?
Long story short - I never hounded anyone or had intentions to hound anyone, don't have anything else to add.
User blocked as a sock-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JameyRivendell
I will also note that I reverted my second edit removing their edit as I didn't realize until afterward that it was a 24hr cycle restriction. Beyond that, it appears that JR is mostly here to stir up trouble in AP2 topics, given their editing history to the articles above, Matt Walsh (political commentator) and The Daily Wire. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Bishonen I think I fixed it. Also I wanted to add, since notifying them of this request,
they've been rather pleasant.
Discussion concerning JameyRivendellStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JameyRivendellJameyRivendell pleads not guilty. The left wing troll who keeps reverting my edits seems to have an agenda. I believe in symmetry of information. If every single conservative politician on wikipedia is labed "right wing" or "far right" using biased sources than this should apply to left wing politicians as well. AOC is far-left af for those in the bunker. Wikipedia is not a DNC platform. Please stay neutral. Statement by (username)Result concerning JameyRivendell
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
consensus that the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied.
multiple other sources availablefor the same content, but provided none to back up their point. The user seems generally to believe that whatever was not written by a historian is unreliable for the topic, which is not what APLRS says.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
I'll address the issue as soon as I can (busy for most of the day) as there are numerous inaccuracies here such as number 3 (just a quick example for now) - a threat to remove --> Where do I say that I'll remove or where is the threat of me removing anything from the article Szmenderowiecki?
Meantime, please read the entire conversation and (among other things) notice this comment --> [118] were the filer disrespectfully insinuated that my good faith involvement in GA review is to overturn the RfC, which is untrue, that is not my intension at all. Also Szmederowiecki, why didn't you ask for a wider input from our community, as I suggested, instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith? You came here to resolve the disagreement? You know that this might be a tremendous unnecessary time sink, right? You are requesting the AE to resolve that debate instead of asking the community for consensus? What's up with that Szmenderowiecki? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
had enough of that once I've been that shits howwhy on earth it’s so important to you to maintain that particular source in the body of the article, to the point that you came here with this dishonest (not only my opinion) report? What it’s more important to you Szmenderowiecki? Maintaining the potentially troubled source in the body (instead of the footnote - no objections here) that has a prospect to destabilize the article in the future or passing the article into the GA status? Explain that to me, please? GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Isabelle Belato Thank you for clarification Isabelle - GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent conversation with the filer on the talk page of user Deborahjay preserved here for the record --> [119] (Initial Diff in case it gets archived) - GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella additionally threatened to challenge two videos from YouTube, one being a France24 report, and the other being an Israeli TV interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust, without stating any problem other than being YouTube videos.
Notice the subtitles/closed captions button in the above discussed video -->
[120] Click CC button below the video - it says Subtitles/closed captions unavailable.
Let me get this straight. User:Szmenderowiecki filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion??? Every single one of these diffs is a comment. Not article edits, not anything even resembling incivility, nothing. I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!”
I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for spuriousness..es..esses(?)
Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
A contributor (GizzyCatBella) can reasonably believe that a source should be removed from a page if we want this page to become a Good Article, regardless to any previous RfCs. This is not an unreasonable opinion because during the RfC a number of other contributors argued that the page would be better off without this reference. If we simply remove the disputed ref, the article will remain just as good (GA), as it is. End of story. Why bring this here? Perhaps there are some reasons, but I do not understand them. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems like my poor domain of the English language has finally come to haunt me. Firstly, I have no opinion on this particular matter as it relates to GizzyCatBella, and am here just to clarify any misunderstandings related to this close. Wugapodes is correct in their assessment that my findings were that the article is reliable, generally speaking. While the discussion was focused entirely on the source as it related to the information found as a footnote, participants agreed that it was reliable, meaning that if that same information was to be added to the body of an article, it would still be reliable and usable (although I find it hard the community would find that WP:DUE). I hope this answers any questions. Feel free to ping me if any further comments are necessary. Isabelle 🏳🌈 01:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that the RFC was clear, but that bringing up objections again in a WP:GA is fair (though I wouldn't have gone on as long as GizzyCatBella did for risk of BLUDGEONING an already-settled point.) WP:CCC applies - people are allowed to dissent from or disagree with previous RFCs, and even suggest that they be overturned or ignored - and contrary to what was said in that discussion it's not really required to request a close review. Doing so too often would be WP:BLUDGEON / WP:DEADHORSE behavior, but a GA nomination is a specific one-time thing where every significant concern over the article is supposed to be gone over, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to note, in that context, that they still think it's a problem, regardless of the previous RFC... even if such an objection is unlikely to go anywhere. And it's also at least not unreasonable to suggest that the standard for a GA is higher, which can lead to previous discussions being reconsidered (even if I think it was vanishingly unlikely in this case.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, so with that context I struggle to see why
the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfiedshould be read to mean it's only reliable for that footnote and nothing else like GizzyCatBella claims in the third diff. I think the phrase "used as a source for the footnote" is a restrictive relative clause that is used to specify which source is being discussed specifically. The ambiguity comes from the omission of the relative pronoun (common for restrictive clauses in English). So there are two potential readings depending on what relative pronoun you use to fill in that gap: "the Haaretz article [which is] used as a source..." or "the Haaretz article [when] used as a source...". Given that we list the source as "generally reliable in its areas of expertise" and the closer said
the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, I think the interpretation is clearly "which" not "when". I can see how an editor could, in good faith, misunderstand that given the ambiguity, so I don't think there's any need for AE to do anything beyond clarify that. — Wug· a·po·des 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Yeah I was too hot-headed and edit-warred a lot. I've cooled off and have a firmer understanding of the revert rules. Plus I am under a 0rrr for about another 2 months and than a 1rrr for another three, so I will not be engaging in any wars. I have not had any issues since coming back regarding edit-warring or clashing with other editors. I have no intention of starting any fight over this sensitive topic, just plan to patch up pages and make the odd addition. Since Newslinger has not responded to my request on his page, which is understandable given the circumstances, I am asking for it to occur here. Hope this clears things up. Thanks. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 02:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking over their history, I think 3Kingdoms may have breached their 0RR restriction recently; very shortly after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction, they went through a large number of articles to partially or completely remove this text ( [4], many others.) That text had been the subject of a revert war (often with IPs) on at least some of those articles; see eg. [5]. The full list of articles would be a massive number of diffs but can easily be seen in 3Kingdoms' edit history. And 3Kingdoms knows this was a past dispute, in a way that makes it hard to imagine they were unaware that they were reverting someone - when challenged about the rationale for removing the text, they cited a (nonexistent) consensus to omit it, which by definition requires that it was added and removed previously. I feel that this is enough to at least seriously consider revoking 3Kingdoms' appeal and re-instating their ban; but it's certainly enough of a reason to not further remove their restrictions given what they did immediately after getting the previous one removed, ie. instantly diving into controversial topic areas and removing massive swaths of text.
See also eg. [6] [7] - there are several others; some of 3Kingdoms' first actions after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction and a promise to be less hot-headed were to go down a list of articles (largely related to abortion, Catholicism, and right-wing politics) and remove large swaths of text. I am sympathetic to the fact that for a 0RR in particular we have to be cautious about the "every removal is technically a revert" logic, and I do accept the need to fix similar problems on multiple articles, but someone who just got back from a ban by promising to be less hot-headed and who is now asking for another sanction to be relaxed needs to be on their best behavior. To make these sweeping removals of clearly-controversial content that they could reasonably know had been previously contested, often with no explanation, immediately after being let back in, and then to come to AE and to ask for sanctions to be relaxed further, seems like a bit much. And saying that they were too hot-headed in the past but are calmer now doesn't seem particularly compatible with this.
I will also point out that 3Kingdoms' previous appeal for this restriction looked very similar to this one (they were blocked for revert-warring elsewhere after that), and in the appeal for their first indefinite block, before that, they said essentially the same thing. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The probblem isnt understanding the revert rules, thats the bare minimum of being able to count to 1 or 3. The problem is understanding what edit-warring is, that reverting once a day is still edti-warring, that attempting to enforce your view through reversions is edit-warring. The problem was the total disdain for anybody else's view in any editing conflict. Thats what needs to be shown to have changed, not that he is now willing to count to 1. nableezy - 14:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Abrvagl is formally warned for edit warring. Any further instances, including slow motion edit warring, will result in sanctions. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Abrvagl
Abrvagl repeatedly tries to remove the 2020 Ganja missile attacks being a response for the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert from the lead, despite there being multiple sources confirming this, as has been explained to Abrvagl many time on the talk page. Abrvagl also tries to add expressions of MOS:DOUBT further down in the article by writing, "According the Armenian sources, Ganja was hit in response to...". Eurasianet is clearly not an Armenian source, and the article leaves no doubt about what Abrvagl is trying to dispute: "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja." [8]. The constant WP:SEALIONING of the issue on the talk page, edit-wars, and refusal to drop the stick (doing the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edit even after a month) leaves me no choice but to bring this to AE's attention. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AbrvaglStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AbrvaglI NEVER removed sourced information. 1.14 April 2022 [15] [16] I rephrased the statement. Reverted by ZaniGiovanni [17]. 2. 16 April 2022, I reviewed the case in details, and identified following: - The statement was added by banned [18] user Steverci. Diff: [19]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR. - Provided sources didnot support the statement. All sources are either primary or just quotes primary sources. The statement is WP:SYNTH and not in line with WP:NPOV. Considering the above, I removed the statement, and in detail explained myself on the talk-page
[20]. Zani replied
[21], but his reply was ignoring my points. So I wrote even more detailed explanation for him
[22]. Number of times I tried to get solid justifications and answers to my concerns from the Zani
[23]
[24]
[25], but Zani continued repeating 3. On 29 April 2022 [26] I reviewed case again, ensured that statement definitely violates Wikipedia policies, and removed it again. On 30 April 2022 ZaniReverted edit [27]. 4. On 31 April 2022 [28] ZaniGiovanni added new source. As new source was supporting the statement partially, I proposed a consensus [29], but Zani ignored me for 3 weeks. 5. On 22 May 2022 I rephrased the statement in line with WP:OR and WP:NPOV and according to last source provided by Zani, in order to reach consensus. Also removed unrelated sources [30]. I left a note on the talk-page [31]. I attributed it to Armenian sources, as an article in the body referring to the Armenian sources. Then I was going to take it to the NPOV/noticeboard because experts who conducted investigation do not support above statement HRW Amnesty. The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral. ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [32] and personal attacks [33] [34]. I observe the same behaviour against me: 1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing. 2.
Here, I
raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani
responded: ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [35] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN [36]. He stopped only after warned [37]. Here [38] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times. Here [39] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN [40] and RfC [41]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry. Reply 2 Rosguill, This is not a case of WP:BRD. The statement was added by the Steverci, who knew that majority of the editors are against his edits on Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks#2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, and it was left unnoticed for a while. However, that was not the reason for my edits. My point was that the initial statement was WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Provided sources didn't support the statement at all. Later, Zani provided a Eurasianet article that partially supported the statement, based on which, as I explained earlier, tried to reach a temporary consensus. I did not remove but rephrased my first and last edits [42] [43]. The last edit was done after I made a consensus proposal on the talk-page but was ignored for weeks. Only then I made an edit to see if there will be any positive or negative reactions to my proposal. I also left a note on the Talk-Page about that. By the way, I summarized my point on the Talk-Page [44] of the article. It is not for this report, but you can look at it to see the full picture behind my decisions. I want to assure you that I had no intent to edit war, and my active participation on the talk-page also supports that. Edit wars are disruptive and never help reach consensus, and we should avoid them. I always tried to stick to the 3 revert rule. From now on I will do my best to stick to the one revert rule, to eliminate misunderstanding. However, I'm not sure what to do when another editor is ignoring me or reverting my edits without proper justification. However, assuming good faith and keeping everything civil is as important as avoiding edit wars. Reviewing this case, please consider that ZaniGiovanni continuously breaking civility rules. He often gives personal remarks and uses hostile language. This creates a hostile environment, inflames disputes and ruins the collaborative atmosphere. It is visible even from his replies on this report: "groundless and disgusting rant you posted", "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions", "What the actual f*ck is happening", and examples I brought earlier. All editors are equal in Wikipedia. I may be right or wrong; I might make mistakes, which is normal. We are all humans, and we are not perfect. But it does not matter if the editor is wrong or right or makes a mistake; no one has a right to use hostile language and mock editors for their views or errors or past. I find the tone/words that Zani uses insulting. -- Abrvagl ( talk) 09:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by Armatura#diff It seems that user Abrvagl is struggling to grasp the meaning of BLD, simply reverting when he disagrees, even when he already knows there will be disagreement. I would support a warning at this stage (hoping he truly doesn't yet understand well how Wikipedia operates, being a relatively new user) and if he keeps beating the dead horse as he has done here in a discussion innvolving myself, he may need another review. --Armatura ( talk) 17:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Abrvagl
|
The consensus is that the addition of a reference was not a violation. The second edit likely was, but is a very technical and clearly not malicious violation. Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Rp2006
Also see this relevant discussion on talk page [45]
Discussion concerning Rp2006Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rp2006Statement by Geogene (filer)Pinging @ Firefangledfeathers: and @ ScottishFinnishRadish: since they participated in that user talkpage thread I linked to. Geogene ( talk) 00:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishOh good. I noticed this back when it happened, and reached out to a couple editors that would be more likely to be seen as neutral to see if they would bring it up to Rp2006, and failing that, I ignored it and hoped it would go away, which apparently it didn't. To address a couple of the points here:
They've made fewer than 100 mainspace edits since the topic ban, and at least three of those edits have been topic ban violations. A warning here that they should probably put a bit more care into not violating their topic ban, and clarifying the ban itself would probably be helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Rp2006
|
Blocked as a sock -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Спидвагона
Extended confirmed restriction
N/A
N/A as a general sanction, but informed here. pretty obviously a sock account, but no matter, should be blocked as an account whose single purpose is to violate an arbitration restriction.
Every single edit by this user since registering has been a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction.
Discussion concerning СпидвагонаStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by СпидвагонаStatement by (username)Result concerning Спидвагона
|
Blocked; nothing more to do -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 73.158.47.129
The IP editor claims to be the article subject, but the article subject is blocked from using Wikipedia. This appears to be a case of block evasion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 73.158.47.129Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 73.158.47.129Hello, I posted on a discussion page that was directly about me, and immediately identified myself and the ban. As for the ban, I was never told why I was banned other than "offline & online conduct." I was never even told I was even being investigated. I had no notice negative action would be taken against me. In fact i had reported misconduct against me, and the investigation apparently pivoted to *me* at some point. I was given no warnings, ever. My account was in use for over a decade with no prior warnings & only praise. There was no specific ban/block before a wider ban/block, there was no temporary ban before an indefinite ban. was never provided an explanation of why I was banned or how to appeal, or if I could appeal. I was told I was banned from editing, but it was unclear if that meant only editing articles or if that also applied to administrative matters, like an article deletion discussion. The order was vague and overbroad, and I've struggled to interpret it. It does seem quite unfair to prevent me from weighing in on a deletion discussion about the article about me, without explicitly telling me the ban applies to administration discussions as well as articles. In fact, I was given notice and this text box to edit as part of this enforcement notice, which is confusing if I'm supposed to be banned. Why would I get notice or an opportunity to provide input, if i was prohibited from providing input? I worry that I'm violating the ban again by even responding now here. 73.158.47.129 ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 73.158.47.129
|
No violation. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Seggallion
Here, the response also indicates awareness about reverts
The editor when initially requested to self revert expressed confusion about how one edit was a breach of 1RR. When eventually explained here the response was to blank the page. When given a final chance to self revert here the response was again to blank with edit summary "Did not breach anything. Why threaten like this?". This pattern may by now be familiar, an editor reaches 500 edits and immediately jumps into the middle of an ongoing content dispute.
Discussion concerning SeggallionStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SeggallionWhy was my name wrong in some sections here? I made one edit to the article and one edit is just one revert. I was told by Selfstudier on April 9th to wait until I had 500 edits before more Arab-Israel edits. I had around 400 edits then. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1081780290&oldid=1081732694 I followed instructions and waited. At the end of May I saw a requested move advertised on the al-Aqsa article and I voted on it, just like I voted on other advertised moves. I checked before voting that I met the rule. The changes to the naming have been opposed by other users too, I have been watching this pair of articles since the requested move. I didn't wait until 500 to edit the topic. I was told to wait by Selfstudier after I edited a church in April that he thought was in the topic. I also made a request in January to edit an article in topic I was blocked from. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ramla&diff=prev&oldid=1065377343 In this month I saw the Aqsa move advertised. Also fixing errors like novellist https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Marie_Linde&diff=prev&oldid=1065211857 scheluded https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pedro_Antonio_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1065794748 Borwn https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abortion_in_Mississippi&diff=prev&oldid=1072564164 Mississipi, not p but pp, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nate_Dogg&diff=prev&oldid=1072762154 Is not a game. Can someone scrutinize Selfstudier's reverts and threat on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092010968&oldid=1092010433 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092012794&oldid=1092012058 I felt under the gun with last one. Statement by NableezyThat's a single revert, it does not matter how many edits were reverted if it happened in a single revert. However there is blatant extended confirmed permissions gaming, with the overwhelming majority of their first 500 edits being single byte additions and removals. Then their 501st edit is to a restricted topic's requested move here. Curiously, the single byte changes started to pick up steam right around when this happened. nableezy - 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323It is a single reversion, but by undoing the work of two other editors, it is also in essence a restoration of a prior version. The basic requirement with any revert, not least a restoration effectively rollbacking edits by multiple other editors, is a fairly fulsome explanation of the reasons why it is being done, and
Statement by OnceinawhileI would also like to discuss what can be done about 500/30 gaming. Coming up to 500 edits through mass automated / semi-automated / very minor edits is not consistent with the spirit of the rule. This editor made >350 edits in Jan/Feb this year, by finding and replacing common typos. A useful job of course, but the interest in clean-up edits disappears at 500. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by ShrikeFirst of all the premise of this filing is frivolous the filer is experienced enough to understand what revert is. Regrading the gaming it seems that users has continued to do minor edits in other topics contrary to what claimed here so it doesn't seem like gaming to me -- Shrike ( talk) 04:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBellaSeggallion, could you explain why you didn't sign your comments above and you formatted the links so poorly? You displayed a deep knowlege of the links formating (note "here" added) back in February [55] and you also nicely signed your comment. What happened? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Seggallion
|
Two edits with the discretionary sanctions alert issued after the first does not warrant a sanction. Zusty001 is advised to discuss issues on article talk and not repeat challenged edits in a topic under discretionary sanction. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Zusty001
From the edit summary at
[58] they knew they are fighting against
WP:CONSENSUS, nevertheless chose to put What does it mean that the meaning of pseudoscience is oblique? What does it mean that it is occulted? Who treated pseudoscience as monolithic and what's the evidence that they did so? The talk page of the article is crammed with explanations about WP:PSCI, so I felt no need of adding extra explanations. The problem with Steiner's fans is that they have a thoroughly in-universe view and no longer know how mainstream science views Steiner. But I once met an important Anthroposophist who was fully aware that the Institute for Beautiful Sciences (Schöne Wissenschaften) sounds completely ridiculous to outsiders. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zusty001Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zusty001SeraphimBlade, my reasons were explained essentially in the comments of the relevant edits. If this is not deemed sufficient, and if these comments can be viewed anywhere (It appears cut off in the public view of the edit), then I do not think I should try strenuously to achieve some victory in a litigatory struggle against a user of this site far more prolific and powerful than myself. I would explain myself more elsewhere outside of this context, but here I will, for the most part, simply note that in the wide array of citations attached to the section initially removed by myself, there are a great many in which 'expertise' or authority is simply not there, even in some academic sense. (The latter part may be the more considerable here. I noted the use of Dan Dugan in my original comment as a particularly striking example, whom is also used as a main and positive, or encyclopedic, source for another section of the article which I have not edited.) I do not regret noting such 'expertise' in quotations, here or in my edit. As for the 'anonymous' edits you note, I should say that they are not my own. Statement by (username)Result concerning Zusty001
|
LearnIndology is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed ( WP:ARBIPA). Johnuniq ( talk) 11:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Request concerning LearnIndology
LearnIndology (LI) is not a prolific editor: they are often inactive for weeks and engages in routine anti-vandalism, maintenance tasks etc. This necessitates a scrutiny into their activities across a long span of time, which might be unnecessary otherwise. The evidence presented above supports that the losses accrued by letting LI edit in this area — reduction in content accuracy as well as waste of editorial resources in combating his POV-laden activities — outweighs the positives. I wish to emphasize that LI is cautious enough to not run afoul of any bright-line rule but nonetheless, tests the boundaries as evident from the 3RRN example. Multiple established editors — me, Kautilya3, Fowler&Fowler, RegentsPark, Joshua Jonathan, and maybe others — have warned him about NPOV violations but they show little effect.
Discussion concerning LearnIndologyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LearnIndologyNearly all of the diffs are dating back to 2020 and 2021 and concern some usual content disputes and some include misleading claims such that I created this article. I find this reporting to be lacking any sense. Though I would still comment on the recent diffs. 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy was created [61] over 28 hours after Nupur Sharma (politician) was created. [62] It was being redirected to Nupur Sharma because it was a complete POVFORK created in violation of copyrights per WP:CWW. Just compare these two versions: [63], [64]. Only difference was the creation of more sub-sections and some quotefarming, but that was also insignificant. The discussion on Talk:2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy#Opinion of Dutch politician and Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability shows that I am regularly responsive and abiding by the consensus. My edits aren't even violating WP:SYNTH like your recent edits on this page, let alone justifying them like you are doing. ARE shouldn't be misused just because you disagree with some of my edits. LearnIndology ( talk) 11:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Abecedare: With this message I was saying that either we should keep statements like that of Dutch politicians and others, or we should only keep statements related to the foreign ministry and the main administration. At that time there was no particular criteria set, and selective removal was not helping in setting consensus this is why I only restored the stable version with that regard. This is not mind-boggling because ultimately the consensus supported my view, contrary to the view of those who wanted to only remove the statement of the Dutch politician but keep statements of politicians who are not even notable. @ Bishonen: There is clearly no doubt that I did a number of mistakes at Romila Thapar dispute in Feb 2021 but I learned a lot from that and have made more than 1,300 edits since. By saying "per discussion" on this edit summary I was talking about this discussion where I had mentioned the sources. While there was a content dispute at the Religion of the IVC article, I was correct with each of my messages there as it can be read here but TrangaBellam's main objection was that the article is a POV fork and should be a redirect. [66] The ultimate consensus was against this view. LearnIndology ( talk) 01:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Post-filing statements and responses by TrangaBellam
Statement by VanamondeResponding to Abecedare's ping. I do not recall whether I have interacted with LI in a non-administrative capacity. I'm traveling and have limited internet, so I cannot research it either; so I'm posting here, out of an abundance of caution. I find numerous diffs here to be seriously concerning. This diff (The Mughal Harem) is appalling; in an experienced editor, that alone would be something I'd recommend sanctions for. The double standards on display here (Nupur Sharma's remarks) equally so. I recall some of the dispute about links between the IVC and Hinduism; the diffs here substantiate my memory that LI was more interested in digging up any source that supported what he wanted to see, rather than dispassionately summarizing the sources. A similar problem is evident here (Raksha Bandhan); I would guess, though I cannot be sure, that LI began be googling the sentence he wished to add to the article, rather than by reading the best sources about the subject. Given that this is a long-term issue, with innumerable warnings along the way, a TBAN seems very necessary. I see the crux of the issue being the application of the labels "Hindu" and "Indian" to various aspects of culture and history; but I don't see a clean way to delineate a TBAN around those. I believe any of the proposed TBANs ought to work, but my recommendation would be "history and politics within ARBIPA". I don't think the line around history is very fuzzy in this case; conversely, the Indian-not-Indian debate has been a problem area, and I suspect it'd lead to more wikilawyering. 22:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Statement by (username)Result concerning LearnIndology
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
I'm following up on this as I find Abrvagl is still being problematic and needs AE's attention. The first diff is a WP:HOUNDING by them, where they randomly "jumped" into a discussion between me and another user. This confused me at the time but I tried to not pay attention to it. However, because of their recent repeated hounding, I couldn't just restrain myself and ignore it; after my edits yesterday in Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, made this edit in the article among others, hours after me. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language [79], which isn't an improvement and shouldn't have been added. This kind of behavior with hounding is unpleasant to me and discourages me as an editor.
Third diff; some time after the previous AE case, they left this comment in the same discussion, which I believe breaches WP:PACT and WP:GAMING and I'll explain why shortly; considering the fact that Talk:2020_Ganja_missile_attacks#The_missile_attacks_happened_one_week_after_Azerbaijan_began discussion was linked in that previous AE case and Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;
And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.. Please also keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me on the talk page ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Seriously Zani, you could have at least tried to talk to me before dragging me into this unnecessary AE only 9 days after your last report.
1.
29 May 2022 This page and talk page are in my watchlist. I saw a conversation between two editors and shared my own view on the conversation. How is it Hounding?
WP:HOUNDING clearly states: if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behaviour
, my comment did not mean any of that. it was aimed to help conversation. It is really strange to hear such concerns. If my comment is hounding, what is this then, where you jumped into a discussion with
+1,879 bytes of text and raising personal remarks about me? I believed you did that with good intentions because I assumed good faith every time you joined discussions like this and expected the same from you. But it seems I shouldn't have.
2.
20 June 2022 No hounding or else here. Page is on my watch list. It brought my attention because there were recent changes. I actually expanded and improved the article. Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week,
- as I mentioned earlier
[88], I had emergency surgery and was having a rest. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language
-
[89] is the official webpage of State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, which is perfectly fine for statistical information about missing persons, especially considering that I correctly attributed it in the article. If you believe that source is not RS for that information, you could have talked to me or at least raise it to RS board.
3.
21 June 2022 - not sure how me asking you to stop writing personal remarks on the talk pages and informing you that we need to take this case to the dispute resolution is
WP:PACT and
WP:GAMING. Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;
I never said that Eurasianet is not reliable. You actually cut the conclusion out of the context which may lead to misunderstanding. Here is the full comment
[90] read the paragraphs 9 and 11 about Euroasianet. And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.
- Zani, making personal remarks on the article talk page is not appropriate, I and other editors
[91]
[92] already told you that many times. If you want to discuss anything unrelated to the article you are always welcome to use the editor's talk page. keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me
- this third-party editor did not sufficiently substantiate his comment
[93], as I already told him
[94].
Reply 2
Rosguill I am not sure why Zani brought up diffs which are more than 2 months old and was not even related to him to say that I am hounding.
Diffs mentioned by Zani were a case when I noted that one of the editors was going through the Azerbaijan-related articles and removing tons of information(sometimes obvious information) from the articles with "unsourced" comments. At first look, it may look like edit warring, but in reality, I was reinstating removed material and adding sources. For example: Revert [95] and added source [96]. Revert [97] and adding source [98]. Revert [99] and added source [100] and so on.
ZaniGiovanni, didn't link my reply to you [26].
- I did not, because I did not want to show you in a bad light as you were making personal remarks about me there
[101].
Zani, we shall always judge other people as we judge ourselves. If you saying that my good faith edits are Hounding, then can you please explain a few examples listed below? Do you think that they can be considered as hounding? I personally don't, as I assume good faith, but looks like you have a different view on what the hounding is.
you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article
- I agree that the
source generally not reliable as it is not this party source, however official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Not sure how it is hounding, but you could talk to me if you had concerns or at least take it to the RS board.
Zani, again, we shall judge others such as we judge ourselves. Here
[105] you added two sources about the living person(
WP:BLP). One of the sources is the Russian search engine Rambler.ru
[106], which refers to not existing webpage Kdpconsulting.ru. When you click to open Kdpconsulting.ru, it actually opens an unknown yellow pages website runews.biz. The second source
[107], which seems to be personal blog
[108] focusing on IT from France perspective, does not even know if Kadyrova is male or female, and wrongly says that she is male, and focuses on her nationality calling her Azerbaijani journalist, while not mentioning that she is actually Russian journalist ...Azerbaijani journalist Saadat Kadyrova revealed to the Russian TV... He compared the residents to terrorists.
Do you believe that sources are reliable for information about the living person?
Long story short - I never hounded anyone or had intentions to hound anyone, don't have anything else to add.
User blocked as a sock-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JameyRivendell
I will also note that I reverted my second edit removing their edit as I didn't realize until afterward that it was a 24hr cycle restriction. Beyond that, it appears that JR is mostly here to stir up trouble in AP2 topics, given their editing history to the articles above, Matt Walsh (political commentator) and The Daily Wire. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Bishonen I think I fixed it. Also I wanted to add, since notifying them of this request,
they've been rather pleasant.
Discussion concerning JameyRivendellStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JameyRivendellJameyRivendell pleads not guilty. The left wing troll who keeps reverting my edits seems to have an agenda. I believe in symmetry of information. If every single conservative politician on wikipedia is labed "right wing" or "far right" using biased sources than this should apply to left wing politicians as well. AOC is far-left af for those in the bunker. Wikipedia is not a DNC platform. Please stay neutral. Statement by (username)Result concerning JameyRivendell
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
consensus that the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied.
multiple other sources availablefor the same content, but provided none to back up their point. The user seems generally to believe that whatever was not written by a historian is unreliable for the topic, which is not what APLRS says.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
I'll address the issue as soon as I can (busy for most of the day) as there are numerous inaccuracies here such as number 3 (just a quick example for now) - a threat to remove --> Where do I say that I'll remove or where is the threat of me removing anything from the article Szmenderowiecki?
Meantime, please read the entire conversation and (among other things) notice this comment --> [118] were the filer disrespectfully insinuated that my good faith involvement in GA review is to overturn the RfC, which is untrue, that is not my intension at all. Also Szmederowiecki, why didn't you ask for a wider input from our community, as I suggested, instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith? You came here to resolve the disagreement? You know that this might be a tremendous unnecessary time sink, right? You are requesting the AE to resolve that debate instead of asking the community for consensus? What's up with that Szmenderowiecki? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
had enough of that once I've been that shits howwhy on earth it’s so important to you to maintain that particular source in the body of the article, to the point that you came here with this dishonest (not only my opinion) report? What it’s more important to you Szmenderowiecki? Maintaining the potentially troubled source in the body (instead of the footnote - no objections here) that has a prospect to destabilize the article in the future or passing the article into the GA status? Explain that to me, please? GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Isabelle Belato Thank you for clarification Isabelle - GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent conversation with the filer on the talk page of user Deborahjay preserved here for the record --> [119] (Initial Diff in case it gets archived) - GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella additionally threatened to challenge two videos from YouTube, one being a France24 report, and the other being an Israeli TV interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust, without stating any problem other than being YouTube videos.
Notice the subtitles/closed captions button in the above discussed video -->
[120] Click CC button below the video - it says Subtitles/closed captions unavailable.
Let me get this straight. User:Szmenderowiecki filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion??? Every single one of these diffs is a comment. Not article edits, not anything even resembling incivility, nothing. I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!”
I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for spuriousness..es..esses(?)
Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
A contributor (GizzyCatBella) can reasonably believe that a source should be removed from a page if we want this page to become a Good Article, regardless to any previous RfCs. This is not an unreasonable opinion because during the RfC a number of other contributors argued that the page would be better off without this reference. If we simply remove the disputed ref, the article will remain just as good (GA), as it is. End of story. Why bring this here? Perhaps there are some reasons, but I do not understand them. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems like my poor domain of the English language has finally come to haunt me. Firstly, I have no opinion on this particular matter as it relates to GizzyCatBella, and am here just to clarify any misunderstandings related to this close. Wugapodes is correct in their assessment that my findings were that the article is reliable, generally speaking. While the discussion was focused entirely on the source as it related to the information found as a footnote, participants agreed that it was reliable, meaning that if that same information was to be added to the body of an article, it would still be reliable and usable (although I find it hard the community would find that WP:DUE). I hope this answers any questions. Feel free to ping me if any further comments are necessary. Isabelle 🏳🌈 01:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that the RFC was clear, but that bringing up objections again in a WP:GA is fair (though I wouldn't have gone on as long as GizzyCatBella did for risk of BLUDGEONING an already-settled point.) WP:CCC applies - people are allowed to dissent from or disagree with previous RFCs, and even suggest that they be overturned or ignored - and contrary to what was said in that discussion it's not really required to request a close review. Doing so too often would be WP:BLUDGEON / WP:DEADHORSE behavior, but a GA nomination is a specific one-time thing where every significant concern over the article is supposed to be gone over, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to note, in that context, that they still think it's a problem, regardless of the previous RFC... even if such an objection is unlikely to go anywhere. And it's also at least not unreasonable to suggest that the standard for a GA is higher, which can lead to previous discussions being reconsidered (even if I think it was vanishingly unlikely in this case.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, so with that context I struggle to see why
the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfiedshould be read to mean it's only reliable for that footnote and nothing else like GizzyCatBella claims in the third diff. I think the phrase "used as a source for the footnote" is a restrictive relative clause that is used to specify which source is being discussed specifically. The ambiguity comes from the omission of the relative pronoun (common for restrictive clauses in English). So there are two potential readings depending on what relative pronoun you use to fill in that gap: "the Haaretz article [which is] used as a source..." or "the Haaretz article [when] used as a source...". Given that we list the source as "generally reliable in its areas of expertise" and the closer said
the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, I think the interpretation is clearly "which" not "when". I can see how an editor could, in good faith, misunderstand that given the ambiguity, so I don't think there's any need for AE to do anything beyond clarify that. — Wug· a·po·des 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)