Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive325
FUNSTON3[edit]
| FUNSTON3 is indefinitely topic banned from pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland broadly construed. Galobtter (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2023 (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 FUNSTON3[edit]
None.
Notified at 15:33, October 24, 2019
This editor only edits in the Troubles area, and as far as I can see, has zero positive edits in their entire history. I realise some diffs are quite old, but they only edit occasionally and have resurfaced after four years.
Discussion concerning FUNSTON3[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FUNSTON3[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning FUNSTON3[edit]
|
Anubhavklal[edit]
| Anubhavklal is indefinitely blocked for violating their topic ban. Galobtter (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2023 (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 Anubhavklal[edit]
I know these are somewhat stale, but since they amount to pretty much Anubhavklal's only edits after the topic ban was imposed, it's clear that Anubhavklal has no intention of obeying the ban and needs to be blocked. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anubhavklal&diff=prev&oldid=1186375137 Discussion concerning Anubhavklal[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Anubhavklal[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Anubhavklal[edit]
|
Selfstudier[edit]
| If there was a 1RR violation, it was a very minor one. Parties are advised to follow normal dispute resolution procedures. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:52, 27 November 2023 (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 Selfstudier[edit]
Violated WP:1RR on Al-Shifa Hospital siege. At 12:07, 15 November 2023 they made their first revert in 24 hours. Then, between 14:58 and 15:18 they made three separate edits, constituting a single revert; 15:18, 15 November 2023, 15:02, 15 November 2023, and 14:58, 15 November 2023. These reinstated in wikivoice the use of the description "siege" for the event, reverting an edit I made to attribute that description in line with the sources in the article. They also reinstated two specific aspects that I had removed:
I approached them with a request that they self-revert; they eventually self-reverted the change to the infobox, but have implicitly refused to revert further, having neither continued the conversation on their talk page or made the reverts, despite having made dozens of edits since that discussion, including to the article in question - as such I feel I have no other option to resolve this other than to bring it here. Related to this, though not sufficient to warrant a post here on its own, there has also been a level of incivility with comments directed at editors rather than content:
When I approached them about this, along with request to be more mindful about avoiding commenting on other editors as over the years I have noticed this to be a bit of a habit for them and it contributes to the toxicity of this topic area, they instead doubled down on the pram comment and refused to adjust either to align with our civility policies.
To respond to a few points and clarify my statement:
12:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Selfstudier[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Selfstudier[edit]This all took place in the space of some hours on 15 November. Filers First edit to the article changed "siege" to "clashes" in the infobox along with the reference in Wikivoice to a siege in the first line of the lead and another in the article body, asserting in edit summary that an RM opened by filer 20 minutes earlier proved that siege in Wikivoice was inappropriate. I did not notice this edit at the time because I was engaged in back and forth on the talk page at the RM unsuccessfully attempting to persuade filer to drop the RM due to the easy availability of reliable sources calling the event a siege. I then set about adding some of these sources into the article and in the process of doing so reverted filer's infobox edit changing "siege" to clashes" above (I added a source for "siege" at the same time). When this was pointed out, I self reverted. My edits were intended as constructive and were not otherwise reverts. Filer then added an undue inline tag to one of the sources that I had added with the same reasoning as in their first edit ie that Wikivoice was inappropriate because filer said so in their RM. The RM did not proceed to filers liking and a pointy POV tag was added here, again justified by reference to the reasoning given in filers RM. No conversation regarding this tag was opened by filer in talk but another editor eventually opened a talk section querying the basis for the tag and was backed up by a second editor, both understanding that the tag was being placed due to the RM. I confess to being a tad irritated with filers behavior and added a throwaway comment at this point to the effect that filer was merely being pointy in adding the tag. Filer then asserted that the issue was "broader" than that but once again merely repeated their own assertion made in the RM. Judging by the current status of the RM, filers POV is not at all convincing. Essentially boils down to filer making an assertion by way of RM and then attempting to force through filers opinion on the subject regardless of evidence being presented to the contrary. Statement by Iskandar323[edit]I find the substance here extremely lacking. BilledMammal has provided a list of diffs of alleged reverts, with little explanation on the substance, and only two clear examples of material that was reverted. Of those two, it is freely admitted that the latter was promptly self-reverted by the accused upon request. That would be the logical end of the content dispute for most editors. My eyebrows are raised slightly higher by BilledMammal's obviously unconstructive altering of the infobox title away from the page title - but in line with their dissatisfaction with the title. This is the sort of quickly reverted action that one normally sees coming from IPs and non-autoconfirmed users, not experienced editors that know the ropes better. BilledMammal's addition of a POV tag to the page, again in relation to the title's terminology, is also WP:POINT-y. I have been generally unimpressed by this editor's behaviour in recent weeks in this CT area, but here they appear to be showcasing combative editing. BilledMammal also raises some issues about civility, but this is a bit pot kettle black given that BM's opening comment on Selfstudier's talk page accused them of Statement by Zero0000[edit]BilledMammal changed a section title from "Siege and attacks" to "Clashes". Selfstudier then changed it to "Preliminary clashes and siege". Calling this a revert seems a stretch. It looks to me more like an attempt at compromise. Zerotalk 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000[edit]Can't stuff like this be handled on the article talk page?[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (Wh15tL3D09N)[edit]I just wanted to come on here and say that I did notice some POV issues on that article. If you notice issues with the article (for example, a lot third party quoted criticisms have been added), and deleting criticisms isn't an option, then you need to go and find facts or quotes from other sources to corroborate your POV to balance the current skewed POV (I think 30% of the article cited Al Jazeera as a source, which is biased) rather than going to arbitration enforcement. That being said, I did notice some saucy comments from Selfstudier and I apologize on his behalf if they have unintentionally offended you. Result concerning Selfstudier[edit]
|
Drsmoo[edit]
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Drsmoo[edit]
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 19:49, 26 November 2023 source distortion
- 19:56, 26 November 2023 source distortion
- 02:00, 25 November 2023 source distortion
- 01:59, 25 November 2023 source distortion
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
N/A
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on here.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Drsmoo has repeatedly misrepresented the cited sources in these edits. He has repeatedly claimed that material specifically about a propaganda campaign supports a "media campaign" or "a public-relations campaign". None of the cited sources, including the SYNTH he has added (though that is content not conduct), discuss a "media campaign" or a public-relations campaign. It has been well-established on this board that distorting sources is a behavioral issue, not a content one. In [[this edit he takes a section that The Intercept and The Nation discussing a propaganda campaign and claim they support that Israel has run a "public-relations campaign". This is straightforward source distortion and it should be met with a topic ban.
- None of the sources brought by Drsmoo discuss any media campaign, and I retained all that information moving them higher in the article where they were actually used in a non synth manner. It was and is a straightforward attempt at watering down what the sources say with irrelevant material that doesn’t even support what he added. And it does not address the repeated misrepresentation of the sources that are cited. nableezy - 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I brought a source about something another source described as one of the pieces of propaganda. I added material directly related to that subject by virtue of the Nation source describing it as propaganda. That isn’t the same as adding material that no source describes as part of any media campaign. But again, that’s the synth part of this and that’s a content issue. My issue here is the repeated distortion of the sources making it appear so as they support what they do not. nableezy - 02:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, they are the same edit, multiple times on multiple pages. Yes, attributing is totally fine, the problem remains having sources discussing one thing, a proaganda campaign, and using them to say they support another thing, that Israel has engaged in a public relations campaign. Those are not the same topic, and using the former to claim they support the latter is distortion. nableezy - 04:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Drsmoo[edit]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Drsmoo[edit]
I have edited alongside Nableezy for a long time, and am surprised by this complaint. The section was entirely dedicated to negatively portraying Israel's media campaign, and was titled "Israeli Propaganda Campaign". The section was constructed using sources that (almost) exclusively are described as biased or partisan on WP:RS. Edit: To clarify, I'm referring specifically to the sources that use the term "propaganda". It seems intuitive that if a source is notably biased/partisan and requires attribution, its verbiage should not be in wikivoice, let alone as a subject title in ARBPIA for an ongoing current event. I balanced the section by adding several highly reliable and uncontroversial sources (Haaretz, The Daily Telegraph, and France24) that describe some of Israel's media reports as accurate, and renamed the section to the neutral "Israeli Media Campaign". The Haaretz source presented a "Visual analysis" of "Videos taken by Israeli army spokesperson and journalists who toured the tunnels underneath Gaza's Al-Shifa Hospital". The Telegraph source analyzed "a tranche of footage released by the IDF", the France24 source analyzed "Do images published by Israeli army show a Hamas tunnel?"' All three are analyses of, and directly relevant to, the products of Israel's media campaign. I am flabbergasted that Nableezy brought this, let alone asking for a topic ban. Drsmoo (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Edited at Drsmoo (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I'll also add, what should be self-evident, that using the subject title "Media Campaign" with a source that uses the word "propaganda" is not distortion. A propaganda campaign of this type would simply be a type of Media Campaign Drsmoo (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
"In [[this edit he takes a section that The Intercept and The Nation discussing a propaganda campaign and claim they support that Israel has run a "public-relations campaign". - This was discussed on the talk page, and I attributed it to the source using the word propaganda within an hour, here. Drsmoo (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
"None of the sources brought by Drsmoo discuss any media campaign" - We both brought the same France24 source. You brought an example of them finding the nurse video fake here. I brought an example of them finding the tunnel video real here, neither use the term "propaganda" and both are analyses of products from the exact same campaign. Drsmoo (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Nableezy, a "propaganda campaign" conducted in the media is a "media campaign". The two are not a contradiction in terms. For example: A discussion of a Russian state-run social media campaign that describes it as propaganda. Another example using "Media Campaign" and propaganda, another example. I don't see what your complaint is? A "propaganda campaign" is just a pejorative term. We can accurately call it a media campaign and attribute usage of the term "propaganda" to the sources that use it without making the section non-neutral. Drsmoo (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
"the problem remains having sources discussing one thing, a proaganda campaign, and using them to say they support another thing, that Israel has engaged in a public relations campaign. Those are not the same topic" - They are the same topic, the former is just a pejorative of the latter. In fact, if you want to get historical, the term "public relations" is just a rebranding of the term "propaganda" after the latter acquired a negative connotation.
"and using the former to claim they support the latter is distortion." - But that's not happening because the use of the term "propaganda" is attributed to the sources. Drsmoo (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Iskandar323[edit]
I agree that the misrepresentation here is not appropriate and strongly disagree that it is a minor matter. Taking sections of content with sources that describe "ludicrous propaganda", fake news, and mis/disinformation, and relabelling it as mere "media campaigning" is clear and intentional WP:EUPHEMISM. And, in the very specific context in which it occurs here, it is very hard to not interpret it as tendentious. "Media campaigns" as a term, aside from not being used in the sources, is not one that adequately surmises the seeding of blatant disinformation and extreme abuse of media platforms by bad faith actors in a conflict. And to that last point, given that the purpose of said propaganda is to justify the extreme violence in Gaza, its gentrification here on Wikipedia is doubly irresponsible. Does Wikipedia call blatant Russian propaganda "media campaigns"? No. The relevant section on the main Russo-Ukrainian War page is entitled "Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Galobtter: I thoroughly disagree that this is a purely content matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]
Result concerning Drsmoo[edit]
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I looked at the diffs and read through the cited sources, and I don't see anything actionable here. Whether to describe something as propaganda in wikivoice or to attribute it is a matter of editorial discussion, and does not constitute source misrepresentation. The other content in the diffs that I checked seemed supported by the sources. If you want to make a case of source misrepresentation, it's good to have more than one example - all four diffs are essentially the same edit. Galobtter (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that this isn't actionable as source misrepresentation. The Nation land pretty hard into propaganda, but the NBC News source only refers to Hamas' efforts as propaganda. The Daily Beast has no consensus on reliability, and it's generally seen as biased, so I'm not lending much weight to it for determining if those edits are misrepresenting sources. I would need to see a wider array of sources being misrepresented, rather than one of two RS in a section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Irtapil[edit]
| No action. Irtapil is advised to self-revert when asked to unless they are confident that no violation occurred. Galobtter (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2023 (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 Irtapil[edit]
Discussion concerning Irtapil[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Irtapil[edit]
Statement by Iskandar323[edit]Irtapil is new to the CT topic area and does not appear to have encountered the tricky rigors of WP:1RR previously. I think a lot of what's going on here can be chalked up to confusion over the exacting "in whole or in part", ya-da ya-da language in this rule and the broader WP:3RR import on reversion. It is not evident that Irtapil has done anything in bad faith, but is simply afflicted by an unfamiliarity with the exacting extent of the rules here, and I would personally suggest that this be closed simply with an instruction for the editor to read over the restrictions very, very carefully, and to make sure they understand that it is far better to stay well on the safe side of these restrictions than to risk ending up here time and time again. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by Red-tailed hawk[edit]I'm failing to understand the confusion of patrolling administrators regarding what constitutes a revert. Our policy is explicit that There isn't a time component here for the purposes of a revert; people can slow-motion edit war over the course of months, and they can still be reverting each other each time. There are also plenty of non-gnoming tasks that are obviously not reverts—for example, adding new material or a new section that had never previously been in the article—the key being that a non-reverting edit isn't restoring an article (or a part of an article) to be the same as it was in a prior revision. As for 1RR—if it's being correctly pointed out to you that Edit A was a revert, someone else undid edit A, and then you re-instated the changes you made in Edit A, that's two reverts. Ignoring a very clear request to self-revert one's second revert pending discussion indicates either lack of understanding or a lack of willingness to heed that request. The differences between the first re-insertion of the accused paramater and the second re-insertion are minor—the only difference in rendering is that "Israeli Air Force" is swapped for "Israeli Defense Forces"—so we'd need the respondent to understand why this is a revert. The respondent says above that The point of issuing a sanction is to prevent future disruption, not to punish. If the patrolling admins think that the respondent now understands the general principles of 1RR, knows that reverts do not literally have to be the same exact entire edit for them to be reverts, and commits to being willing to listen to 1RR-related self-revert requests in the future, then it's a good idea to let this go with a reminder or informal sort of guidance about what is a revert. If administrators are not satisfied by this, then I'd have some concerns about the editor's participation in the topic area going forward, since we may well be likely to wind up here again unless the underlying working knowledge of 1RR/reverts is addressed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Irtapil[edit]
|
Johnpacklambert[edit]
| No action needed here. Galobtter (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Johnpacklambert[edit]
Discussion concerning Johnpacklambert[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Johnpacklambert[edit]I do not think this is at all a reasonable complaint. The topic ban imposed was on participation in relation to article deletion. The sanction was spread to other discussion forums but the participation rules all applied to discussions regarding article deletion. I have in multiple cases over the last few weeks made comments to multiple other editors about various categories. No one has objected. I am sorry if I violated a section, but as written the sanction is all related to article deletion. That is not at all the subject of these discussions. I will delete them because they are clearly unwanted. However I do not believe it makes sense to treat them as a violation of a rule imposed against behavior connected to the deletion of articles, which none of thos has any connection to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by User:Smasongarrison[edit]I'm not sure if I'm allowed to participate/comment. But I've been interacting with John Pack Lambert quite a lot in the past few months. (And as a consequence have stared at his talk page A LOT, before he started archiving it.) He uses the talk page to log his thoughts and ideas about categorization. I don't view this as him being disruptive or directly participating in the discussion. I think of it more as that's his way that he's processing his ideas. It's definitely different from how most people use wikipedia talk pages, but it is pretty typical for John Pack Lambert. I encourage you to look through his archive [9] for the numerous examples of this [10]. I don't think we should penalize him for watching and learning from the categories for deletion discussion. Mason (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by User:Marcocapelle[edit]I was referred to this page by Johnpacklambert who regularly posts on my talk page. Sometimes I find his comments on my talk page useful, in which case I undertake action on my own behalf, sometimes I find it less useful or less priority and I do nothing with it. His comments are always constructive in any case, and a good example of attempt to collaborate to build a better encyclopedia. Please continue doing so. In my honest opinion, the diffs above fall in the same category of constructive comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by jc37[edit]Reading where this is so far, I think this will likely be closed as "no action". Which probably isn't a bad way to go for this. I do have a concern though that I think worth noting, just to try to proactively get in front of this so that the edior doesn't go further along these lines and end up back here with something more concerning. Of late, the editor has been leaving posts on user talk pages, at WT:CAT, and other category-related pages. This shouldn't be an issue, as already noted. However the text (and seeming intent) of many of the posts have been along the lines of: should we do away with, or stop categorizing X; or should X be renamed to Y follwing Z standard. Those are essentially CFD (or, charitably, "pre-CFD") questions. And can have the "appearance" like they are doing an end-run around their restriction, or even attempting to solicit meat pupppetry. To be clear, I don't think this is their conscious intent. But at the same time, part of the reason for their restriction is that they haven't the best judge of such things for themself. So I thought it worth noting that this is going on. I'm not linking to anything intentionally, as, as noted, this seems minor, and I don't see a need yet to go all-in on this. But, as noted, WT:CAT (and its archives) has some examples. And I think the talk pages of some of those above do (or did) as well (including mine). So anyway, I hope that this helps, and is taken merely as a suggested caution to the editor that they may be starting to be "colouring outside the lines" as it were. They've seen so much of DR, I'd like to see if we can help prevent them needing to see more in the future. - jc37 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Johnpacklambert[edit]
|
Carterand[edit]
| Nothing for AE to do here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2023 (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 Carterand[edit]
See also [13] 30 November 2023 and [14] 26 November 2023. Since my past AE thread I have learned my lesson and I have been very polite with Carterand. I have attempted to teach them at Talk:Opposition to pornography#MEDRS. Note that "quackery" is not referring to their own person. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Okay, since I'm afraid to saying too much, maybe you will explain them what the problem is. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Carterand[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Carterand[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Carterand[edit]
|
A.H.T Videomapping[edit]
| A.H.T Videomapping indeffed for repeated ECR violations and personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2023 (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 A.H.T Videomapping[edit]
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict
As of approximately 16:15 on 5 December 2013, AHT has made 63 edits, though their account was created 14 February 2021. As such, they are not an extended confirmed user and should not be editing pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including article talk pages.
Discussion concerning A.H.T Videomapping[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by A.H.T Videomapping[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning A.H.T Videomapping[edit]
|
ජපස and Bon courage[edit]
| Sennalen is indefinitely blocked for disruption across multiple CTOP areas, including COVID, FRINGE, Falun Gong, among others. I'll be logging this under WP:PSCI since that's the most unifying theme here. Galobtter (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2023 (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 ජපස and Bon courage[edit]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
User ජපස has used many names, frequently random alphanumerics (see User:ජපස/Previous_Account_Names). He typically signs messages "jps", which is how I will generally refer to him.
Taken together, these demonstrate that jps has acutely engaged in tendentious editing and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Simultaenously on the same page, Bon courage has engaged in related behavior.
These demonstrate that Bon courage has acutely engaged in unjustified removal of sourced material and editing to push a point of view. This is consistent with a pattern of behavior Bon courage has shown over the past two years:
Reconstructing ජපස's history is complicated by frequent name changes, but highlights include:
After undertaking a literature review over the course of a few months, I published this week a new article that is currently at Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. I carefully matched the strength of wikivoice statements to the language of sources - ("likely", "putative", "plausible" and so on when the source used that word). This has drawn ire from two users with a strong point of view that the origin of Covid-19 is conclusively known. The provided diffs demonstrate tendentious editing, especially WP:REMOVECITE and WP:USTHEM. They will contend that they are defending science and reliable sources against fringe views, but that is manifestly in bad faith. They have made isolated demands for rigor, while their overall project is mass deletion of peer-reviewed journals that they disagree with. Meanwhile, the lede of Origin of Covid-19 yet contains claims from such sources as Reuters, FactCheck.org, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Bon courage especially defends the use of David Gorski's self-published blog in an article lede.[35][36] I would be very willing to collaborate in resolving objections to particular sentences and sources, but these two are gish-galloping mass deletions at a rate that would be impossible to discuss, even if they were willing to discuss. Together, their efforts are an obstacle to building articles that reflect scientific consensus.
Discussion concerning ජපස and Bon courage[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ජපස[edit]WP:BOOMERANG seems like something that should occur here. I do not think this user account should be editing articles related to COVID-19 as it seems that their primary activity may be WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY (I will not speculate on the intention of the account, only the upshot of their activities). The following diffs, to me, indicate some big problems:
Inasmuch anything is a fact, it is a fact that COVID-19 has a zoonotic origin. If we have an account who is actively fighting against this fact, that is disconfirming enough to mean that they should not be editing in this topic area. If you have specific questions about any of the supposed evidence provided by Sennalen, I am happy to answer, but I think the remedy that is required is removing this account from the topic. I'd also note that they are essentially a WP:SPA when it comes to taking pro-conspiracy theory POVs on this subject, cultural marxism, and certain other antisemitic conspiracy theories. I'll let their contribution history speak for itself in that regard. jps (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Note on review I see that the user has notified the talk page of an unrelated article but did not notify the WP:FTN thread. I think this might be construed as a violation of WP:CANVASS. I am not sure why that talkpage deserves notification of this discussion unless the goal is to rally sympathetic users to her cause. If there is another explanation, happy to hear it. jps (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Discussion of editorial concerns[edit]
Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]Procedural notes: Bon Courage's name should be added in many parts of the filing. The request is already over the 500 word limit, even without the replies that are sure to come. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish[edit]As it happens, I have the talk pages of both jps and Bon courage on my watchlist, so I saw this. As it happens, I also am the editor who created WP:USTHEM, cited in the filing, so I feel able to comment about that. As a purely procedural matter, this filing seems to really be about two editors, but is trying to get a two-fer in a single section, so I'd suggest that admins remove the parts about Bon courage. Anyway, what I'm seeing in the diffs above is that the filing editor is (in effect) complaining that "two editors disagree with me" on a content matter, which raises the question of who is or isn't on the side of consensus. Covid origins are a CT, and they are also a matter of WP:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by SandyGeorgia[edit]On just a quick glance: "Bon courage deleted conclusions he disagreed with solely on the dubious grounds it was primary research[[52]" appears incorrect. The edit summary says "rmv. use of primary to undercut secondary as prohitied by MEDRS"). It's one thing to cautiously use a primary source correctly to cite biomedical content; it's quite another when the primary source disagrees with/contradicts/undercuts secondary sources. And per Tryptofish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by Viriditas[edit]I'm concerned this premature filing obscures and misdirects the source of the problem, namely the creation of the new article Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 by Sennalen, which is perceived, in the context of this dispute, as a poorly formed split or fork of Origin of COVID-19, which is the locus of the dispute. I would encourage everyone to take a step back and for the filing party to move this contentious article to either their sandbox or draft space until major concerns have been addressed. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by MrOllie[edit]Sennalen has been disruptive on Falun Gong articles, as is mentioned in the Bloodofox request above, where an admin response floats a topic ban for them. They've long been a disruptive presence at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and related articles. I can pull diffs if needed, but a read through of Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Proposed_change_to_first_sentence and/or Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Image_removal should illustrate the problem. I mention this because any WP:BOOMERANG sanction needs to be wider than just COVID-19. American politics and/or all fringe topics would be a decent start. - MrOllie (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by Horse Eye's Back[edit]Bon courage should be formally added to the request or the section about them should be struck. I don't love what I see from JPS in the diffs provided but I also don't like what I see from Sennalen on those pages... A boomerang is definitely on the table even if I think the best course of action is for editors to voluntarily reduce their participation in this perennially divisive topic areas, it won't fall apart without them and its hard to get in a word edgewise sometimes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (jps and BonCourage)[edit]Obviously I'm INVOLVED with these two editors, so I'll stay up here. This looks like the standard type of content dispute in this area. As usual, I think that less commenting on editors, e.g. jps' edit summary would be good, but even that isn't particularly bad. This seems like an excellent candidate for regular dispute resolution. Also, bringing an editing dispute to AE with fairly weak evidence of misbehavior is getting pretty close to weaponizing CTOP procedures. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by XMcan[edit]
Statement by Scorpions1325[edit]I am not going to go through all of the diffs again, but from what I remember, the "Scientific Background" section appears to be a lousy attempt at WP:SYNTHESIS on the part of the OP. Furthermore, the OP insists on including WP:PRIMARY sources to disprove an existing narrative. In my opinion, that is unacceptble. I have been looking at the talk page history there for the past few months, and the OP is determined to defend a lost cause. A WP:BOOMERANG is probably needed. A Department of Energy report does not override scientific consensus Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by KoA[edit]Not involved in the subject, but I saw the FTN posting earlier while trying to dig into the underlying dispute, and Sennalen's behavior has not impressed me. This request really is bringing a content dispute here because Sennalen could not get traction with their POV, but underlying behavior related to WP:FRINGE seems to be core issue here. It's not unexpected for other editors to get short with what I'm seeing. The general sense I'm getting here is that Sennalen is not taking the advice at FTN at all, but more relevant for AE, they seem to be antagonizing the topic with WP:IDHT. That and it looks like jps and Bon Courage have been having to work hard to deal with the content issues Sennalen is introducing, only to be met with WP:SEALIONING by Sennalen. Given the past disruption (and block) at another fringe subject, there does seem to be WP:FRINGE advocacy issues with this editor to the point that a broader type of fringe topics ban may be needed. Key things that stand out are Sennalen creating a WP:POVFORK detailed at FTN, misrepresenting medical content as SandyGeorgia pointed out, and basically filing a retaliatory case here after jps cautioned them to knock it off as an AE request was imminent. The last one really strikes me as trying to beat jps to the punch and battleground behavior from Sennalen. Fringe subjects like this can often be a source of editor burnout when editors like this are allowed to persist, so I think it would be a burden to the community to let them still continue editing in the COVID subject. I'd at least suggest a ban there, but also would be wary kicking the can to another fringe topic like already happened here after their Falun Gong-related block. KoA (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Bon courage[edit]Not much to say here. Bluntly, the OP (who apparently is a returning user but has not revealed their former account to allow WP:SCRUTINY), created a problematic article with improper synthesis and poor sourcing allied in a WP:PROFRINGE direction, seemingly to promote COVID Lab Leak theories by kicking up as much dust as possible around the published science. I have started cleaning the article up with a view to possibly merging any salvageable content elsewhere. In this, I have tried to turn my propriety and civility dials to a high setting, and believe all my edits are in line with the WP:PAGs (and no, Wikipedia does not use pieces in In all, cleaning up after stunts like this article's creation is a huge time sink. And the reward for doing it? A trip to AE. Sheesh. Boomerang and site ban for the OP please; the Project doesn't need this. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC); amended 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion[edit]Sennalen's problems aren't confined to COVID topics. On Western Marxism, she repeatedly tried to add material describing Western Marxism as a synonym for "Cultural Marxism" in the article voice, eventually dropping eight citations on it - most of which, as I specifically pointed out to her, not only failed to support her desired addition but used the term in ways that clearly contradicted it; the contradiction is clear enough to strain good faith (as I say in that discussion, a simple glance at some of the sources make it clear they're not using the term in any way that could plausibly be read as supporting her, which makes it hard to credit that she actually read them before presenting them.) Not only did she try to edit-war this into the lead of "Western Marxism"; when it was rejected there (and shortly after coming off her block for incivility in COVID), she took part in a multi-user edit-war over a similar connection on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, an article that had just come off full-protection, where there was again already a clear consensus on talk against this addition. I think that this shows that a topic-area block is insufficient and that she'll just move on to other WP:FRINGE issues if blocked from one area. Another note regarding the WP:CLEANSTART aspect (since it belatedly occurs to me that this might not be obvious to everyone): She says here that she hadn't edited articles related to Cultural Marxism in "over five years." If true, this would place her involvement there at or shortly after the height of Gamergate, which she expressed interest in here; the two topics are connected as described here, and discussions over it saw heavy WP:MEAT issues as a result, with many editors getting sanctioned in various ways. Regardless of whether Sennalen was sanctioned specifically, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that she wanted to avoid scrutiny. --Aquillion (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by JoJo Anthrax[edit]At the heart of this time-wasting filing is, as described above by Tryptofish, MrOllie, and several others, a content dispute(s) in which Sennalen is on the short-end of the consensus stick. Accusing jps and Bon Courage here of POV-pushing is a bad-faith aspersion. And writing of aspersions, Sennalen was recently, and appropriately,
blocked for making personal attacks, which Sennalen brushed off here as
Statement by Bloodofox[edit]I hadn't been following this, but reviewing some of the content above, it's relevant to note that Sennalen's former account very likely has a long history of editing our Epoch Times and Falun Gong-related articles, often in a manner very favorable to these subjects. I can provide the likely user name used there if needed. Sennalen's account is one of a group of WP:SPA there that takes a very non-neutral, very-pro Falun Gong/Epoch Times position there. Note that the Epoch Times regularly publishes pro-lab leak material alongside various conspiracy theories as a component of the Falun Gong's anti-Chinese government stance. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Palpable[edit]I too have found these guys to be impossible to collaborate with. But this case is a mess in several ways so I don't think it's useful to go into it here. I would describe Sennalen's new article as an NPOVFORK. I don't see it having much of a future, but in NPOV terms it is better than the existing origins articles. Yes, there is a large and vocal faction here that thinks this topic justifies a strong polemic stance. But this is a genuinely controversial topic: American polls show that most people believe in a lab leak, based on evidence which is edited out of the articles. JPS removed cited sources merely for stating that the the origin was still unknown. He didn't even feel that justification was necessary. The fact that consensus in this area is maintained through topic bans rather than NPOV should be disturbing. I don't think this case is well stated but the problem is real. A boomerang for raising this is a terrible idea. It's worth noticing that so many of the statements here ignore the complaint and go straight for ad hominem attacks against the plaintiff. - Palpable (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by PatrickJWelsh[edit]I cannot speak to the declared topic of this conversation. Should it be relevant, however, I can support items introduced by MrOllie, KoA, and Aquillion. In addition to Sennalen's contentious and disruptive editing of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, she has also edited related pages in a way that appears calculated to give credibility to this conspiracy theory. In particular: 1) On Western Marxism, she has argued at length against consensus for inclusion of the false claim that the term is, at least in some cases, considered synonymous with the term "cultural Marxism". Although she cites to high-quality sources, they sometimes directly contradict the claim they have been adduced to support. As I wrote in that discussion, "If the accuracy of your contributions depends upon other editors happening to own the volumes you cite, and also being at the ready to check your work, there is an objective problem with your editorial practices". 2) She is active on the article devoted to the Frankfurt school, i.e., the group of Western Marxists specifically targeted by the conspiracy theory. In particular, she has added an WP:UNDOly long section devoted to linking these academics to violent civil unrest.[46] In point of fact, however, the relation between theory and practice remained for them an overwhelmingly theoretical question, for which they have been widely criticized by the more activist members of the political left. She is, again here, citing high-quality sources selectively to give the reader an impression of the Frankfurt School consonant with the conspiracy theory. If necessary, I am willing to go through article diffs and check more citations against the actual theses of the works. Just tag me—and please be as specific as you can about what requires clarification or further evidential support. Because this exercise would be extremely tedious, and I'm only willing to do it if it actually matters. For these reasons I submit that, if the arbitration process results in a topic ban, it should extend to all articles related to Marxism, not just those flagged as fringe. Finally, although I was not previously familiar with WP:SEALION, it provides an entirely apt description of my engagement with Sennalen. She has been unfailingly polite–even on two occasions on which I lost my own cool. I cannot help but be suspicious of bad-faith editing, but I do tip my hat to her for the civility with which she meets disagreement. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by tgeorgescu[edit]@Sennalen: Cleanstart always has to be made known. You are not allowed to being a cleanstart without notifying at least the admins. So, of course, you have been honest in stating that you have began a cleanstart. But you would not have been allowed to begin it without the admins knowing it. Sometimes some users can dodge that requirement, e.g. when they relocate to another city or another country. But don't count on dodging it. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by SmolBrane[edit]I can't comment on Sennalen's behavior since I haven't interacted with them much or at all. And I don't have much time to investigate. Same with jps. But I do observe that Bon courage has been recently advised by colleagues [48] [49] [50] [51] and administrators ScottishFinnishRadish (twice) [52] [53] and recently JPxG [54] for questionable behavior. If Bon courage is going to average 10 edits per day(xtools) then the situation might warrant a consequential reminder of some kind. There are other transgressions by Bon courage I'm prepared to discuss here if editors find these lacking sufficient substance. SmolBrane (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by Newimpartial[edit]I was intending to stay away from this filing, but in the context of the possible BOOMERANG for disruption in multiple areas, it occurred to me that I haven't seen a link provided for Sennalen's somewhere esoteric philosophical essay, WP:INFINITE (diff of longest version here). It has seemed to me that Sennalen's oddly inclusionist take on FRINGE content is related to the position articulated in the essay, which (if true) would presumably make it more difficult to contain the disruption caused by the intersections of Sennalen's unusual takes and frequent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by Rjjiii[edit]The whole article is a POV fork created by Sennalen to heighten uncertainty about the scientific consensus. Sennalen frames the first diff this way, " Sennalen originally created their new article at "COVID-19 zoonosis theories", a mirror to COVID-19 lab leak theory. In the lead, the original text read, " Statement by JPxG[edit]My experience editing in this area is that, while Sennalen definitely seems to be editing with an agenda, it's not really clear that they are the only one doing so, or even that they're the only one tendentiously stonewalling conversations to do so. My experience editing with Bon courage in the COVID-19 topic area has been one of being aggressively reverted, argued with endlessly over minor details, then bludgeoned and insulted on the talk page for weeks. It was, frankly, one of the most frustrating experiences I've had editing in months if not years. I've got nothing to say about Sennalen, and from what I've seen their participation in political topics does seem like it may be a net negative — I'm not a Sennalen scholar — but I would sincerely appreciate if something could be done about the civility and bludgeoning in this topic area, regardless of whether it's being done by "the good guys". jp×g🗯️ 06:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by fiveby[edit]
Statement by FeydHuxtable[edit]Im not seeing stonewalling from Sennalen when I review her contribs, more like the opposite. Seems very open to discussion; in some respects her attempts to seek consensus in this contentious topic has been exemplary. Only yesterday editor Bon Courage recognised the potential for improvements resulting from Sennalen's work, and has been appreciative of her attention to detail. That said, it's valid to see creating the Zoonotic origins article as a POV fork attempt, even if Sennalen probably sincerely saw it as a useful details article. So perhaps closing with a warning or even a 3 month tban from Covid origins is in order. But I'd beg admins not to throw a much harsher boomerang, we dont have many editors like Sennalen and it would be a shame to demotivate her. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by Gtoffoletto[edit]I haven't read all of the discussion above nor have I reviewed all of Sennalen's work. However I looked at the original page proposed by Sennalen and while of course it is WP:NOTPERFECT it is a pretty detailed 60k characters long article that definitely required a lot of work. I see jps and Boncourage basically entering and just deleting content with aggressive and non collaborative tones from the get go. See jps's contributions: [57] See Bon courage's contributions: [58] The work was definitely not subpar enough to warrant such disparaging tones. The first edit summary by jps is full of accusing tones and definitely does not assume good faith: "Removing some *real problematic* POV-pushing of the uncertainty monster (that bleeds quite naturally into WP:FALSEBALANCE trolling)"[59]. The "real problematic" stuff that was removed by jps doesn't strike me as so egregious to warrant such tones. Or edit summaries like "This is not a well-written article to say the least."[60] while making minor changes to a 60k characters work that clearly took a lot of effort? It will obviously irritate and piss of an editor. What is the goal here? To get editors to stop contributing? To get them to lash out and get banned? That's just a highly toxic environment overall to edit in and I can only imagine how frustrating it must have been for Sennalen after quite a lot of work. We should be better than this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by DFlhb[edit]A WP:BOOMERANG is warranted as the filer's main focus in the COVID topic area has been to push a fringe POV. Evidence follows. Sennalen has repeatedly argued that the lab leak theory is "mainstream science" and that those who disagree are "disruptive", that "evidence favors an engineered laboratory origin", that "there's shrinking evidence for zoonoosis", and that "There are gut feelings about likelihood, but there is no evidence-based framework for assigning liklihood.". That's all false, and goes against the long-standing editor consensus that the evidence points to a zoonotic origin. She acknowledged that she's basing her views on "Intelligence, FOIAs, and preprints", none of which are reliable sources. While trying to relitigate established consensus, she's described a reliably-published expert as "grasping at straws", promoted SYNTH, misused sources (in the last diff: papers taken out of context, one old paper, and one paper that had been discussed at length and excluded), and misrepresented sources (presenting a previously-discussed and discredited ProPublica piece as "high quality"). Elsewhere, Sennalen acknowledged that she's challenging the editor consensus, yet said that editors who endorse the consensus are "pro-fringe". The article that led to this is a POVFORK with all the POV issues you'd expect from the above, including misuse of primary sources for MEDRS content. Other editors have documented issues in other topic areas (see MrOllie, Aquillion, PatrickJWelsh and others). (Semi-)civil POV-pushing is one of the hardest problems for other editors to deal with, and wastes a bunch of editor time, so I think an indef is warranted. The user is not here to reflect reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by IP[edit]Bon Courage commonly reverts edits by editors working in good faith. He should be barred from editing COVID topics. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1185288410 2600:8804:6600:4:8CF3:8BE7:D8B6:D6FC (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]It may already be obvious to participating admins and I so far avoided commenting, but after the above, it's important to remember that patrollers reverting edits that are not improvements is proper WP procedure. It's also not a case about them so likely unnecessary here, but various editors above who have complained are known to have attempted to promote certain POV on Wikipedia (I have some diffs and notes, in case they are eventually needed). —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by Ostalgia[edit]I do not believe I have ever come across any of the editors being discussed here in the past, and I'm not invested in the result of this report, either. However, I feel the need to point out that this diff has been provided by PatrickJWelsh as "evidence" of Sennalen's manipulation of sources, under the claim that she Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ජපස and Bon courage[edit]
|
DMH43[edit]
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning DMH43[edit]
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- DMH43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:30/500 in WP:ARBPIA4
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 6 December 2023 - This non EC user created a new ARAPIA page as well as edited it several times.
- 6 December 2023 - Another similar edit on an ARBPIA page
- 2 December 2023 - Several sequential revisions on a similar ARBPIA page
- 1-2 December 2023 - Several sequential revisions on a similar ARBPIA page
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
- Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
- Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
- Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
- Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
- Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
After warning this user and a mere 20 minutes after a separate warning from an admin, he continues to edit in ARBPIA (the first two edits above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
After warning this user and a mere 20 minutes after a separate warning from an admin, he continues to edit in ARBPIA (the first two edits above). He does not seem to be interested in participating according to the rules. Dovidroth (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- The users claim that he "only made changes to pages that are not about the Israel-Palestine conflict" is simply not true. Look at the top two edits above, both are clearly within ARBPIA. This article which he created says in the lead that it is a book about "the relationship between international law and the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (emphasis mine) - quite clearly ARBPIA and about the conflict itself. And this edit was a reference to the same book in another article. Dovidroth (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
User_talk:DMH43#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion
Discussion concerning DMH43[edit]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by DMH43[edit]
Neither of the edits on Dec 6 are on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I was notified of the restriction on Dec 6 and only made changes to pages that are not about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Maybe this is out of scope for this discussion, but looking at their talk page, the user Dovidroth seems to be acting aggressively towards other users recently and writing inappropriate comments in edit summaries.
- Thanks for giving me the chance to explain further. My reasoning was that I wouldnt expect either of those pages to be tagged with the category "Israel-Palestine" conflict or a related category. And also the edits I made are about a book, not about the conflict itself. Specifically, the only factual information presented in those edits is about the *book*, not about the conflict itself. In any case, I wasn't trying to "sneak" anything, I think it should be clear from my edit history that I quickly stopped making changes related with the conflict itself after the warning. DMH43 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Another user has commented that i edited the page for the book Pity the Nation. This book is about Lebanon, which to be clear, is not Palestine. DMH43 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Ostalgia[edit]
@DMH43:, you may think that those two pages do not fall under the scope of ARBPIA, but the ruling itself, for the purpose of sanctions, defines the area of conflict as the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
I am afraid your edits do fall within this broad interpretation of the conflict area. I recommend you step away from topics even vaguely related to ARBPIA at the very least until you have achieved EC status (which isn't too complicated, anyway). Considering you are a new user, it is not unlikely that whoever rules on your case will be open to cutting you some slack and let you off with a warning, but you should try not to get yourself into further trouble. I also recommend you avoid engaging in a back-and-forth with other users. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, @Dovidroth, from your userpage I see this is an issue that is dear to you (and in which DMH and your opinion seem to diverge). I can understand that. However, while the rules are on your side here, I feel like you're coming down like a ton of bricks on a new user who is not familiar with all our rules and regulations and has actually been quite receptive on his talk page when his mistakes have been pointed out to him. This could've been solved amicably and without need for administrative action, I believe. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier[edit]
WP:ARBECR permits non EC editor article creation subject to admin oversight, as was requested by filer here. That is kind of confusing, because as soon as a non EC editor has created an article, they cannot then edit it without falling foul of the rest of WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike[edit]
Right after his explanation he edited [61] a book about the conflict it clearly shows that user cannot edit such fragile area Shrike (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]
DMH43 the restriction is on the Arab-Israeli conflict. As somebody who sees great value in the work you have done and would like to see it continue for many years, please heed this advice. Work on another topic entirely that interests you. Write about Native Americans, or Japanese history, or video games, or literally any other topic completely removed from the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Then, when you have gained the necessary experience and knowledge about how this place works and can contribute productively, edit about this topic if that still interests you. But please, gain the experience necessary first, otherwise you will be banned from the topic and potentially blocked. And there are definitely people rooting for that outcome because they do not want what you have written to be covered on Wikipedia. I am legit begging you, do not fall for it, do not walk in to a ban. Work on another topic for a month and 500 edits, learn how to summarize sources the way we want to, learn how to engage productively on talk pages, learn how NPOV and OR work. But you need to learn in another topic area entirely removed from Israel and its conflict with basically anybody. nableezy - 16:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Great, and if the admins are in the advice taking mood, a formal warning that further editing in the topic area is prohibited until they reach 500 additional edits (meaning 646 total) so that the prior violations dont get included would be fair imo. nableezy - 16:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Result concerning DMH43[edit]
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Selfstudier, non-EC editors should not be creating articles at all related to ARBPIA. It is up to administrator discretion if they should be deleted, but that is different than being allowed to create the articles.DMH43, I'm wondering how you think that an edit you made after the warning that added the text
Israeli–Palestinian conflict
, or an edit about a person whoseprimary focus being the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
would not be about the Israel/Palestine conflict? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC) - This looks like it can be closed as no action given DMH43's statement above at 16:20, 8 December 2023 including "I'll just edit pages which are not in any way be related to middle eastern countries or their people." @DMH43:: You must not edit articles like Noura Erakat given that the lead has "her primary focus being the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Take a couple of months to slowly become used to standard procedures and demonstrate self-restraint. You can ask for advice somewhere such as an admin's talk page (try mine if you like) but bear in mind that if you have to ask whether a particular edit would be ok, it would be better to think no and don't ask. I might have missed something but while the diffs given above show a problem, I don't see a crystal-clear explanation at DMH43's talk and the transgressions look like the normal bewilderment of a new editor. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Assuming a modicum of good faith: close with notice to avoid ARBPIA topic area, broadly construed, until extended-confirmed. Agree with Johnuniq this is potentially a fairly new editor not grasping the rules. If so the issue is simply addressed by having them steer clear for a while.-- Euryalus (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
KhndzorUtogh[edit]
| Closed with no formal action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 12 December 2023 (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 KhndzorUtogh[edit]
I've been interacting with KhndzorUtogh while editing several articles and find his behavior problematic. He received warnings from various users about Armenia-Azerbaijan area, but still edits recklessly (e.g. when reverting some articles while related talkpage discussions have been in progress).
KhndzorUtogh also appears to have a puzzling edit rate, sometimes with 4-3 reverts per minute across different articles: [62], [63], [64]. Here he makes a hefty +8,048 addition just 2 minutes after the previous edit. Or adds a +802 formatted paragraph in the same minute of previous edit.
Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KhndzorUtogh[edit]
It's interesting that Aredoros is so familiar with Armenia-Azerbaijan 3, considering the user hadn't edited in those contentious topics until a month ago, immediately after reaching 500 edits and the account being a little over a month old at the time (WP:XCON). And Aredoros is even aware of the warning User:Abrvagl, a user that Aredoros has a great deal on common with, put on my talk page over a year ago. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers I affirm that I will. I have used the talk page while implementing bold pages on many occasions in the past.[66][67][68] Is there an instance in this report where I had added something to a lead section that may or may not have been sourced? Because in the second listed diff I wasn't really adding something new, I was reverting an IP of a block user that removed something in the lead, which was sourced below. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by MarioGom[edit]Note that this request was opened shortly after I closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abrvagl (IMHO suspicious but inconclusive), so it has the appearance of a retaliatory request by Aredoros87. MarioGom (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning KhndzorUtogh[edit]
|