Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | tålk 07:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, WP:AELOG/2021.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 May 2022
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 11 May 2022.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Turns out I made a mistake starting this. I didn't fully understand what 1RR means. Thanks for explaining, hope I will not forget it again. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 have made one revert. Triggerhippie4 has made one revert. One of us has discussed their edit on the talk page. I leave as an exercise to the reader to find out which one of us that is. nableezy - 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The one revert rule allows for no more than one revert to be made to an article within 24 hours. The above diffs appear to show one revert, and my scrolling through the page history only shows one revert. I don’t see a bright-line 1RR issue. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
No violation. Triggerhippie seems to have misunderstood the 1RR restriction to mean that not even one revert may be made. No; such a restriction would be called 0RR. Nableezy has made one revert, which does not violate the restriction. I'm not going to recommend a boomerang, but I'll point out that Triggerhippie filed this case about an hour after Nableezy posted a discretionary sanctions alert for the PIA area on their page. Was there any connection, Triggerhippie? Also, I'm not sure that a 4-month topic ban from 2010 is what I'd call a "previous relevant sanction", though YMMV. Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I note that Triggerhippie has to all intents and purposes withdrawn this report, though without answering my question about Nableezy's DS alert. Never mind, it was pretty rhetorical anyway; IMO, it's obvious that Triggerhippie was inspired by the DS alert. Bishonen | tålk 07:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Director of Editing and New Content[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
New editor (with less that 500 edits) edit-wars to say that hospital in the Israeli-occupied areas is "in Israel". They
removes alert I gave them, when I gave them a "last warning", they removed that, too. They obviously are not listening to me, perhaps they will listen to admins? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Director of Editing and New Content[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 Director of Editing and New Content[edit]
After being blocked as a role account (a job title is not an acceptable username), user "responded" by deleting the block notice, as well as prior warning content. I then revoked talk page access. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning Director of Editing and New Content[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
SPECIFICO is warned to be more civil in the American Politics topic area and Wikipedia more generally. --GuerilleroParlez Moi 14:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
3 June 2018SPECIFICO knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus.[1][2] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed (internal links transformed to notes for template reasons).
Previously given a logged warning for conduct in the area of conflict on 9 April 2020 by Seraphimblade(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) with the note that SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions.
The user issued a discretionary sanction warning on the topic within the past twelve months on 17 August 2021
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
To provide context to the above, I have repeatedly asked the user to retract their accusations of meatpuppetry and they've refused to do so. This all spurred from my response to a request on WP:RFCLOSE in which I closed a discussion on the article talk page. SPECIFICO has repeatedly made false allegations that I am acting as a meatpuppet of Iamreallygoodatcheckers, refused to strike that characterization or apologize, and then baselessly made allegations on an article talk page that I violated discretionary sanctions by editing a page to which they clearly do not apply. It's frankly uncivil at this point and, while I am someone who generally enjoys wading through discussions and writing closing summaries of complex RfCs, this sort of uncivil behavior towards an uninvolved closer that stems from a content dispute in which SPECIFICO is a party has driven me here to request that the user be given a final warning on civility and casting aspersions in the WP:AP2 topic area.
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't know how you are meatpuppeting the agenda of X user is to be read except to be an accusation that I am meatpuppeting. While I agree that an indef T-ban is excessive, I would still like an apology from the SPECIFICO for casting this aspersion against me and I would also like the user to be either given a final warning or to be put on civility parole. The rate at which these sorts of interactions occur in the AMPOL area are part of the reason that I have more hesitation when deciding to make RfC closures in the that area, even though I generally enjoy closing complex discussions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: I accept your apology. I agree that creating #58 was not optimal its initial phrasing, though as I've explained on the article talk page, the close was written in a way that made it clear that there was no affirmative consensus for Iamreallygoodatcheckers's sentence to be included as written. I am happy to see that editors were able to come to an agreement on the content dispute following the closure of the discussion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To echo Nableezy, I don't think that an AmPol topic ban is the most narrowly tailored solution here. Out of the top twenty pages Specifico has made edits to, the majority have involved edits related to American Politics. If the issue that administrators see is a civility issue, then I re-emphasize that the user should be given a final warning and placed on civility parole. This would allow for the editor to continue to make productive edits in the topic area, while also allowing for a mechanism to deter future issues with civility with clear enforcement mechanisms should civility remain an issue. A topic ban, however, seems to be a bit much at this point, especially given the editor's lack of any sort of sanction or logged warning in this topic area since 2020. The editor has made a good-faith apology here and I think the editor would be willing to make a good-faith effort to remain civil going forward. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
As I've said elsewhere, I stupidly misused the term "meatpuppeting", which I later looked up and learned did not apply to this situation. However, I explained in some detail the concerns I had about what I feel was OP's undue endorsement of Chex' viewpoint on this issue both in the RfC close and in OP's subsequent creation at Chex' request of a redundant "consensus 58" incorporating the (IMO) flaws of OP's close, when there was no new consensus. So if an apology will resolove this, Hawk you have my apology for using that term "meatpuppeting". SPECIFICOtalk 15:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from reading that Ernie says, w/o evidence that I'm "sneaky" and that North remembers something unspecified from a decade back, as does G, I am not seeing anything sanction-worthy or anything regrettable aside from my misuse of MEATPUPPET, for which I've abjectly apologized. Frankly, the closer and Chex were rather unresponsive to a direct concern about the content and their editing of it and I thought trying to identify my concern (which I bungled after Hawk doubled down) was a better move than tying up editor resources by requesting a close review on a minor matter. SPECIFICOtalk 23:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope everyone here actually follows the links and reviews the threads that show the content dispute referenced by @CutePeach: so as to properly evaluate its relevance to this complaint. (BTW, yes, WSJ is a corporate affiliate of the NY Post and yes that is a matter of mainstream concern, e.g. [5][6]. Thank you, SpaceX, for providing context to some of the other discussion here. It's good example of why the context needs to be independently researched by all of us reading noticeboard postings, and I hope all assertions in this thread will be similarly scrutinized by all who care. SPECIFICOtalk 14:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimbade and El C: With due respect for your volunteer efforts, I am at a loss to see any documented basis for your repeated assertions that I am habitiually uncivil let alone that my contuing participation at AP articles is or would be disruptive to article content or talk page collaboration. We all presume you are not merely counting heads on this thread or taking at face value various assertions without thoroughly investigating the context. Checkers self-describes a young and inexperienced editor, so nobody should be surprised that he has at times been overly insistent on talk page threads in ways that have been pointed out to him by various editors, not just by me. I've given him some good advice on other modes of pursuing his views, and he has adopted some of what I'v'e told him in the past. In the present case, I would have hoped that you Admins looked on his talk page when he commented here. His misunderstanding of WP:TE and the confusion between Sealion and WP:Sealion that led to him mistakenly accusing me of attacking him have been fully hashed out. Yes when he was starting out here,he was IMO sealioning and tendentiously repeating views after they'd failed to achieve consusus. I advised him on that on at least two occasions and explained to him how he could use sitewide noticeboards like BLPN and Close Review to ensure that his views were fully considered. On the occasion he As I told him, I had no intention of reporting that for enforcement. I would be disappointed if either of you Admins, in light of the context, would conclude that going to his user talk to raise that issue away from the article pages was unusual or outside of WP norms or agree with his feeling that I was threatening him when I made a point of telling him I was not going to seek enforcement. Looking at that TE thread he cites in his comment below, please consider, Admins, whether you agree with his asssertion that I did not identify the TE, when I twice stated that it was due to his having gone to the article as soon as the RfC ended, to reintroduce the text for which his RfC sought and failed to get approval. It turned out later, evidently, that Checkers was not aware of the full text of [WP:TE which I then quoted to him on his talk page and for which he thanked me.
At any rate, after Hawk's complaint was amicably resolved between the two of us, this thread now appears to be turning to undocumented assertions of a serious ongoing problem. The two most active and experienced AP content editors who've commented have disagreed with that view. Of course Admins have the authority to sanction in the DS areas without waiting for an AE filing, but the community expects such actions to be based on documentation and reasoned evaluation. AE has been an acknowledged work in progress for the community, with Arbcom well into the second year of working on improvements. Along with the necessary sanctions on clearly bad actors, there have also been too many questionable decisions that have led to the retirement of some of our best content editors in the AP area after overly aggressive and poorly reasoned applications of DS.
Reflecting on the valid portion of the concerns raised here, I think it's clear that (due to IRL reasons and time pressures beyond the scope of this discussion) I have been too careless in my use of links as shorthand for specific complex issues. I misused WP:Sealion instead of Sealion. I referred to WP:TE to an editor who apparently was not fully aware of its text, and I misapplied WP:meatpuppet intending the incorrect meaning that's already been explained and now resolved. So If I were an Admin closing this thread, I would warn SPECIFICO not to rely on links on another user's talk page without also giving a detailed explanation of the issues and why I feel they apply. In my opinion that would be constructive advice worth giving and following. I don't expect to comment further unless I'm asked to respond to a question.. SPECIFICOtalk 14:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick further comment concerning the participation of Mr Ernie here. Ernie was banned from participating at AE by @Sandstein: in this diff due to behavior similar to what he's done in this thread. Sandstein later granted Ernie's appeal based on Ernie's statements that he would not repeat such behavior and further that he did not even intend to participate at AE, here. Ernie regularly appears at various pages to support sanctions against me, but given the above, I was surprised to see him appear on this thread at AE, with off-topic disparagement ("sneaky") and the several comments about me and Assange. SPECIFICOtalk 01:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been interacting with SPECIFICO for some time now (mainly at Talk:Donald Trump), and while much of it has been fine, I have definitely experienced some of SPECIFCO's uncivil behavior. I've usually tried to give them the benefit of the doubt and just ignore it, but their uncivil behavior has in fact caused me some deal of anxiety and frustration, which has created a toxic environment in areas surrounding American politics.
The following comments concern this discussion: User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers/Archive 2#WP:NPA at Trump talk. On March 4th they left an accusation on my talk page with no sort of evidence, such as diffs, accusing me of violation WP:NPA. I responded saying that I had done not such thing. In that same thread, Mr Ernie warned them about providing unevidenced allegations. SPECIFICO made no response to mine or Ernies comments. On March 6th, SPECFICO accused me of WP:Casting aspersions, this time providing this diff. [7] Now this is a response I had made on the Trump talk page after SPECIFICO had accused me of WP:SEALION, a redirect to WP:Civil POV pushing, here. [8] With this diff SPECIFICO, says that I casted aspersions and assuring the links (WP:SEALION and WP:Civil POV pushing) are not the same. Now these links very much are the same, just click them if you don't believe me. I and Mr. Ernie again told them to stop with the behavior and that SEALION is the same as Civil POV pushing. SPECIFICO only admitted they were wrong about SEALION and Civil POV pushing after Valjean explained to them that they did in fact cite WP:SEALION against me. However, SPECICIO continued to say that "the problem remained," and that I was sealioning from their understanding. They did not provide any evidence to back these allegations, a fact that is pointed out by Ernie in the discussion. I never have received any form of apology or comment striking (after my request) for SPECICO's false allegations against me of NPA. Relevant diffs: [9][10][11][12][13][14]
SPECICO has done this to me again just this week on my talk page (see User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers#WP:TE at Donald Trump). They accuse me with no evidence of any kind with WP:TE and "overly-insistent and POV editing at AP and BLP articles." They say they are "unlikely to do the work to document" my behavior, which I see as justification on their behalf of providing zero evidence. They also say my behavior is "worthy of a topic ban" in their view. I tell them to please stop with their behavior and that it's caused me stress and created a toxic environment. I have yet to receive any response from them. As detailed above by Mhawk, they have also accused me and Mhawk of meatpuppetting together, an allegation with no evidence. All this is WP:Casting aspersions and potentially WP:HOUND. Relevant diffs: [15][16]
SPECIFICO violated DS at Julian Assange, another politically charged article, a few weeks ago. There is a section on their talk page with the details of that here. What I want to highlight is one of the reverts ([17]), removed content that was decided by RFC consensus just a few weeks ago, with SPECIFICO's participation. Note the RFC was required in part due to SPECIFICO's removal of the content before the RFC. Read the edit summary in the removal after RFC consensus - "NOTNEWS - not a significant fact about Assange No ongoing coverage in his life story." This is a sneaky move to remove content they simply just don't like, and SPECIFICO didn't seem interested to explain it in the linked discussion on their talk page. I don't think another final warning will do any good here - just check the sanction log. In addition to what the OP linked, SPECIFICO received a short topic ban from Joe Biden in 2020, a short topic ban from Julian Assange in 2020, a reminder and a warning in 2018, "Anti-Filibuster, Courtesy in reporting, No personal comments, and Thicker skin sanctions" in 2018, a restriction in 2017, and a warning in 2017. A standard AmPol2 topic ban should do, and I'll support the removal of it when SPECIFICO simply agrees to edit more collaboratively. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few months ago SPECIFICO disputed content at Assange ([18], [19], [20]). There was a lengthy talk discussion which resulted in consensus for inclusion ([21]), but SPECIFICO insisted on an RFC in this section [22]. The RFC ran and concluded with consensus for inclusion, despite SPECIFICO canvassing noticeboards ([23][24]) with a note disparaging participating editors. You can see the same type of behavior in my original post, with SPECIFICO forcing an RFC for content they don't like, and a few weeks after it closes with consensus SPECIFICO removes the content, again, ([25]) with a misleading edit summary. There are no reminders or warnings that have lead to any change in editing behavior in at least the last 8 years (noting NYB was on the Committee in the 2 cases linked below where SPECIFICO was sanctioned.) We've seen it over and over and over and over, disagreements on content that lead to personalizations of disputes. I don't understand why a preventative topic ban should not be imposed, which can easily be removed after an appeal by SPECIFICO addressing the issues that have been brought up. Another warning is easily ignored and requires no change of behavior. I urge consideration of a topic ban at least at Assange if there is no appetite for an overall AP one. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is more time needed before this can be closed? Or more diffs, or what? It's been more than a week, with 5 admins in favor of a sanction of some sorts and 2 who are not. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to add, only that I believe this ds/alert issued by SPECIFICO could be construed as reactive to the content dispute between SPECIFICO and Mhawk10. Also from what I can tell, the 1RR/24-hour BRD page restriction point is erroneous with respect to Talk:Donald Trump, as having checked the enforcement log entry that sanction only applies (as far as I can see) to the main article and not the associated article talk pages. From what I've seen elsewhere in the enforcement log, when an article and its talk page is subject to sanctions there is usually some text like Article Name and its associated talk page which is absent in this log entry. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a spat arising from a content dispute between two of the most active editors on Donald Trump that could and should be settled among the editors involved. (The content dispute appears to have been solved for now, with none of us getting our preferred versions.) Meatpuppeting — I don’t think that applies, but the term seems to be directed more against Iamreallygoodatcheckers than Mhawk10 who got caught in the middle of the dispute. The suggested indefinite topic ban from American politics seems over the top. I don’t see the relevance of two sanctions in other areas eight years ago, or how this is worse than this incident of disruptive behavior which resulted in zero action. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding context to the warning on June 3, 2018, FWIW. I doubt that any editor other than Winkelvi would have taken that interaction to the noticeboard after a discussion lasting exactly one hour (well, maybe D. Creish, banned from all Wikimedia sites since March 2019 and one of the other editors involved in the edits from this one to this one, would have). Winkelvi racked up 13 blocks between 2014 and 2018, including an indefinite one in November 2018. Their request to unblock was denied in 2019. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CutePeach: FYI: The Wall Street Journal, through its parent company Dow Jones & Co., and the NY Post, through its parent company NYP Holdings, are owned by the same third party, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. That makes them affiliates. A few sources explaining "affiliates": [26], [27], [28], [29]. Whether or not that needed to go into the article and whether or not it was sourced or needed to be sourced is a different matter but that's been taken care of through normal editing by several editors at least eight months ago. Apropos bias, this, really? Three sketchy sources reporting on a story in the Daily Mail (it's on WP's deprecated sources list) and a misquoted fourth source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CutePeach: If I had been involved in that article, I would have immediately challenged, i.e., removed, the section on not one, but two opinion pieces written by a member of the WSJ editorial board, citing WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV. The WSJ editorial board is well-known for its right-wing political stance, and their news side has been upset about it for years (CJR, NYM). The statement that the WSJ is a NY Post affiliate was unsourced but challenged material is removed from WP all the time through normal editing. Hushed-up — seems to me that there was plenty of coverage, just not the 2016-kind hoped for by Bannon researcher Maxey, Giuliani, and the NY Post, the immensely reliable parties involved in the lack of a "clean chain of custody" (WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x that an indef topic ban is way over the top, and such old incidents should not be entered as evidence. The real issue is civility, and a warning is justified. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the concerns from Mhawk10 and Nableezy. An AmPol topic ban is over-the-top, whereas a civility parole would deal with the real problem. Considering the apology has been accepted, we're in a situation that amounts to the police dropping all charges, but the judge still issuing a death sentence, rather than a fine (a civility parole). One should also keep in mind that previous accusations made by one of the most tendentious editors we've seen in the AmPol area, who has been banned, should not be counted against SPECIFICO. We should never side with the bad faith accusations from such people. Being attacked by such a person is a badge of honor that shows that SPECIFICO must have been doing something right, rather than wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not had interactions since many many years ago. But back then was similar to the above. Including IMO false accusations as a tactic in AP debates. Something to lessen the grief for other editors and help SPECIFICO Wiki-evolve would be good. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A statement to sincerely work towards a goal of always wearing a wiki-hat (not pov-hat) first when working at articles, and being sure to only make firmly justified complaints about editors (never ginned up as a tactic in debates) would be cool and maybe set a course for a more fun future. With no implication that those negative things occurred, and just a goal so that it doesn't create a minefield for SPECIFICO. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theres been an apology, the apology has been accepted, the person who requested sanctions says an indef topic ban is over the top, but thats what is seriously being discussed below. That is the cause of this complaint has been resolved according to the person who opened it, and they say the proposed sanction even prior to the apology was overkill, and yet that appears to be what yall going to settle on. Seems a bit extreme. Just a wee bit. nableezy - 20:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel like a two week turnaround time is pushing it here. nableezy - 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I encountered SPECIFICO when I created Hunter Biden laptop controversy to separate the issue from the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article, and I was less than impressed with this editor's deletion of WP:DUE content [30][31][32] - while an AFD was ongoing [33]. I found SPECIFICO's interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NOR to be highly egregious in the TP discussions [34], and they led to the deletion of the page, which has since been restored. Furthermore, their repeated attempts to call WSJ an "affiliate" of NY Post and TP arguments to put this unsourced allegation in wikivoice - was not only a violation of WP:NOR, but also WP:RS. I refuse to believe that an editor as experienced as SPECIFICO was unaware then, as he seemingly is now, of such core policies and how they are applied. As harsh as the topic ban may seem, I think this incident and those mentioned by Mhawk10 and Mr Ernie, show that this editor is unable to leave their POV at the door when editing AP articles. I think an indef topic ban from AP may be what is required to communicate to experienced editors that such conduct can and will be sanctioned. As a valued member of the community, I'm sure SPECIFICO's appeal will be accepted after six months. CutePeach (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope everyone here does reads the links I referenced, as SPECIFICO advises, since they show a flagrant violation of WP:NOR in order to WP:PUSH a POV about the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post article SPECIFICO now references to justify the allegation they put in Wikivoice - that the WSJ is an affiliate of the New York Post [35] - is not only a violation of WP:NOR, but also WP:SYNTH. I completely agree with the WaPo article about the WSJ pushing the letters-to-the-editor boundary, but it has nothing to do with the Hunter Biden laptop saga,and it does not call into question the WSJ's editorial independence. SPECIFICO's position on Hunter Biden laptop controversy page, just like their position on the Julian Assange page, was widely opposed, yet they went against it - and continue to justify it. As I previously stated, this demonstrates that the editor is unable to edit without including their unsourced POV, and this warrants sanctions, or at least a logged warning - to prevent this from happening again. If admins Newyorkbrad, Bishonen and Seraphimblade are just going to let this slide, then this is evidence of administrators enabling the Ideological bias on Wikipedia through selective enforcement of WP:PAGs, which can be cited in a WP:ARBCOM case request on this matter. I will be interested to observe how administrators enforce policy with editors from the other side of the aisle facing the same charges. CutePeach (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I am well aware that The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post both belong to Newcorp, making them affiliates by any dictionary definition, but that is not the issue. The WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems were in the way SPECIFICO presented their unsourced claim to discredit a WSJ editorial board member criticizing the media's lacklustre coverage of the controversy. SPECIFICO violated WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in three ways: 1) claiming in Wikivoice that what the WSJ editorial alleged was but a Fox News allegation, [36], 2) injecting the insourced affiliation claim in Wikivoice to temper the Jenkins criticism [37], and 3) deleting the section entirely [38]. As I've said before, I personally don't believe there to be anything very nefarious in the Hunter Biden's laptop/s, but the way the media hushed it up only fanned the flames of controversy, and efforts like SPECIFICO's attempts to confound this controversy with the conspiracy theory have damaged Wikipedia's credibility on the subject. The VanityFair article they rely on for the affiliate claim cannot be used for any statements of fact in our voice, [39] and it had no bearing on the Jenkins oped, which came out months later. To claim that WSJ editorial board isn't independent of its proprietorship is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that needs very robust sourcing, and SPECIFICO should have known better. If they persist with these shenanigans, we are going to be right back here, and very soon. CutePeach (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Beyond what Mr Ernie and Mhawk10 mentioned, SPECIFICO was sanctioned in Austrian economics and mentioned in Interactions at GGTF (both in 2014). It is clear to me that the only path forward is an indef topic ban from AP. --GuerilleroParlez Moi 17:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can move forward without any action, but I have a strong feeling that we will be back here having this very same discussion in a few months -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 09:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban isn't the cure. In fact, since DS should only be used when regular sanctions aren't sufficient, I don't see a need for DS sanctions at all, since civility is the issue, and it is an ongoing issue everywhere, not just in AP2. It's not a daily thing, but the civility issue has cropped up a few times over the last year. I think something needs to happen, but in a general way, as the issue transcends AP2 and is wiki-wide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the long-term pattern being around things that can be connected to AP in one way or another -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 21:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are confident it does tie to AP and a tban is warranted, I understand, however, I still think starting with an indef is a bit harsh for a pattern of incivility issues that (individually) has been insufficient to warrant a block. I DO agree that something needs to be done, not for this single incident, but for the pattern that has evolved over the last year. Frankly, I was thinking a 30 day block, but a 6 month tban may work. SPECIFICO has been here awhile, long enough to know better, but has also done some worthwhile work. I'm willing to defer here, but prefer something shorter than indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still of the mind that a short block could be warranted, but I still can't see an indef tban as the best solution. Arguably, it is already settled and no sanction is required, but if the consensus is to sanction, a block is the only thing that really makes sense to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm not terribly active on AP so it's taken me several days to dig through the background here, however, insofar as I read the history I'm inclined to agree with Guerillero on the utility and justifiability of an indef TBAN. Working our way up from 30- to 90- to 180-days, etc., would be punitive in my estimation by meting out a "sentence" in the absence an objective reason to believe a specific time period is necessary. An indefinite ban merely acknowledges this is a protective, not a judicial, measure and the editor can freely request to have it lifted at any time in the future, whether that's next week or next year. Chetsford (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with @Guerillero and Chetsford: indef AP TBAN is probably best at this point. Dennis Brown, similarly to Guerillero, in my experience, AP has been the nexus behind most problems concerning SPECIFICO. But I could also see myself supporting a well thought out appeal in, say, 6 months. Also, similarly to Chetsford (and for similar reasoning), I am generally opposed to TBANs that have a precise expiration, which of course has nothing to do with SPECIFICO themselves. El_C 19:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've about reached the point here where we can say that warnings have not been ineffective, and so some action is needed. It seems the general consensus is for an AP topic ban, and I would agree to that. I do not generally like time-limited topic bans for the reason given above, though in this case I would certainly be willing to consider an appeal after some time has passed; "indefinite" need not mean "permanent". I do not agree with the above that, since other editors are uncivil, we should not do anything about individual editors who are being uncivil—indeed, perhaps if enforcement were more frequently done, we would start seeing that practice curbed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 18:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will, with some reluctance, agree to not imposing a topic ban at this point, given that the issue has been resolved. However, I will entirely endorse what Newyorkbrad had to say regarding the future. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 19:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although SPECIFICO should be more cautious about her use of wiki-speak in making accusations, and better still should just stop making accusations against other editors period, I cannot agree that a topic-ban is warranted resulting from this incident, which has been resolved to the satisfaction of the editor who filed the report. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: If you are not topic-banned at this time (the outcome is not yet determined), please conduct yourself going-forward in a way that doesn't lead to your being well-groundedly brought back here, because the result next time might well be different. We have several experienced administrators above opining that you should be excused from the American politics topic-area based on the accumulation of prior incidents, and while I currently disagree with them, it's understandable why they might feel that way. Please do your best from now on to stay away from even the borderline of what might be considered personal attacks or accusations. At times this is best achieved by stepping away from the keyboard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Newyorkbrad. Bishonen | tålk 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I think that this can be closed with a formal warning to SPECIFICO to be careful going forwards with regards to (a) their general civility on Wikipedia, and (b) the American politics topic area. If there are future issues regarding either then there is a very high likelihood that formal sanctions, such as an indefinite topic ban, will be the result. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RuudVanClerk has been blocked indefinitely for POV-pushing, battleground editing, and misuse of sources. This is an ordinary admin action. Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
RuudVanClerk makes content contributions where the sources consistently fail verification, and whenever the issues are brought up their responses have ranged from deflection to gaslighting.
In this edit RuudVanClerk added a reference to Aparna Rao's 1982 book, which is – conveniently – out of print, held by very few libraries, and in a language that not many people in this topic area can read. Unluckily for them, I was able to access a copy of the book and found out it doesn't have anything remotely resembling the statement they were using it to support. When I brought this up on their talk page, their reply didn't address or even acknowledge the problem [40]. They further stated that they have a copy of the book in question, but when I asked them for quotes, their only response was to promptly blank the entire talk page section [41]. All of that was part of the wider disruption they were causing at Peripatetic groups of Afghanistan (I will provide more details if anyone would like to see them.)
I've also checked a few of RuudVanClerk's other content additions and all have had verifiability problems at various levels of severity. Here are a few examples:
Several edits between 7 and 18 May at the Dhan Singh article (examples: [42][43]), which introduced OR and misrepresented the source: this is explained in this talk post
Several edits to the Khatri article from 14 May: completely failed verification, see talk page post
16 May addition to the Bengal Sultanate article [44] where half of the significant claims are not supported by the source cited (talk post)
17 May addition to the Sikhism in Italy article [45] (if you'd like to spot-check a single example, this should be it: the source is very short and freely available online, and it's easy to see how it's been misused) – instances of OR and source misrepresentation (see talk post).
These are not just the mistakes of a new editor who's still learning the ropes here. As can be seen from their participation in discussions, RuudVanClerk themself always repeats the need for sticking to the sources. I suspect this discrepancy isn't due to CIR so much as to POV. The vast majority of their edits are to do with either the Rajputs, or their antagonistic groups. Invariably, the former are cast in a positive light (the Bengal Sultanate edit above involved the plugging of a minor episode of Rajput glory), while the latter are presented in negative terms (among the examples above: the Afghanistan peripatetics case was part of their push to insert the word "Jat" into the title of this article about a stigmatised social category; the other two involved adding negative content about Sikhs and about a Gujjar).
In an effort to keep this report brief, I've kept only the most illustrative events. I'll be happy to provide more context and further diffs if necessary.
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.
(Typing on phone so may be a bit jumbled so do excuse me)
The evidence for arbitration enforce is quite weak. In relation to the first point relating to the article, Peripatetic groups of Afghanistan, the Aparna Rao source itself actually uses Jat in the title itself hence the reason I was in favour of changing the article title. Note the book name:
^ Rao, Aparna (1982). Les Gorbat d'Afghanistan : aspects economiques d'un groupe itinerant "Jat". Editions Recherche sur les civilisations
Rather than disrupting the article when the editor reverted the name, I actually attempted to get a third party to mediate the dispute, see here: [48]
In relation to the Bengal Sultanate claim, how is adding a small paragraph with a source disruptive in any way? It’s a different matter if it’s not reliable but that should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard.
In relation to the Dhan Singh article, the source literally says that he possibly incited rioters and looters. In fact following our discussion I actually added possibly to reflect that:
[[49]]
Your accusations of me glorifying Rajputs are comical but unfortunately also a personal attack on myself. Most of my edits do not even concern Rajputs. You just seem unhappy with my edits but unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is an environment where people will inevitably have differing opinions and it is important that you come to terms with that.RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that a lot of your points are quite general almost like you are trying to pull the wool over the admins eyes. Can you detail what exactly is wrong with this edit on Sikhism in Italy:
How does this relate to me being a supposedly being a “Rajput supremacist”.RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen Will need my French translator tool for the Aparna Rao quote. Please ping me if that is not provided in 24 hours as I am off work tomorrow so will get it done. In relation to Dhan Singh, Uanfala has already provided that quote here:[51]. I will post again as you have unfortunately missed it:
It thus appeared that [Dhan Singh] had informed his fellow Gujars of the outbreak, perhaps even encouraging them to plunder, and now his loyalties were divided
Can you detail how adding this is POV. Can you also detail how adding this is POV. What is my POV, how does this benefit my POV? What does “however difficult” in the beginning meant to imply? I hope no one has joined this discussion with preconceived notions just because one editor has been editing for a longer period. That would be very unfortunate RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this @Bishonen, can you detail how changing the title to Jat is POV? An entire encyclopaedia Iranica article uses the term Jat:
Aparna Rao’s own work uses it in its title. Is the late Aparna Rao and Encyclopedia Iranica in league with Rajput supremacists like myself to denigrate others? I merely thought it was right to change it and when challenged requested comments. After that, I subsequently left the issue. I hope I am not being witch hunted here, I would requested other admins to get involved now. This is seriously affecting my mental health which is not what Wikipedia is supposed to do.. RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare:@Utcursch:@Ad Orientem: Pinging other admins as well for further opinions. Not sure if against the rules to do this, please delete if not.
The crux of the issue is that Bishonen and Uanfala have taken particular issue with two of my edits. One which I have already proven here ([53]) is supported by a source. And another which I will endeavour to post the quote of soon. At the very most this is a content dispute however they are accusing/implying that it is POV. Do these edits support the view that it is POV? RuudVanClerk (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are here.
The quotes in question as requested. Actually located on page 32 instead of 83 (apologies):
“S’aplliquent donc a au moins six groupes [Baluc, Gorbat, Jalali, Pikraj, Sadibaz, Vangawala] qui se distinguent les uns des autres autant par leurs metiers que par leur langue et par leur origne… Bref le term “Jat”, serait un ethnonyme impose”
For those that don’t speak French, they detail the various groups that are termed as Jat including the Baluch, Gorbat, Sadibaz etc. near the end of the extract, the clear use of the word Jat is seen hence my logic in including the word, JAT.
Further down on the same page:
“distingue six groupes jat dispersés dans tout le pays . Si tous ne sont pas d'origine indienne ( les Ghorbat , par exemple…”
The author here clearly mentions that these groups are considered by locals to be of Indian-origin implying a relationship with the Jats of the Indian Subcontinent (detailed under Jat people on Wikipedia).
Now many of you may be saying oh it’s in French, we can’t take it seriously but alas, English language commentary on Rao’s work also corroborates this. See here the Encyclopaedia Iranica article ([54]). The quote on this article reads as follows:
“Aparna Rao (2004) lists four general features of the Jāt noted by outsiders to differentiate them from other nomadic and semi-nomadic communities in Afghanistan: (1) They lived in houses in urban areas and in white tents when they lived in rural areas and, in contrast to the black goat’s hair tents of the pastoral nomads, in white tents when they lived in rural areas; (2) they were collectively known as outsiders with Indian origins even though a Jāt community itself, as in the case of the Ḡorbat, would claim Iranian roots; (3) they were considered both physically and ritually unclean and associated with undesirable and polluting occupations of feeding on carrion and corpses, bloodletting, prostitution, pimping, and child-abduction; (4) their small and dark physical features validated their Indian, non-Afghan, origins.”
Here it states clearly in English that Rao says that they are viewed as having Indian Jat origin.
Now I am not here to argue that the article should be changed as clearly Uanfala knows how to game the system to his advantage and being a long-time editor he is probably on good terms with the administrators as well. No, I am demonstrating here that my edits are justified and NOT POV as many other people would also interpret the above in the same way. Now I expect due to me not paying obeisance to an Admin but challenging their point, I will probably be banned or sanctioned on some ground of “using the wrong page number” or “slight misspelling” but what I have demonstrated here is that my view was justified and not part of some defamatory and juvenile accusation of Rajput supremacy or whatever. RuudVanClerk (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted the extract, but what does it matter which translation tool I use? In relation to the Dhan Singh article what I added is detailed in this diff ([55])
And the quote reads:
“It thus appeared that [Dhan Singh] had informed his fellow Gujars of the outbreak, perhaps even encouraging them to plunder, and now his loyalties were divided”
What I posted is completely in line with the quote you posted. How is it not? I even went and added possibly later on as per what was detailed on talk page.
I will not comment much on the intention to indefinitely ban me but will say that it is interesting and leave it at that. RuudVanClerk (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Re Rao's book being "conveniently" out of print, please assume good faith even when it's difficult, Uanfala. That said, RVC's evasiveness when you told them the given page in the book (page 83) didn't verify the text is highly suspicious; at best, it's failure to discuss in a collegial way, at worst it's, well, just evasive. RuudVanClerk, this section on your page together with your removal of it with aggressive edit summaries and reverts at the article throws a very bad light on you. Please provide the requested quotes here and now, before you edit anywhere else, or I will indeed sanction you for misuse of "sources". Your post above, handwaving at the title of Rao's book, is not useful for this purpose. The same goes for this edit, which Uanfala also tried to discuss on both the article page and your talkpage, where you added unsourced and controversial text in such a way that it looked sourced. I could accept that that was an innocent mistake, if you had provided a source when asked for it; but that didn't happen. Again, please provide a quote from the source that directly supports the text "by looting the offices and homes of East India Company officials". These things, as well as others enumerated by Uanfala above, look deceptive. And, just as Uanfala says, they look like a POV issue rather than a competence issue. Is that just appearance? Now is your chance to show that it is, by providing the quotes I'm requesting. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Re RuudVanClerk's piecemeal reply to me above, [56][57][58][59]: What "French translator tool" is that? Is there anything wrong with Google Translate? That definitely doesn't take 24 hours to access; just click on the link and you're there. Is that how you yourself read the book, via a "translator tool"? Because you needn't translate anything on my account; French is fine, that's what we want, as Abecedare also emphasises below. Your attempts to change the subject and interrogate me aren't doing you any good, you know. Just please provide the quotations I've asked for. And no, I didn't "unfortunately miss" the quotation "It thus appeared that [Dhan Singh] had informed his fellow Gujars of the outbreak, perhaps even encouraging them to plunder, and now his loyalties were divided". That is discussed here, where Uanfala explains, in what I consider a convincing way, that it does not support the POV text you added. You'll have to do better. In view of Uanfala's diffs, as well as RVC's evasive replies to me here, I'm more and more inclined to go with an indefinite block as a regular admin action. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Your French quotes don't mean what you say they mean. "..distingue six groupes jat dispersés dans tout le pays. Si tous ne sont pas d'origine indienne ( les Ghorbat , par exemple…" doesn't mean "that these groups are considered by locals to be of Indian-origin implying a relationship with the Jats of the Indian Subcontinent" or anything like it. (And why only offer sentence fragments?) Rather the opposite, that the groups are not all of Indian origin. I'm tired of these bad-faith statements. If you actually believe them yourself, why didn't you check out p 83 when Uanfala told you there was nothing like that on that page, instead of removing their questions with extreme rudeness? Now you say it was the wrong page; it's a little late for that. I'm not sure you're a good fit for a collaborative encyclopedia, and your attacks on all and sundry on this page reinforce that impression. I'm leaving this open and hope more admins will opine, but if nobody has any objection, I will block RuudVanClerk indefinitely in a day or two for persistent POV-pushing, battleground editing, and (the most serious issue) misuse of sources. Bishonen | tålk 21:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
(responding to ping) I haven't had time to examine all the evidence yet but to start with, I second Bishonen's request for Ruud to provide the (original French) quote from pg 83 of Rao's book that supports the statement they had cited it for. Abecedare (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ruud, It's obvious to me that (a) the extract you "quoted" is taken from this review of the book and not the book itself, and (b) it doesn't mean at all what you say it means (the book review provides the correct interpretation, so you probably already knew that). Given such tendentious behavior that both misrepresents sources and wastes editors' time who challenge them with dishonest bluster. I too believe a block is warranted. Pinging Bishonen. Abecedare (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having gone through all this, I'm not convinced that a short term block will be of much use here. I believe that the editor needs to be removed from this space entirely -- via a topic ban at the bare minimum or even an indef block (not an AE action). Looking through some of the edits not mentioned above (such as in Khatri, the pattern doesn't seem new either.—SpacemanSpiff 08:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody's suggesting a short-term block, Spiff; I've proposed an indef, because I don't think the user is a good fit for a collaborative project in any of its spaces. That would not be an AE action, as you say. Bishonen | tålk 10:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I agree. If someone is misrepresenting sources (and their previous discussion with Unfala and the responses above, show that that was not just a good-faith error), they should not be editing wikipedia. The only question for me is whether here at AE, we should impose a, somewhat redundant, topic-ban too. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with an indef block. Disingenuous pov pushing appears to be the norm here. Perhaps the easiest is to impose an AE topic ban and a normal not here indef block. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll block. With the general agreement here, I don't think we need wait any longer. Not sure how a belt-and-braces topic ban makes anything easier, RegentsPark..? If the user can't contribute, they also can't contribute to Indian topics etc. Anyway, to make sure the arguments here are considered in the unlikely event that anyone takes a notion to unblock, I'll put a link to this discussion in the block log. Bishonen | tålk 15:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that it doesn't seem useful and appears to be merely procedural. But an indef block can be appealed. This way, the AE topic ban will stand regardless of what happens and, if nothing else, provides an appropriate closure to this AE thread.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The complainant has stated that they are happy to withdraw this request following a retraction and apology by Roxy the dog signed, Rosguilltalk 04:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
[62] I readded that template, stating why in the edit summary.
[63] Roxy re-removed the template, saying "I dont think that the previous edsum is accurate. This info was only published about twenty years after his death"
[64] I readded the template, referencing MOS:GENDERID in the edit summary.
[65] I ask Roxy about their removal of thecategories on 24 May.
[66] Roxy casts doubt upon what Quentin said in detail in their final work, The Last Word; that they were a trans woman. Roxy considers this "historical revisionism".
[67] I reply citing the relevant parts of the MOS for this exact circumstance.
[68] Roxy replies to another editor saying "he didn't publish describing that though, did he?"
[69] I refer to The Last Word to try and clarify what Roxy was implying.
[70] After a reply from Roxy, I ask them explicitly for clarification.
Note: the following diffs are after receiving the ds/alert notice.
[71] Roxy says "There is nothing to clarify", making a vague reference to their comment at 00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
[72] I make the connection to that comment, and asking what appeared to me to be the simplest explanation for Roxy's reverts and removals.
[73] Despite my prior asking for clarification, Roxy accuses me of "deliberately misunderstanding them"
[74] I address the failure of AGF, in light of asking for clarification.
[75] Roxy says "Calling Crisp a woman is a monumental failure of an encyclopeadia."
[76] LittleLazyLass queries about Roxy's inability to accept a clear expression of gender identity
I realise that some of the diffs I've provided are older than the ds/alert received on 27 May. While not sanctionable because of that, they are I believe necessary to understand the background and how Roxy has been approaching content editing on the Quentin Crisp article. Only diffs 12-18 are after the ds/talk notice. The other important piece of information, at least for the content dispute, is that Quentin Crisp came out as a trans woman approximately one year prior to their death, though this was not widely known until the posthumous release of The Last Word in 2017.
While Roxy was reminded by ArbCom in March to be civil and collegial in their editing, in light of Roxy's variation of the transphobic attack helicopter meme, I do not think that Roxy is capable of editing in the GENSEX content area. I am concerned that this failure to follow MOS:GENDERID has been or will be replicated on the articles of other trans or non-binary individuals.
Also I'm just barely within the word limit. Could I request additional words please to respond to any admin questions? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tryptofish. I've hopefully made it clearer now which are the diffs after the ds/alert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping short because I'm over the word limit, sorry. I am satisfied with Roxy's striking of the comment, explanation, and apology as addressing the conduct concerns and thank them for doing so. As such I'm happy to withdraw this request. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
As can be imagined following my recent brush with ARBCOM, I have been very carefully minding my p's and q's in all my interactions on the project. As I have indicated at the talk page I was unaware of the possible misintepretations of my comment, (now struck), in an area where I do not have much general interest. I have a few LBQT pages on my watchlist, but not many.
I have been an admirer of Crisp for many years, probably since I saw him wipe his finger through what appeared to be an inch of gathered dust on his mantlepiece in the 1971 TV documentary. Of course, my memory is poor, and it does not appear to have been his finger, nor an inch. I suppose that could have been in the Naked Civil Servant a few years later. The documentary is linked in the article. I particularly approved of his attitude towards the Princess of Wales later in his life, and Peter Tatchell. I do hope this explains my interest in our article, and why I feel strongly that we should not misrepresent him. Note that I always go with consensus, when it emerges.
Trypto has made observations regarding my behaviour at the Talk page, for which I thank him, and I would like to suggest that this diff on another LBQT talk page indicates my aim of improving the project, as do other comments I have made at that page. It is a pity there has been no response to that.
I would like to apologise for any offence taken at my innocent remark, and note again that I would not have made the comment had I known how insensitive it was. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF 19:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to begin by saying that I consider myself to be wiki-friendly with both Sideswipe and Roxy. Admins should read through Talk:Quentin Crisp. It quickly becomes apparent that there are multiple well-established editors there, who argue on both "sides" of the content dispute, so it's not like Roxy is acting alone against a consensus, or acting against consensus at all. And this is a content dispute, largely about WP:DEFINING rather than about text content, and where some editors seem to be arguing that there is an element of WP:RGW going on among the editors who prefer using the transgender categorization. I also note that the trans information is currently in the lead section: [80] (at the end), where it does not appear to be contested; it's been there in some form for a long time: [81].
The context is incomplete unless one also considers these comments by Roxy: [82], [83] – that's respectful of consensus in my book. And [84] is an honest statement of editorial interpretation, not disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DS aware diff: [85], AE notification: [86], less than a day apart. Only Roxy diffs presented by Sideswipe from after the notification: [87], [88], [89], and [90]. I'm just seeing some mutual irritation over mutual misunderstanding. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just read our page on I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter, and was struck by how complex the issue is. To reduce it to a black-and-white expression of transphobia misses how the story came about and how the story's author was affected by the response. As I think about the "identify as a dog" diff, I increasingly appreciate the potentially hurtful aspect of it, but I also don't think it should be oversimplified. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WanderingWanda already provided this diff: [91], but I also want to draw attention to the part at the bottom of the diff. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing above that relates to AE is Roxy the dog saying they "identify as a dog". Everything else is a content issue and doesn't belong here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on Roxy. Just to clarify for Tryptofish, there is no article on the meme itself on wiki. The article is about a short story written about a decade after the meme surfaced. For better information on the meme itself, I would recommend reading this knowyourmeme entry. We frown on this website for sourcing, but the description there is accurate to my experience with the meme online and reading the full copypasta might be more edifying than our article on the story. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Roxy deserves to be taken at his word when he says he was unaware of the "attack helicopter" meme or its implications. We can't all be aware of everything, especially in topic areas we have no great interest in. Roxy is quite prone to speak of himself as a dog, or to sign woof!, in all sorts of contexts. The reason I'm posting here, rather than in the uninvolved admin section below, is that I'm on too friendly terms with Roxy, and like him too much, to see myself as entirely neutral. Bishonen | tålk 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
From my high-level review of this all, this feels like a content dispute that requires an RfC due to the edge case issue instead of the use of DS. At the same time, the "identify as a dog" comment is very much over the line. --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi 21:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is largely a content dispute, and Roxy's statement above addresses the conduct concerns, so I don't think enforcement action is needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)))[reply]
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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
03:16, 27 May 2022 Repeated the edit again after being reverted by a different user and warned of discretionary sanctions on the talk page, even though three editors expressed disagreement in a discussion the previous day
07:03, 27 May 2022 Repeated the edit again after an additional formal, templated discretionary sanctions notification on the user's talk page, with a minor change to "The nation has raised and had maintained one of the most equipped militaries in the world throughout its history"
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: [93]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I addressed this dispute on the talk page with a long, detailed message that thoroughly explained how the proposed addition failed verification. The gist of my comment was that WatanWatan2020 had taken a Small Wars Journal article entitled "The Afghan Air Force: A Harsh Lesson in the Expensive Game of Airpower Reconstruction" and misused it to support a sweeping claim that Afghanistan "has raised and had maintained one of the most powerful militaries in the world throughout its history," although the cited article only addresses the Afghan Air Force (founded in the early twentieth century), not any other branches of the Military of Afghanistan. Furthermore, the cited article does not describe the Afghan Air Force in a manner that is consistent with WatanWatan2020's edit.
Two other contributors—LaundryPizza03 ([94]) and LouisAragon ([95])—expressed disagreement with WatanWatan2020's additions in the ensuing discussion, with the latter lamenting that "Their talk page is littered with warnings and block notices. Such edits therefore shouldn't come as a surprise." In fact, WatanWatan2020 is simultaneously at AN3 at this very moment over what appears to be an ethno-nationalist edit war regarding the official language(s) of Herat (1793–1863), coincidentally also defying the consensus of at least three other contributors and entailing (among other things) a bright-line violation of 3RR ([96], [97], [98]). While such matters largely elude my expertise, it is worth noting that I only examined WatanWatan2020's edit in the first place because Tartan357 had recently pointed out a previous edit in which WatanWatan2020 made an equally-fantastic claim that "Afghanistan has been described as one of the most wealthiest countries in the world", a conclusion generated via a misrepresentation of sources discussing the country's mineral wealth. (As Tartan357 succinctly put it: "Afghanistan is not by any objective standard 'one of the wealthiest countries in the world'. It is one of the poorest.")
I will concede that WatanWatan2020 is a relatively new user—the account was registered in 2020, hence the name—and that it may be just barely possible that he did not initially see the prominent discretionary sanctions notice that displays whenever editing Afghanistan. Nevertheless, his willingness to ignore the tentative talk page consensus and reinstate a clear-cut—one might say rather extraordinary—failure of verification after being formally notified—along with his mocking, ill-advised reply to the standard notification template (e.g., "I have also not shown much interest in Pakistan or India, that is the first error by @TheTimesAreChanging")—is so shocking to see in this sensitive topic area that I felt it had to be taken to AE immediately for at least a stern warning or short block, especially given how poorly WatanWatan2020 seems to understand the seriousness of the situation, even now.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
(moved from directly below the initial complaint Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)) This user, @TheTimesAreChanging is conflating the Afghanistan article with the Herat Principality article. This is the first error. In the Afghanistan article, this user deleted an entire paragraph with citations and links, accurate information that is also reinforced on other articles pertaining to the matter. He deleted all of it because he took issue with one sentence; How is this not a violation of WP rules? If you take issue with that one sentence, ponder upon that one sentence. @TheTimesAreChanging has a history of undoing mass edits of other users; it does not seem he puts in the least effort to contribute to these articles. You do not reserve the right to undo an entire paragraph that has information to other things because you take issue with one sentence, and even that sentence is cited with sources. It is high time for your activity to get checked. Individuals like you are quick to run to the admin boards the moment there is pushback against your ways on WP. I hope that the admins investigate his edits thoroughly and inform him that, rather than undo cited sources and information, you deal with what you specifically take issue with. I already compromised by changing the wording of that sentence, even though it didnt need to be changed due to the compromise. This user has not responded to the disucssion, did not compromise, and continues to disrupt not only the Afghanistan Article, but others as well. To add, the user @Tartan357 thanked me for my edits. The user took issue with one sentence which I then deleted. He then thanked me after. @TheTimesAreChanging should actually learn from Tartan357 in which you should contribute to articles and be fair, not delete entire paragraphs that have something to do with totally something else. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from below the first admin response Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)) Hello, why is the Afghanistan article not being investigated? This is very uncalled for, and unfair to not see that the information there is accurate, with sources, citations and links. For you to bring up the very past that pertains to old disputes and discussions, this is also uncalled for, because they have been resolved. If I was guilty then, there would have been a ban from them. I have spoken and discussed with many administrators who had that opportunity to do so, but did not since they found that my edits were not wrong. I ask that you actually due your duties in properly investigating the matters instead of going by their words to try and quickly get the matter over with as soon as possible. This only allows for their behaviors to go unchecked. It is also surprising that you do not comment on the stalking of my edits by @Noorullah21 in which he has implemented false information once again onto multiple articles. This is wrong, uncalled for, and unfair. Coming to the admin, the admin should be the ultimate judge who does impartial investigations into the matter. Very, Very uncalled for that you try to smear me with historic edits and disputes. Be impartial. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Noorullah21's section signed, Rosguilltalk 04:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)I am asking the Notice board to take action against @Noorullah21 for stalking my edits, and thereafter implementing false information to those articles. He has a history of Pan Iranian POV pushing on articles. For example he adds ‘persian’ to an Arabic name as he did with the “Jawad” article. This is very uncalled for. He is creating an atmosphere of edit warring and does not contribute to the discussion, such as on the Herat article. He only just contributed because I pointed it out; although it will still show that by the time he lodged this complaint he never had contributed at all. Enforce this user. Or at least warn him not to stalk me and my edits, as well as permeate my talk page twice with the same notice. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am here to contribute to the discussion about user WatanWatan2020, this user has been disruptively editing on multiple pages and Language POV pushing on multiple pages, he ignored 3 editors (including me) on page Herat (1793-1863), completely ignoring us even when given sources. He has also gone on to multiple pages to push his language pov, you can check his contributions for different pages for reference on what I mean. I am here to attest to what Time is saying and can back up their claims. (I believe this is the appropriate section for a discussion, if I am wrong please don’t be afraid to tell me or delete what I said here, or move it to the correct area) Noorullah21 (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory search through WatanWatan2020's recent edits show a battleground mentality direct towards other editors. At least 6 different edits WatanWatan has used the term "Pan-Iranian(s)" towards other editors.
Well, this is a hard case to analyze, since there are so many so-so edits mixed in with the bad ones. Aside from the clownery at Afghanistan, this user has been language POV-pushing as of late, not just with Afghanistan but also with other Persian-speaking Middle Eastern countries. They are currently blocked filing an AN3 report involving Noorullah21 (talk·contribs). Examples include:
An edit war at Jawad (name) where they assserted, without a reliable source, that it is spelled differently in Persian (last revert). Also one of several edits where they accused Noorullah21 of vandalism.
An edit war at Suleiman where changed the origin of the given name to assert, based on original research, that it is solely Arabic in origin and not derived from Hebrew ([104]). At least later reverts did not include an assertion that it is a cognate and not a loanword.
At Persian language, asserted that it is not spoken in some of the listed countries, ahiule also removing sources; accused the other editor, Qahramani44 (talk·contribs), of "Pan Iranian POV pushing".
Assertion at Afghan (ethnonym) that "Persian is a foreign language to the Pashtuns," and therefore the Persian translation should not be listed.
Although this edit at Maymana is correct because the Uzbek language is not written in an Arabic script, their edit summary erases a substantial Uzbek-speaking population in this part of Afghanistan.
Overall, they seem hellbent on asserting that the Persian spoken outside of Iran is not Persian, and that Pashto is the only legitimate language of Afghanistan. Note that this user has fairly constructive edits on other topics, such as this minor grammatical correction at Egyptian Air Force, so the recommended action is a topic ban from language-related edits. I am cutting off here because I have to leave for a meeting at the University of Houston, and the pattern of recent language-related disruption is already clear. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is his edits have a severe case of WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially since his edits like [105] and the other ones that have been linked here usually involves him deleting reliably sourced material, his repeated attacks on multiple other people accusing them of being "pan-Iranians" doesn't seem to help Wikipedia either, and he seems to be involved in multiple edit wars at the same time. Would support either an indeff block or a topic ban on everything relating to Iranic, Turkic, and Semitic-related topics/countries. --Qahramani44 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At [106], WatanWatan outright rejected seven, highly academic sources, preferring to follow his own personal opinion instead. This is quite concerning. As already listed here, this too was one of the places where he threw around the word "pan-Iranian". --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Given the long history of ignoring consensus, misrepresenting sources and edit warring across multiple topic areas (their talk page notes various issues regarding the Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Flynas, Palestinian Airlines, Arab Air Carriers Organization, Levantine Arabic, Arvand Rud and Suleiman articles) the absolute minimum I think we should be considering here is an indefinite topic ban. The narrowest topic that I can think of that would cover all of these areas would be (1) The Arab world and (2) Afghanistan; however looking at their contributions I don't think that would actually solve the issue given that they have a lot of other reverted edits relating to various Iranian topics and air forces of Asian and eastern European countries - and that's all within the last three weeks. Accordingly I'm leaning towards a full block of some kind given they've had plenty of time to learn Wikipedia's ways but do not seem to have done. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WatanWatan2020: firstly you must respond only in your own section - I've moved your comments there. Secondly, this is not about the article or about other users, this is about your behaviour and the more I look at it the worse it looks, including that you've just been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. I'm struggling to see the justification for not just giving you an indefinite block, but I'll wait to see what my colleagues say first. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hard pressed to come up with an appropriate response less than an indef block. Even if it were unintentional, the consistent misuse of sources and misreading of discussions (followed by edit warring) leaves little of value for WatanWatan2020 to contribute to the encyclopedia. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 Iskandar323
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
When notified about this, Iskandar323 doesn't admit to any wrongdoing but instead makes accusations of others being "not WP:CIVIL" (or for example in their report Iskandar323 describes as me having "civility issues with the repeated accusations of edit warring")
8) Deletes a lot of content and reliable sources with the edit summary "Removing huge pile of anecdotal news and opinion that merely duplicates what is already said, which is that the MEK is surveilled." Yet many of the sources Iskandar323 deleted were not "anecdotal news" or "opinion pieces" or content "duplicates" (like articles by NY TimesRadio FardaVoa NewsJustice.govAP News). After I revert asking to "please discuss in the talk page", Iskandar323 deletes this content again.
9) Deletes content supported by a Newsweek article with the edit summary "Removing opinion piece supporting a vague statement - article references the 'Trump administration' without naming a spokesperson”. (Yet the Newsweek article is not an "opinion piece.")
10) Says (multiple times) that we should delete a quote from the article by using different groundless reasons (some of these reasons are pretty absurd): "Removing more material absent from the body copy (again in violation of MOS:LEAD) + quote parroting a primary PR source)"[107], "primary source quotation"[108], "it expresses the MEK viewpoint"[109], "it outlines the objections of the article's subject towards a third party but not vice versa"[110].
11) On March 28, an administrator warned Iskandar323 to "not clerk an RfC of which you are the filer. You are as involved as it gets. And don't use the words "vandalism" needlessly. Yikes."
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 Iskandar323
First off, and perhaps needless to say, this is of course a retaliatory filing (for the case above) by Far Ariff, who, as you can also see, seems to be having a problem with not one, but two other editors here, making this a clear example of WP:1AM. In this filing, Fad Ariff belatedly makes much of the "consensus before reinstating challenged edits" component of the Iran politics DS. I say belatedly, because Fad Ariff has been plenty remiss in following this themselves. If I am guilty then they, having A) ignored consensus, and B) exceeded WP:1RR, are thrice guilty. However, insomuch as I may have myself have reinstated some edits, as noted above, without explicitly obtaining consensus, I may possibly be slightly at fault. The problem, for several months, has been that Fad Ariff has been reverted almost any attempt to edit the page, more often than not on the flimsiest of excuses, such as in this diff, where they essentially present the justification that because there is general agreement that the article is too long, they can block the addition of reliably sourced content (while chucking in an accusation of POV). Now in my mind, ANY reversion should be justified by a pretty solid reason, ideally grounded in policy, and I believe that whimsically reverting other editors for no good reason is an abuse of Wikipedia's core advice on when to revert. In examples such as the instance above, the blocking of the addition of reliably sourced content appears to me to also be a pretty classic example of WP:SQS, but that's just my opinion. In any case, where Fad Ariff has provided utterly paper-thin grounds for reversion, I have indeed been viewing the "consensus before reinstating challenged edits" as somewhat negated, because indeed, if no good reason needs to be provided for a revert then the Iran politics DS are just utterly ripe for abusive stonewalling. I'll leave it there for now pending questions. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Iskandar323
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
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 Aman.kumar.goel
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
2022-05-29 19:48, 2022-05-29 19:38:25 - restores content sourced only to a primary quote, on two articles. This was after non-cooperation on his talk page about concerns I'd raised about his poor additions from 2019 and selective removal of my comments. Following diffs, all recent, illustrate his lazy approach towards sourcing in certain topics -
2022-05-26 16:30 - addition from an existing graph in the article without checking that it was OR
2022-05-29 20:32 - reverts, without explanation, an IP which had removed unsourced content
His significant content contributions appear to be before 2021 and I think are mostly concentrated in Indian space exploration related articles. I believe them to be of poor quality, suffering from the extensive use of government and company releases. His current focus is mostly patrolling, where he is as spare in his communication as he is quick to revert. Because of AE restrictions, I've limited the filing to recent diffs which I believe show a pattern of poor edits and bad communication. His aggressiveness is probably of some use in sock-hunting (also weaponised by Aman), but disruptive in fraught areas. Hemantha (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The dissembling employed as an offensive tactic below by Aman is indicative of his routine behaviour. He's careful after the previous block to stop at 3 reverts, but he's been involved in eight edit wars in the last one year - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It's impossible to have any kind of discussion in the face of such misinterpretation and hostility. Hemantha (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 Aman.kumar.goel
Do you really think that nobody is gonna be surprised when you are participating in a discussion about removing particular content, and when the edits are implemented per that discussion you start acting as if such a discussion never happened by asking "where is the discussion about this btw?"? But what is even more absurd that you put the effort into creating a superficial report by citing the diffs that you don't even understand only because you have failed to justify your unwarranted edit warring with your apparent WP:STONEWALLING on the talk page.
I expect a WP:BOOMERANG given this user's history of filing the same superficial reports with misleading diffs in the recent times.[112]Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 13:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it suspicious that this is the first ever edit made by StellarNerd to this noticeboard and their first ever edit to the article in question is reversion of my edit. Their talk page input can be only described as classic WP:STONEWALLING.[113] In their statement below, they are sticking to misrepresenting the discussion when the months old discussion clearly involved restoring "last stable version before it happened to provide coverage to these non-notable incidents",[114] with which Vanamonde93 had also agreed. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 20:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 I avoid pinging because others may deem it as canvassing. But in your case I will remember next time.
@RegentsPark First it was necessary to agree about the scope before evaluating which incidents should be included. With Hemantha saying "Scope of the article is nowhere restricted to physical violence", and StellarNerd saying "Lynchings aren't minor",[115] these editors refused to accept that the article does not allow the inclusion of minor and non-notable incidents but only the significant incidents.[116] I had provided the explanation of what I changed after the scope was clarified once again. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 01:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see User:Vanamonde93 agreeing anywhere to take the article back to where it was in 2020, removing summary tables and many mob lynchings that weren't at all discussed in the section Aman.kumar.goel links to, that discusses a quote and cyberbullying, but not at all what Aman.kumar.goel is doing now. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Vanamonde93
I'm unsure why I'm being name-dropped here; yes, at some point I made the statement that Violence against Muslims in India should cover the general phenomenon, and touch on major incidents of violence, rather than containing a long list of (relatively) minor incidents. I have not engaged in this discussion in quite some time, and have certainly not supported either party in this current dispute. AKG, I do not appreciate that you are citing my statements in support of your position at an admin noticeboard without pinging me or otherwise letting me know. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Uanfala
I'm not acquainted with this case, but the mention of aggressive reverting and poor communication rings a bell. In one instance from March, which I've described in another thread, Aman.kumar.goel did several rounds of unexplained mass reverts of a new user's contributions (only some of those contributions were unhelpful, none appeared to be in bad faith), and their only communication that I could see was a series of escalating template warnings (starting straight at level 2) for unspecified disruptive behaviour. – Uanfala (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Aman.kumar.goel
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@Aman.kumar.goel: A cursory look at the talk page shows that Hemantha and StellarNerd are making a fairly reasonable request of you. They want you to make small, explained changes rather than a wholesale reversion to an old version. Hemantha, for example, seems fine with what appears to be your main objection - the removal of minor incidents as long as you explain the removals. I need to take a deeper look but you do need to explain why you find this unreasonable. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 Pahlevun
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
1) A citation published by University of California Press (author is Ervand Abrahamian, who Pahlevun referred to as an "expert") that says "Immediately after the revolution, when the Marxist Mojahedin renamed itself Peykar"[1]
2) A citation published by Harvard University Press that says "PEYKAR (DISSIDENT MARXIST WING OF THE MUJAHIDIN EKHALQ) Leader Hossein Ruhani (arrested 1982). Maximum strength (from 1980 to 1982): 3,000 fighter equipped with light weapons"[2]
3) "membership Maximum 3,000 equipped with light weapons"
4) A citation published by Routledge that says "In 1975, the Mojahedin split into two factions. One faction denounced Islam and declared its loyalty to Marxism-Leninism through a Maoist interpretation. This faction renamed itself Peykar (Struggle) and emerged as one of the most active leftist revolutionary organizations during the 1979 revolution."[3]
5) A citation published by University of California Press (also authored by Ervand Abrahamian) that says "After the split, Ruhani served as the Marxist Mojahedin's chief representative in Europe and the Arab world. ... Immediately after the revolution, when the Marxist Mojahedin renamed itself Peykar, he ran as its Majles candidate in Tehran. ... He also caused a major scandal in 1980 by divulging for the first time the secret Mojahedin negotiations with Khomeini."[4]
6) A citation published by Princeton University Press (also authored by Ervand Abrahamian) that says "Paykar organization” (Marxist Mujahedin)"[5]
7) "also called the Marxist Mojahedin, was a splinter group from the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMoI/MEK)”
8) A citation published by Palgrave Macmillan that says "Rahman (Vahid) Afrakhteh, Foad Rohani, Hasan Aladpoush, and Mahboobeh Mottahedin, formed a new Marxist organization, later known as Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class or simply Peykar."[6]
9) When I show Pahlevun over 16 academic sources that contradict with their changes, Pahlevun gives a dismissive answer ignoring the sources I provided, and concludes with "...it is simply a matter of subject-matter expert vs. non-expert scholar"(15:47, 24 May 2022)
10) When I show Pahlevun that one of the authors Pahlevun refers to as "expert" was also cited in the 16 sources I provided, Pahlevun responds with "You are putting your words in the mouth of "the majority of academia" and acting like the more, the merrier. Anything written by a non-expert that contradicts with what an expert says, should be taken with a grain of salt"(13:35, 25 May 2022)
(I’m on my word count limit already, but can show more examples if requested)
Extended content
References
^Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions, University of California Press, (1999), p.151
^Razoux, Pierre (2015). The Iran-Iraq War. Harvard University Press. Appendix E: Armed Opposition. ISBN9780674915718. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^Jebnoun, Noureddine; Kia, Mehrdad; Kirk, Mimi, eds. (2013). Modern Middle East Authoritarianism: Roots, Ramifications, and Crisis. Routledge. p. 72. ISBN9781135007317. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions, University of California Press, (1999), p.151-2
^Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982
^The Shah of Iran, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Lebanese Shia. Palgrave Macmillan. 2018. p. 8. ASINB07FBB6L8Y. ((cite book)): Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
In the 2021 IRANPOL case an administrator said Pahlevun (though no longer an "active participant"), had "participated in some of its nastiest episodes", and links an 2019 ANI case where Pahlevun is also shown deleting a lot of similar content from Wikipedia. There Pahlevun said"I saw some user has argued that I should punished because I made edits after I "returned from a short wiki-break". It is not clear, even to myself, that how much I can continue my contributions because of the hardships that I'm facing since a few months ago. So, there's possibly nothing to prevent ". About the recent edits linked above, when I asked Pahlevun to explain why they deleted all this content from the article, Pahlevun stopped responding. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
This [120] may also be helpful here, although I am not involved in that discussion. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Pahlevun
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 Pahlevun
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Pahlevun
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
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 Fad Ariff
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Fad Ariff also brushes up against WP:1RR (with a second revert just outside 24hrs) on a regular basis in a manner that conveys a clear sense of entitlement to one revert a day. This includes:
Another example (12:42, 19 April 2022) of an invitation to self-revert following the 19 April second revert after 24 hours and 3 minutes (an invitation that was ignored).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Despite a clear demonstration of an awareness of what DS and WP:1RR entail, and subsequent warnings that their double reverts in just over 24 hrs represents an entitled approach to WP:1RR that could be interpreted as WP:GAMING, they have only become bolder in doing just this, as well as edit warring against multiple other editors over the same material despite this being a conflict area with stronger than usual requirements for consensus. Reversion is being deployed to prevent any changes to the page that the editor just doesn't like in a manner that is increasingly reminiscent of WP:OWN. There are also civility issues with the repeated accusations of edit warring (with no apparent sense of irony). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to @Fad Ariff's claim of a WP:1RR breach on my part, I would like to note that the two diffs in question where both part of the same series of consecutive edits, so, for the sake of counting reversions, would be considering part of the same, single revert. I would also like to reiterate that, as you can see from Far Ariff's response on the subject of ignoring two other editors, they seem to think that they can justify this by slinging accusations of there being "problematic POV issues", which is obviously an extremely accusatory and not particularly WP:AGF stance to be taking. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: And another, so make that four reports. Fad Ariff has had a busy day. It's incredible the things you can achieve when you are an WP:SPA in a conflict area. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fad Ariff: I didn't allude to you being a single-purpose account; I suggested it quite clearly (and, quite obviously, you have, for many months, only editing within the post-1978 Iranian politics conflict area, and with a slightly pro-MEK leaning), but please also note that it is not necessarily a bad thing: why not read the essay? As for my COI enquiry, it's more or less a yes/no question. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 Fad Ariff
Hello. It’s my first time in one of these. May I please have a couple of days to familiarise a bit with this process? Thank you. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for allowing me some time to respond.
1. I had posted an explanation for that revert, so consensus for adding this to the article had not yet been reached. What Iskandar323 calls "consensus of two other editors" is actually Iskandar323 and Ghazaalch (another editor with a problematic POV issues who I'll discuss in a separate report) piling on each other’s posts in that article and then using that as a means to jump over substantive discussions in the talk page.
2. Here Iskandar323 again tried to make modifications to the article by jumping over the talk page discussion. I just reverted some of Iskandar323’s edits back to the article’s original version and then proposed reaching a consensus together for those edits on the talk page. The article’s rules does not allow to reinstate edits that have been challenged (via reversion), and Iskandar323 broke this rule here.[121][122] SkidMountTubularFrame, an editor that was not aware of what was going on, thanked me when I notified them in about this their talk page.
3. Here I did seem to have broken 1RR. If I been notified in good faith (as I have done with notifying Ghazaalch in good faith when they broke 1RR), I would have self-reverted (just like I did on point "4" below). Still, I apologize for this and it won’t happen again.
4. Here I still didn’t know about 1RR, so I self-reverted when I was informed.
5. If editing some minutes over the 24hrs period is not allowed in an article with 1RR then I won’t do it again.
Iskandar323 has been making many big changes to that article in the last weeks often jumping over the talk page discussions and reinstating edits that were challenged via reversion (something that is against the article's rules). They have also broken 1RR (for example, 14:05, 13 May 2022 and 14:13, 13 May 2022) but I wouldn’t report them for that because they could easily be notified instead. All of Iskandar323’s diffs in their report shows that I reverted edits to the article's original version whenever I found their edits to be problematic or in disagreement with talk page discussions. I did slip up breaking 1RR (Iskandar323’s point "3"), which happened after I had first become aware of 1RR (point "4"). I apologize for that and as noted it won't happen again. About Iskandar323’s claims that "There are also civility issues with the repeated accusations of edit warring", I will post a separate report so I can explain that in a clear way. Fad Ariff (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been a suggestion to merge the "Fad Ariff", "Iskandar323", and "Ghazaalch" reports (which I think makes sense) I think I should explain more clearly the connection between these.
I wrote "piling on" on the response to this report Iskandar323 made against me, and did not explain that well. For example Ghazaalch first reverts me saying "The article is already too long"[123][124], Iskandar agrees with Ghazaalch ("I agree with @Ghazaalch that the article is already too long and that we should in general be looking to remove material, not add ")[125], but then when I try to shorten the article Iskandar323 nullifies my proposal with comments like "And then its the usual bollocks about the article being too long"[126] (Ghazaalch does a similar type of gaslighting nullifying my proposals with comments like "The question here is that why you are focusing on shortening this section, while there are other sections that are longer than this? "[127]).
Iskandar323 accuses me of stonewalling but the talk page shows I aim to find compromises. It is actually Ghazaalch and Iskandar323 who have been stonewalling as shown by their lack of trying to reach compromises. For example, in this discussion[128] I make a proposal and ask that if they don't agree with my proposal they can post a proposal themselves (but they don't offer a proposal of their own, they just shut mine down). I even tried solving disputes at WP:DR, but when a mediator offered to mediate the dispute if all parties agreed to participate through some basic GF rules, both Iskandar323 and Ghazaalch stopped responding[129].
Then Iskandar323 reports me here even though I have constantly followed the WP:CRP and WP:BRD cycles (and self-reverted if I unknowingly broke 1RR and was notified). And Iskandar323 is now also resorting to alluding that I'm an "SPA"[130] and asking if I'm a "COI"[131], which are more bad faith and groundless insinuations.
Since much of this evidence seems obvious to me but may not be to others, please ping me if anything is unclear. Thank you. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Ghazaalch
The main problem with the Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran is that there is no admin to moderate in this page. There were a couple of them, but they exhausted with the way the discussions were going on and gave up. This is because there are always some pro-PMOI users such as Fad Ariff who are determined to eliminate the content that is critical of PMOI and do everything to reach their goals. Assassinations section (which is listing assassinations carried out by PMOI) for example and Cult of personality (which explain how Rajavi turned the PMOI into a cult) are among the sections that pro-PMOI users are determined to delete; and they do it through different tricks or under the pretext of summarizing and reorganizing the article. Most of them were blocked recently but new ones emerged, among them were TheDreamBoat, Hogo-2020 and Fad Ariff. Look at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Revert of names, for example, to see how the discussion started with TheDreamBoat. When TheDreamBoat was blocked, Ypatch took his place and continued the discussion. When Ypatch himself was blocked, Hogo-2020 took his place and continued the discussion; and see the way this discussion ends up. Because no admin is watching this page, and so they do what they like.
As for Fad Ariff, like Hogo and others, he discusses, or better say, writes something, no matter what it is, to show that he is not convinced, and to show that there is no consensus yet; meaning you cannot add anything to the article without his permission. And again since there is no moderator to implement the consensus, he is not worried about the way discussions goes on.
Here is an examples:
Fad Ariff writes: @Ghazaalch I reverted your edit because cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article, which make the impression that what I added to "Cult of personality" section is repeated elsewhere in the article or at least there are some sections (other than "Cult of personality") where there is some information concerning the "Cult stuff" he is talking about, but the only sentence you can find is this short one in the lede: "Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult". That is all. But as you can see in the second half of this section, no one can convince him that he shouldn't have done the deletion.
Here is another example:
Fad Ariff starts to explain here why he deleted/reverted a well sourced paragraph, and he makes the impression that he wants to justify the deletion, and he makes some suggestion, in order to reach consensus. Later on he writes that he will work on moving this and other information to sections where they are more suitable. By saying this, again he makes the impression that he wants to move the reverted/deleted information to another section, but in fact, under this pretext, he wants to move an old paragraph (that he cannot revert/delete), to other sections so that he could empty the section from its contents, in order to delete the section entirely little by little. (This is the volume of the section after his edit) Because the title of this section ( Cult of personality) attracts the reader's attentions and he does not like it. So Instead of restoring the new paragraph he reverted/deleted, he jumps into a RFC to remove the old one too.
And RFC is the ideal place for him and the other Pro-PMOI users as I said in a previous arbitration, because finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources. One of these voters, for example, is NMasiha who has appeared after a year to vote in these RFCs. Ghazaalch (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by NMasiha
What Ghazaalch is saying about me here is false. I made a couple of edits to the PMOI article in February [132][133], and in its talk page on May [134] for example, so I have not suddenly "appeared after a year" like Ghazaalch is saying. I have also edited other articles in this area (although most of my edits are in the FaWiki). Ghazaalch is much more involved in this article and talk page than I am. NMasiha (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Fad Ariff
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Brad, it looks like some of Fad Ariff's response is the retaliatory filing below. Clearly, it would have been better if they had kept inside this section here, but I wouldn't throw the book at them for that; it's not really surprising that some users don't understand the WP:AE system perfectly. Fad Ariff's following attempt to take out another opponent concerns me more. Probably all three reports should be assessed together. Bishonen | tålk 08:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
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 Ghazaalch
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
1) WP:NPA: "Saying one thing and doing another thing is an act of hypocrisy, and the "hypocrites'" is another name used for The People's Mojahedin of Iran."(13:44, 23 May 2022) (comment directed at me and at the subject of the article)
2) WP:BATTLEGROUND: "If I were an admin, I would blocked People like you from discussing; and from editing, in the first place"(11:39, 25 April 2022)
Ghazzalch has an obvious WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS stand towards the subject of the article as shown by their comment on point "1". Ghazzalch also shows constant "us vs them" battleground mentality with editors they disagree with (as shown in point "2" ). Fad Ariff (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
@Bishonen: I do agree with your comment that merging the 3 cases would make the reading of these cases easier, and thank you for your consideration of me being new to AE. About Ghazaalch's comment (point "1"), sorry but reading that again I don't think I explained myself well there. In Islam, the term "Munafiq" (or "hypocrites", or false Muslim) is used in a derogatory way. The Iranian regime consistently refers to the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (an Iranian political group that also happens to be Muslim) with this derogatory term ("The regime, claiming that the Mojahedin were unbelievers masquerading as Muslims, used the Koranic term Monafeqin (hypocrites) to describe them"[1]). Ghazaalch's comment is alluding to that (making an attack on the PMOI’s Muslim identity, and trying to associate me to that through a vague “act of hypocrisy” comparison). Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 143. ISBN978-1-85043-077-3.)
In case this needs more clarification (which may have escaped me), the article itself clearly describes the "hypocrites" term with relation to the subject in two different sections.
"Monafiqeen (Persian: منافقین, lit. 'the hypocrites') – the Iranian government consistently refers to the organization with this derogatory name. The term is derived from the Quran, which describes it as people of "two minds" who "say with their mouths what is not in their hearts" and "in their hearts is a disease"."
"The regime claimed that the MEK were "unbelievers masquerading as Muslims", and used the Qur'anic term "monafeqin" (hypocrites) to describe them. This label was also later used by the Islamic Republic to discredit the MEK. According to Ervand Abrahamian, the Iranian regime "did everything it could" to tarnish the MEK "through a relentless campaign by labeling them as Marxist hypocrites and Western-contaminated ‘electics’, and as ‘counter-revolutionary terrorists’ collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists""
@Galobtter: You don't consider using a reference to a group of Muslim people being "unbelievers masquerading as Muslims" a personal attack on their religious identity? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Ghazaalch
Concerning the first quoted expression above, I did not want to say that Fad Ariff is a "hypocrite", but wanted to say that saying one thing and doing another thing is an act of hypocrisy, and that "hypocrites" is a name used for People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, as you could see in the section Other names.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I don't see the two expressions of irritation that Fad Ariff links to in this report as worthy of sanctions. Indeed, I see this report as an obvious attempt to take out an opponent. Note also that this is the second report against an opponent that Fad Ariff has posted within five minutes [sic]. Inspired, I suppose, by Iskandar's report against himself which can be seen higher up. Fad Ariff, this board is for serious, intractable problems. Please don't waste admins' time. Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]