This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Yeah I was too hot-headed and edit-warred a lot. I've cooled off and have a firmer understanding of the revert rules. Plus I am under a 0rrr for about another 2 months and than a 1rrr for another three, so I will not be engaging in any wars. I have not had any issues since coming back regarding edit-warring or clashing with other editors. I have no intention of starting any fight over this sensitive topic, just plan to patch up pages and make the odd addition. Since Newslinger has not responded to my request on his page, which is understandable given the circumstances, I am asking for it to occur here. Hope this clears things up. Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Galobtter I get that kind of reasoning. Is there a way to make a compromise where select pages (current news) I do not edit, but others are allowed? If not I get it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Just to be clear the ban only applies to the topics that have the "Arab Israeli" note? So a page like Peasants' revolt in Palestine that does not have it I can edit no problem? 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a feeling that was the case. Just wanted to clear up so there was no misunderstanding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am confused by the idea that I somehow broke the my 0rr. Regarding the first abortion edit I explained that I looked through most of the books in question and found them to not say what they were used to say so I removed. I engaged on the talk page here [3] and changes were made. There was no issue and no fighting. Regarding the one on Latin America it was full of editorial language and lacked numerous citations. If one wants to readd go for it. Regarding the removal of the block quote regarding TX V. PA one of the links is to editing from January 2021. So nearly a year and a half ago. Finally I was not aware of any edit-warring regarding these issues. If I did not look hard enough I am sorry. When these were reverted I made no objections and just talked it out. Three different editors have restored my removal here are some pages where that occurred. Mike Bost, Jeff Fortenberry, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Again I made no argument on the pages themselves. Finally regarding having "disdain" for opposing views I would say that both of us were too argumentative and combative. I believe in letting bygones be bygones. Have a nice day to everyone. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went through all the members of congress and on none of their talk pages was there any discussion about the two quotes removed. Aswell I saw no previous debate in the edit history. So I really do not see how any of the removals were edit-warring. Finally regarding the claim of "nonexistent Consensus" As I have said before, after my edits were reverted (which I did not reverse and instead had a productive talk with the person who did it) a day later my edits were readded by at least three different editors. Since they were not taken down, I felt that this warranted me taking down the quotes on other pages that I had no edited. I understand that people make mistakes so no hard feelings. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Statement by Newslinger
Comments by others about the appeal by 3Kingdoms
Statement by Aquillion
Looking over their history, I think 3Kingdoms may have breached their 0RR restriction recently; very shortly after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction, they went through a large number of articles to partially or completely remove this text ([4], many others.) That text had been the subject of a revert war (often with IPs) on at least some of those articles; see eg. [5]. The full list of articles would be a massive number of diffs but can easily be seen in 3Kingdoms' edit history. And 3Kingdoms knows this was a past dispute, in a way that makes it hard to imagine they were unaware that they were reverting someone - when challenged about the rationale for removing the text, they cited a (nonexistent) consensus to omit it, which by definition requires that it was added and removed previously. I feel that this is enough to at least seriously consider revoking 3Kingdoms' appeal and re-instating their ban; but it's certainly enough of a reason to not further remove their restrictions given what they did immediately after getting the previous one removed, ie. instantly diving into controversial topic areas and removing massive swaths of text.
See also eg. [6][7] - there are several others; some of 3Kingdoms' first actions after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction and a promise to be less hot-headed were to go down a list of articles (largely related to abortion, Catholicism, and right-wing politics) and remove large swaths of text. I am sympathetic to the fact that for a 0RR in particular we have to be cautious about the "every removal is technically a revert" logic, and I do accept the need to fix similar problems on multiple articles, but someone who just got back from a ban by promising to be less hot-headed and who is now asking for another sanction to be relaxed needs to be on their best behavior. To make these sweeping removals of clearly-controversial content that they could reasonably know had been previously contested, often with no explanation, immediately after being let back in, and then to come to AE and to ask for sanctions to be relaxed further, seems like a bit much. And saying that they were too hot-headed in the past but are calmer now doesn't seem particularly compatible with this.
I will also point out that 3Kingdoms' previous appeal for this restriction looked very similar to this one (they were blocked for revert-warring elsewhere after that), and in the appeal for their first indefinite block, before that, they said essentially the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Statement by Nableezy
The probblem isnt understanding the revert rules, thats the bare minimum of being able to count to 1 or 3. The problem is understanding what edit-warring is, that reverting once a day is still edti-warring, that attempting to enforce your view through reversions is edit-warring. The problem was the total disdain for anybody else's view in any editing conflict. Thats what needs to be shown to have changed, not that he is now willing to count to 1. nableezy - 14:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result of the appeal by 3Kingdoms
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
You only got unblocked from an indefinite block for edit warring a month ago. I think it's best to wait until the restrictions expire in 5 months and there's no issues with that before you come and edit such a sensitive topic - it's hard to avoid conflicts in this area and I'd like to see you have more practice being cool-headed before removing the tban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict is already a pretty narrow topic ban - there's definitely lots of other articles you can edit. Pretty much by definition anything in that topic area is controversial so I don't see a reason to narrow it beyond that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@3Kingdoms, see WP:TBAN for an explanation of how topic bans work. An edit can still be related without the page having the "note". Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not believe this is the time to remove the topic ban. Especially while they're under revert restrictions as a condition of coming back from an indef, I think I would first want to see 3Kingdoms do a substantial amount of good quality editing in less difficult and fraught areas prior to consideration of lifting the TBAN. SeraphimbladeTalk to me
Abrvagl is formally warned for edit warring. Any further instances, including slow motion edit warring, will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.
Abrvagl also tries to add expressions of MOS:DOUBT further down in the article by writing, "According the Armenian sources, Ganja was hit in response to...". Eurasianet is clearly not an Armenian source, and the article leaves no doubt about what Abrvagl is trying to dispute: "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja."[8].
The constant WP:SEALIONING of the issue on the talk page, edit-wars, and refusal to drop the stick (doing the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edit even after a month) leaves me no choice but to bring this to AE's attention. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but what in the hell was this 7000+byte wall of text? For now, I'll just address these accusations against me.
ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [58] and personal attacks[59][60]. I observe the same behaviour against me:
You're literally showing my first block when I registered here a year ago and a 72hour block, in an AE case against you, in an attempt to achieve something / browbeat me? I'm so confused.
1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing.
2. Here, I raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani responded: You need to finally read that policy and understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for bullshit.
Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. You pick one of my comments, no not even a comment, part of my comment from an overall discussion and present in an AE case against you for what purpose exactly? Do you think I'm going to walk away my statment or something? Yeah, Wikipedia isn't a repository for bullshit and I made my reference clear in the full comment (hint: extremely undue gov claim).
ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [61] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN[62]. He stopped only after warned[63]
Here [64] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times.
Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions about random talk discussions in here, you need to understand that. I don't plan to reply to every WP:CRUSH comment, and I explained myself pretty clearly in my last comment. You even brought that source in RSN 3 days ago Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Hyperallergic, what is the relevance of it here? Are you just throwing as much pile at me as possible at this point?
Here[65] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN[66] and RfC[67]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry
What the actual f*ck is happening, what is this essay of rants even suppose to mean? There was a discussion, Abrvagl opened a DRN about it [9] and it resulted in an RfC [10]. Now what are you trying to say again, that I MUST comment in that RfC? To be honest, I'm not interested about that discussion anymore and consensus seems to be formed in that RfC. Now why is this something weirdly being brought up against me, hello?
Tbh I feel like gaslighted by all of these rants against me when I simply showed tendentious edits / edit-wars of Abrvagl and wanted to see a simple and valid explanation. Instead, I received absolute nonsense rants against me in a browbeat attempt and belittling of the actual report against Abrvagl, more than half of those rants were already tried and failed in the past. This editor is too nationalistic for AA topic area, like other editors have also suggested (diff1, diff2, diff3). This rant by them is just another sentiment to it. Sorry for the long comment, most of it was just replies to this slanderous nonsense against me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll address the underwhelming explanations by Abrvagl now:
The statement was added by banned[42] user Steverci. Diff:[43]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR.
Gross misinterpretation of events. Looking at the RfC, it had no consensus against or for anything, it was literally closed as "Consensus is that this RfC did not conform to WP:RFCNEUTRAL"[11]. This doesn't prohibit users to edit the article (btw a user's ban after 7 fucking months of that edit doesn't mean anything, another attempt to belittle something you disagree with) and has nothing to do with the stable version of the article for more than a year that you changed without consensus and edit-warred over a month.
Everything you show below is your attempts of overwriting stable version of the article without any achieved consensus. On their last revert, Abrvagl is casting doubt on a third-party source and attributing statement from it to "Armenian sources" [12]. Clear example of WP:TENDENTIOUS edit and this user's continual disruption of the article.
The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral.
This doesn't even make sense. Do you have a source disputing Eurasianet? The article makes it very clear that 2020 Ganja missile attacks was a response to 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja.", and you have been explained this many times in the talk discussion. Third party user in talk also disagrees with you [13].
Your misinterpretation of events and unreasonable justifications for your edit-wars and reverts of stable version aren't convincing. Coupled with the groundless and disgusting rant you posted against me below this "explanation", which btw counts as a personal attack just like all baseless rants/accusations do, I firmly believe that this user isn't qualified to edit in a very contentious topic area like AA2. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rosguill Please note that this is the second time this user makes personal attacks against me either by baseless accusations or misrepresenting things I said, and they do it in a polite way. I'll reply for the final time if this continues, as I don't plan to reply to everything seasoned with WP:CRUSH, just like with some of their talk comments.
The statement was added by the Steverchi, who knew that majority of the editors are against his edits on Talk-Page, and It was left unnoticed for a while.
This doesn't change the reality that it was the stable version for almost a year and you edit-warred over your changes for a month without a consensus.
The last edit was done after I made a consensus proposal on the talk-page but was ignored for weeks.
When good faith editors provide new sources and ask you to stop with sealioning, you even discredited Eurasianet and accused me of sealioning instead, that's when I stopped replying to you. You then went and changed the article again without consensus. You couldn't remove everything just like previous times, so instead you added expressions of doubt further down in the article by writing "According the Armenian sources". And you still haven't provided a WP:RS that disputes a reliable third-party source like Eurasianet.
Reviewing this case, please consider that ZaniGiovanni continuously does not follow civility rules... It is visible even from his replies on this report: "groundless and disgusting rant you posted", "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions", "What the actual f*ck is happening", and examples I brought earlier. All editors are equal in Wikipedia.
After I adressed your groundless accusations point by fucking point, you're still making accusations against me and taking my quotes out of content? "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions about random talk discussions in here" - this is the full quote btw, don't you think it's extremely disingenuous to quote me out of context and make accusations based on it? And I explained why with diff, since you were WP:SEALIONING the issue in that discussion as well. You raised the same "NewsBlog" question even in RSN, where you also received opposition [14]. Going to your second example, saying "wtf is happening" isn't prohibited on this website, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point aren't we? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.
1.14 April 2022[15][16]I rephrased the statement. Reverted by ZaniGiovanni[17].
2.16 April 2022, I reviewed the case in details, and identified following:
- The statement was added by banned[18] user Steverci. Diff:[19]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR.
- Provided sources didnot support the statement. All sources are either primary or just quotes primary sources. The statement is WP:SYNTH and not in line with WP:NPOV.
Considering the above, I removed the statement, and in detail explained myself on the talk-page[20]. Zani replied [21], but his reply was ignoring my points. So I wrote even more detailed explanation for him [22]. Number of times I tried to get solid justifications and answers to my concerns from the Zani [23][24][25], but Zani continued repeating The Armenian sources said it was a response to the Stepanakert shelling, and third party sources covered what the Armenian sources said although I had proved that opposite. Then Zani started ignoring me, and discussions stopped.
3. On 29 April 2022[26] I reviewed case again, ensured that statement definitely violates Wikipedia policies, and removed it again. On 30 April 2022 ZaniReverted edit[27].
4. On 31 April 2022[28] ZaniGiovanni added new source. As new source was supporting the statement partially, I proposed a consensus[29], but Zani ignored me for 3 weeks.
5. On 22 May 2022 I rephrased the statement in line with WP:OR and WP:NPOV and according to last source provided by Zani, in order to reach consensus. Also removed unrelated sources[30]. I left a note on the talk-page[31]. I attributed it to Armenian sources, as an article in the body referring to the Armenian sources.
Then I was going to take it to the NPOV/noticeboard because experts who conducted investigation do not support above statement HRWAmnesty. The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral.
ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [32] and personal attacks[33][34]. I observe the same behaviour against me:
1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing.
2. Here, I raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani responded: You need to finally read that policy and understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for bullshit.
ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [35] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN[36]. He stopped only after warned[37]. Here [38] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times. Here[39] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN[40] and RfC[41]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry.
My point was that the initial statement was WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Provided sources didn't support the statement at all. Later, Zani provided a Eurasianet article that partially supported the statement, based on which, as I explained earlier, tried to reach a temporary consensus. I did not remove but rephrased my first and last edits[42][43]. The last edit was done after I made a consensus proposal on the talk-page but was ignored for weeks. Only then I made an edit to see if there will be any positive or negative reactions to my proposal. I also left a note on the Talk-Page about that. By the way, I summarized my point on the Talk-Page[44] of the article. It is not for this report, but you can look at it to see the full picture behind my decisions.
I want to assure you that I had no intent to edit war, and my active participation on the talk-page also supports that. Edit wars are disruptive and never help reach consensus, and we should avoid them. I always tried to stick to the 3 revert rule. From now on I will do my best to stick to the one revert rule, to eliminate misunderstanding. However, I'm not sure what to do when another editor is ignoring me or reverting my edits without proper justification.
However, assuming good faith and keeping everything civil is as important as avoiding edit wars. Reviewing this case, please consider that ZaniGiovanni continuously breaking civility rules. He often gives personal remarks and uses hostile language. This creates a hostile environment, inflames disputes and ruins the collaborative atmosphere. It is visible even from his replies on this report: "groundless and disgusting rant you posted", "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions", "What the actual f*ck is happening", and examples I brought earlier. All editors are equal in Wikipedia. I may be right or wrong; I might make mistakes, which is normal. We are all humans, and we are not perfect. But it does not matter if the editor is wrong or right or makes a mistake; no one has a right to use hostile language and mock editors for their views or errors or past. I find the tone/words that Zani uses insulting. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
#diff It seems that user Abrvagl is struggling to grasp the meaning of BLD, simply reverting when he disagrees, even when he already knows there will be disagreement. I would support a warning at this stage (hoping he truly doesn't yet understand well how Wikipedia operates, being a relatively new user) and if he keeps beating the dead horse as he has done here in a discussion innvolving myself, he may need another review. --Armatura (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
As far as the original complaint goes, there's two components: allegations of POV-motivated misrepresentation of sources, and edit warring. I'm somewhat inclined toward lenience on the former because it appears that the only source that actually directly states in its own voice that the Ganja attacks were in response to the Stepanakert attacks wasn't added to that claim directly (it was present elsewhere in the article for other claims) until May 1st, after the first three edits listed here; based on the BBC, Telegraph and Armenian news citations present when this dispute started, it is accurate to state that only Armenian sources connected the two events to the degree that the lead did. There are further attempts to discredit the Eurasianet coverage due to its use of Armenian sources by Abrvagl on the talk page. These attempts are a bridge too far: if Eurasianet is a reliable source, we can trust their journalists to evaluate primary sources and synthesize reliable secondary coverage in their own words––that is the whole point of journalism, and their claims should only be superseded by stronger sources (i.e. peer-reviewed publications or a chorus of journalistic sources with more clout), but I don't think that's necessarily sanctionable in itself, in the absence of a pattern of opportunistic exegesis. However, the edit warring is nevertheless problematic, and I would characterize even the early edits as edit warring, as the implicit consensus of nearly a year of silence erases the murkiness of the consensus when the content at-issue was first introduced. Beyond that, I haven't analyzed any of the tit-for-tat accusations made here in the AE discussion. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abrvagl, I believe I already addressed the status of edit-warring and OR and do not see anything in your most recent comment that changes my assessment. As far as "intent to edit war", 3RR is a bright red line but not an entitlement to revert freely prior to hitting that limit: by May, it should have been abundantly clear that the changes you were proposing were contested and you should have proceeded to seek some form of dispute resolution rather than continuing to revert. I'm undecided on whether the polite accusations and rude expressions of exasperation here (by either of you) rise to the level of meriting sanctions. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since no one else has weighed in on this, I'm leaning towards closing this with a logged warning for Abrvagl regarding slow-motion edit warring. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus is that the addition of a reference was not a violation. The second edit likely was, but is a very technical and clearly not malicious violation. Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 22:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.
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.
Regarding Diff 1, Robert Bartholomew is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry [47], Rp2006 has an ArbCom-confirmed COI related to that organization (see finding of facts). Geogene (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding Johnuniq's comments here, he has always doubted that GSoW's were involved in promoting themselves (COI). Here he expresses that doubt while coaching Sgerbic on how to conduct herself in the case. reasonable people would see problems with undue negativity in BLPs, and might think that at least some of the group are "here" to promote Skeptical Inquirer. I don't share that view, and I think even it were true it is a correctable problem.[48]. He is WP:Involved here, based on his extensive and partisan participation related to the GSoW case. Geogene (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a diff of Johnuniq taking sides in the relevant ArbCom case [49]. Geogene (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I'm "dragging Johnuniq into this". I think Johnuniq is good enough at finding GSoW-related dispute resolution threads on his own without my help. This thread is his first commen on this page in more than a month [50], and the GSoW COIN thread he participated in was his only visit to that board over an interval of more than a year [51]. What sort of posts was he making there? Defending GSoW [52], [53], [54]. Geogene (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh good. I noticed this back when it happened, and reached out to a couple editors that would be more likely to be seen as neutral to see if they would bring it up to Rp2006, and failing that, I ignored it and hoped it would go away, which apparently it didn't.
To address a couple of the points here:
As I dimly recall, the problem was adding negativity to BLP articles concerning, umm, open-minded people. These edits appear unrelated to that... "Rp2006 has an ArbCom-confirmed COI related to that organization" is not relevant since there is no remedy relating to that. The finding states "Rp2006 has edited biographies of living people without appropriately observing neutral point of view, both negatively for individuals associated as fringe topics and positively for individuals associated as skeptics." It's both negative information against fringey people, and boosting skeptics. Adding an Amazon link as a cite to a skeptics book isn't great, instead of citing the book itself. Per WP:AMAZON, some users consider it advertising to add such links. I assume it was a wider topic ban since there were issues with both positive and negative editing.
Yeah I definitely am getting WP:BATTLEGROUND vibes from the filing and am frankly more concerned about the filing than the edits. and Frankly, I would be a lot more impressed if the filer had pointed out the possibility of it being an error to Rp2006 first so they could possibly revert it and learn from the error, rather than coming right here seeking a sanction. There are three warnings/clarifications linked to in the report, about two specific edits. This included advice to reach out to admins for clarification on any confusion. Is a fourth warning/clarification on their talk page necessary before going to AE without it being seen as WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct?
They've made fewer than 100 mainspace edits since the topic ban, and at least three of those edits have been topic ban violations. A warning here that they should probably put a bit more care into not violating their topic ban, and clarifying the ban itself would probably be helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Would someone please clarify what the problem is. The linked ArbCom remedy says "topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed". Where is there an implication that edits to Nocebo and Facilitated communication are not permitted? As I dimly recall, the problem was adding negativity to BLP articles concerning, umm, open-minded people. These edits appear unrelated to that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The second diff shows Rp2006 adding Anne McDonald and Rosemary Crossley to "See also" at Facilitated communication. That might be regarded as redundant since the two people are very briefly mentioned in the article but the edit is totally different from what ArbCom was trying to address. See the Rp2006 findings of fact which discussed WP:BLP edits without due WP:NPOV. I agree that this area has to apply a letter-of-the-law approach so maybe the edit is a topic ban violation but a clarification request might be in order. At any rate the above "Rp2006 has an ArbCom-confirmed COI related to that organization" is not relevant since there is no remedy relating to that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first diff is definitely not a violation. Construing the topic ban in this way would essentially ban adding any reference to any article in the scientific skepticism space; definitely not what the topic ban is meant to be.
The second diff does seem a violation since adding a living person to the see also is definitely an edit about them. But it's quite a minor violation so I don't think anything needs to be done beyond clarifying that the restriction applies here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I definitely am getting WP:BATTLEGROUND vibes from the filing and am frankly more concerned about the filing than the edits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the first diff should not be considered a violation - the editor was obviously topic banned for issues relating to being able to handle BLP issues - I don't think we've ever held that adding a reference written by a BLP was a violation of a topic ban on editing about BLPs - which, if we did, would be ridiculous in the extreme. The second diff is, as others have pointed out, a technical violation, but it's edge-case enough that I can't work up a lot of energy to block someone over it. Frankly, I would be a lot more impressed if the filer had pointed out the possibility of it being an error to Rp2006 first so they could possibly revert it and learn from the error, rather than coming right here seeking a sanction. And combining it was the reference edit just makes it look like waiting to pounce on anything in an effort to get rid of an opponent. And the dragging of Johnuniq into this is just ... more concerning about the filer. I suggest that they dial back the WP:BATTLEGROUND feel here... Ealdgyth (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The cited diffs are three weeks old so unless these are part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour (that no evidence has been presented to show) any sanction now would be punitive - and that is especially true given how trivial the single breach is. All that needs to happen is for Rp2006 to be made aware that the second diff was technically a violation of their topic ban so they know not to do it again; and for Geogene to be formally reminded of the purpose of AE. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.
16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Unrelated. Sources don't mention Kook even once. This is not an article on Kahane. Also bad grammar in caption and unexplained removal of picture. Daveout already took responsibility for edit but Nableezy reverted him with some incoherent edit summary that appears to agree with him anyway. Stop disrupting."
N/A as a general sanction, but informed here. pretty obviously a sock account, but no matter, should be blocked as an account whose single purpose is to violate an arbitration restriction.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Every single edit by this user since registering has been a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction.
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.
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.
Mentioned by name and sanctioned in the Arbitration Committee's motion linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The IP editor claims to be the article subject, but the article subject is blocked from using Wikipedia. This appears to be a case of block evasion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tamzin: Thank you for your note. While I did not include this on my initial report, I think there's evidence that we can rule out this being an imposter. Her disclosed Twitter account hastweeted (archivelink) about the incident in a way that confirms that the IP's claim to be the ArbCom-blocked Wikipedia user is authentic. I don't know that this is actionable in any way, but I'm noting this here for posterity sake as it's basically confirmed sockpuppetry at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.
Hello, I posted on a discussion page that was directly about me, and immediately identified myself and the ban. As for the ban, I was never told why I was banned other than "offline & online conduct." I was never even told I was even being investigated. I had no notice negative action would be taken against me. In fact i had reported misconduct against me, and the investigation apparently pivoted to *me* at some point. I was given no warnings, ever. My account was in use for over a decade with no prior warnings & only praise. There was no specific ban/block before a wider ban/block, there was no temporary ban before an indefinite ban. was never provided an explanation of why I was banned or how to appeal, or if I could appeal. I was told I was banned from editing, but it was unclear if that meant only editing articles or if that also applied to administrative matters, like an article deletion discussion. The order was vague and overbroad, and I've struggled to interpret it. It does seem quite unfair to prevent me from weighing in on a deletion discussion about the article about me, without explicitly telling me the ban applies to administration discussions as well as articles. In fact, I was given notice and this text box to edit as part of this enforcement notice, which is confusing if I'm supposed to be banned. Why would I get notice or an opportunity to provide input, if i was prohibited from providing input? I worry that I'm violating the ban again by even responding now here. 73.158.47.129 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
IP blocked 1 week for either block evasion or impersonation. Can be reblocked for longer if it proves static. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mhawk10: Yeah, the "or impersonation" was mostly to save myself the time of investigating when it was blockable either way. I agree that that off-wiki statement is dispositive here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor when initially requested to self revert expressed confusion about how one edit was a breach of 1RR. When eventually explained here the response was to blank the page. When given a final chance to self revert here the response was again to blank with edit summary "Did not breach anything. Why threaten like this?".
This pattern may by now be familiar, an editor reaches 500 edits and immediately jumps into the middle of an ongoing content dispute.
Re single revert, my understanding is that a revert undoes the actions of an editor and that if a single edit undoes the actions of two editors/edits then that is two reverts. Admittedly, Wikipedia:Reverting is an essay but it does say "A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions." If that could be confirmed as wrong, please.
Shrike, I did not make a frivolous filing, I made a mistake in my interpretation of Wikipedia:Reverting, nothing more. I even linked and quoted it to Seggallion before I filed. I now stand corrected on that point and Segallion has my apologies for making an incorrect 1R allegation.
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 followed instructions and waited. At the end of May I saw a requested move advertised on the al-Aqsa article and I voted on it, just like I voted on other advertised moves. I checked before voting that I met the rule.
The changes to the naming have been opposed by other users too, I have been watching this pair of articles since the requested move.
I didn't wait until 500 to edit the topic. I was told to wait by Selfstudier after I edited a church in April that he thought was in the topic.
That's a single revert, it does not matter how many edits were reverted if it happened in a single revert. However there is blatant extended confirmed permissions gaming, with the overwhelming majority of their first 500 edits being single byte additions and removals. Then their 501st edit is to a restricted topic's requested move here. Curiously, the single byte changes started to pick up steam right around when this happened. nableezy - 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selfstudier your understanding is wrong. A single edit, or a single set of contiguous edits, is by definition no more than one revert. A single revert can undo multiple edits by multiple contributors. nableezy - 19:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a single reversion, but by undoing the work of two other editors, it is also in essence a restoration of a prior version. The basic requirement with any revert, not least a restoration effectively rollbacking edits by multiple other editors, is a fairly fulsome explanation of the reasons why it is being done, and "not neutral" does not really cut it. Reversions of non-vandalistic edits need decent comments. And yes, an editor barely off their 500/30 training wheels wading into this particular domain and immediately boldly reverting with laconic edit comments is of course somewhat eyebrow raising. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shrike: Hypothetically speaking, imagining a scenario if you were a WP gamer, would it not make total sense, and in fact be gaming 101, to continue to edit in the areas in which you have built up your first 500 edits, to provide precisely that cause for the pretense of your own innocence? Gaming doesn't stop at 500 edits; on the contrary; that is when the 'game' truly begins. The behaviour is not typified by what it does not include, but as Nableezy noted, what it does include, such as mass single or zero character edits up to 500 and then a launch straight into conflict area disputes. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also like to discuss what can be done about 500/30 gaming. Coming up to 500 edits through mass automated / semi-automated / very minor edits is not consistent with the spirit of the rule. This editor made >350 edits in Jan/Feb this year, by finding and replacing common typos. A useful job of course, but the interest in clean-up edits disappears at 500. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all the premise of this filing is frivolous the filer is experienced enough to understand what revert is. Regrading the gaming it seems that users has continued to do minor edits in other topics contrary to what claimed here so it doesn't seem like gaming to me --Shrike (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seggallion, could you explain why you didn't sign your comments above and you formatted the links so poorly?
You displayed a deep knowlege of the links formating (note "here" added) back in February [55] and you also nicely signed your comment. What happened? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Selfstudier, while I can accept your explanation that you didn't understand what did and did not constitute multiple reverts, editors are permitted to remove pretty much anything from their user talk page if they wish to do so. When they do, it is considered an acknowledgement that they have read and understood whatever they removed, but you should absolutely not be edit warring to restore it there. I do not beyond that see any actionable violations here—I will say that I am not thrilled to see an editor jumping into one of our most difficult and contentious areas right at the 500/30 mark, but as it stands there is no rule against that. If Seggallion plans to continue to edit within that topic, I would advise them to tread very lightly indeed before gaining more experience. But other than those general cautions, I do not see cause to apply any sanctions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 20:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two edits with the discretionary sanctions alert issued after the first does not warrant a sanction. Zusty001 is advised to discuss issues on article talk and not repeat challenged edits in a topic under discretionary sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Placed a ((Ds/aware)) template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. [57]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
From the edit summary at [58] they knew they are fighting against WP:CONSENSUS, nevertheless chose to put consensus and experts between scare quotes and chose to claim that the experts have a particular philosophy (So-called). I cannot read the rest of their reasoning since it has been omitted from public record. Anyway, speaking of their summaries from other articles, those are hard to parse and to make sense of. And I have read Western esotericism books in English, I have read parts of Heidegger's Being and Time in English, so it cannot be said that I don't understand obscurantist prose. E.g. I fail to understand what sort of action or message 'pseudoscience' (A term whose meaning remains oblique and occulted, yet treated as monolithic here) is supposed to convey. Seems to be a deepity. Or a Gish gallop.
What does it mean that the meaning of pseudoscience is oblique? What does it mean that it is occulted? Who treated pseudoscience as monolithic and what's the evidence that they did so?
The talk page of the article is crammed with explanations about WP:PSCI, so I felt no need of adding extra explanations. The problem with Steiner's fans is that they have a thoroughly in-universe view and no longer know how mainstream science views Steiner. But I once met an important Anthroposophist who was fully aware that the Institute for Beautiful Sciences (Schöne Wissenschaften) sounds completely ridiculous to outsiders. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.
SeraphimBlade, my reasons were explained essentially in the comments of the relevant edits. If this is not deemed sufficient, and if these comments can be viewed anywhere (It appears cut off in the public view of the edit), then I do not think I should try strenuously to achieve some victory in a litigatory struggle against a user of this site far more prolific and powerful than myself. I would explain myself more elsewhere outside of this context, but here I will, for the most part, simply note that in the wide array of citations attached to the section initially removed by myself, there are a great many in which 'expertise' or authority is simply not there, even in some academic sense. (The latter part may be the more considerable here. I noted the use of Dan Dugan in my original comment as a particularly striking example, whom is also used as a main and positive, or encyclopedic, source for another section of the article which I have not edited.) I do not regret noting such 'expertise' in quotations, here or in my edit.
As for the 'anonymous' edits you note, I should say that they are not my own.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Zusty001, a statement from you would probably be helpful here, explaining why you continued to make the edit even if you were aware it lacked consensus. Also, it does appear to me that you edited while logged out to make similar edits ([60])—I realize that can happen by accident, but it's something to be very careful of, as it can have the appearance of an attempt at sock puppetry. If you would not like to comment here, we'll have to proceed with resolving this without your input or explanation. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LearnIndology is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed (WP:ARBIPA). Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edit-wars to remove certain content despite opposition by multiple editors (and only one in favor); at last, a longstanding admin had to aware LI, LearnIndology, blanking a relevant and cited section from this article isn't acceptable and Kautilya was entitled to restore them.
I have no qualms against editors unilaterally redirecting articles, as permitted by policy. However I am opposed to misrepresentations in the process; contrary to the edit summary, the article had a news article from Reuters. A cursory search in GBooks or GScholar evidence that the topic has attracted substantial scholarship. The redirect fits to pro-Hindutva POV which deems Cow-belt to be a slang - indeed LI had once sought for speedy deletion on the same grounds.
Uses some fringe journal to challenge multiple famed scholars who have been published by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press etc. When there ain't any wiggle-room left, comes a strange reply. His shenanigans continue till March '22; see the t/p.
Uses ridiculously poor sources — an astrologer and a school-level text-book — to edit-war against two editors including me. Their strange replies only compound the issue.
Copy content from different articles to start a new article. Nothing objectionable in such acts except that their copying had selectively omitted all critical remarks which did not pander to a pro-Hindutva POV. My accusations were (later) supported by Joshua Jonathan, a longstanding editor, at Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Merger_proposal.
Claim Jonathan Mark Kenoyer (an expert in the field) to support a particular POV about IVC Swastika being linkable with the Hindu Swastika. I inquire about how exactly Kenoyer supports that claim but they do not expand upon it. As the particular section shows (redrafted by me), Kenoyer states something very different - frankly, the precise opposite.
Aggressive behavior, dubious usage of sources, and violation of BLP including breaching 3RR. Links provided in the complaint. Upon being brought to the noticeboard, they claimed of a serious misunderstanding! Once again, pushing of a pro-Hindutva POV.
Create a fresh article filled with pro-author (pro-Hindutva) POV. Claims of the book being widely praised are uncritically reproduced from the author himself. More space is allotted for the author's response to various reviewers than for what the reviewers said in the first place!
See the current version of the article to understand the extent of POV that was pushed in.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
LearnIndology (LI) is not a prolific editor: they are often inactive for weeks and engages in routine anti-vandalism, maintenance tasks etc. This necessitates a scrutiny into their activities across a long span of time, which might be unnecessary otherwise.
The evidence presented above supports that the losses accrued by letting LI edit in this area — reduction in content accuracy as well as waste of editorial resources in combating his POV-laden activities — outweighs the positives. I wish to emphasize that LI is cautious enough to not run afoul of any bright-line rule but nonetheless, tests the boundaries as evident from the 3RRN example. Multiple established editors — me, Kautilya3, Fowler&Fowler, RegentsPark, Joshua Jonathan, and maybe others — have warned him about NPOV violations but they show little effect.
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.
Nearly all of the diffs are dating back to 2020 and 2021 and concern some usual content disputes and some include misleading claims such that I created this article. I find this reporting to be lacking any sense. Though I would still comment on the recent diffs.
2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy was created[61] over 28 hours after Nupur Sharma (politician) was created.[62] It was being redirected to Nupur Sharma because it was a complete POVFORK created in violation of copyrights per WP:CWW. Just compare these two versions: [63],[64]. Only difference was the creation of more sub-sections and some quotefarming, but that was also insignificant.
ARE shouldn't be misused just because you disagree with some of my edits. LearnIndology (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope you don't consider any of my edit to be a 'substantial' only when it is made anywhere in your topics. Anyway, I was not engaging in misrepresentation of sources in January as I described here but only interpreted a snippet without having access but I got the access later and no misrepresentation was found. I haven't used snippets since. My last edit to this subject was in March 2022 where I was only providing information that could be backed with other reliable sources. There was no policy violation there.
As for your objection to my attempts to redirect a content fork two times, I think you will understand my position better now because you have also attempted to redirect Gyanvapi Mosque controversy[65] two times in a row. I don't disagree with you reverting but the point is that sometimes there are editors who ignore policies on article creation and only care about retaining the article. But I usually let it go and wait for the consensus when others don't agree. LearnIndology (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abecedare: With this message I was saying that either we should keep statements like that of Dutch politicians and others, or we should only keep statements related to the foreign ministry and the main administration. At that time there was no particular criteria set, and selective removal was not helping in setting consensus this is why I only restored the stable version with that regard. This is not mind-boggling because ultimately the consensus supported my view, contrary to the view of those who wanted to only remove the statement of the Dutch politician but keep statements of politicians who are not even notable.
@Bishonen: There is clearly no doubt that I did a number of mistakes at Romila Thapar dispute in Feb 2021 but I learned a lot from that and have made more than 1,300 edits since. By saying "per discussion" on this edit summary I was talking about this discussion where I had mentioned the sources. While there was a content dispute at the Religion of the IVC article, I was correct with each of my messages there as it can be read here but TrangaBellam's main objection was that the article is a POV fork and should be a redirect.[66] The ultimate consensus was against this view. LearnIndology (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note severe misrepresentation of sources by TrangaBellam here. TB cited a diff where I debunked TB's misrepresentation of Hiltebeitel and TB never recognized this misrepresentation. On this discussion, I cited this source which said "seal in the shape of a stepped cross has a swastika motif in the center combining both the stepped cross motif and the well-known swastika design", and Trangabellam asks me "How is Kenoyer supporting your hypothesis?" That means TB never read the source. TrangaBellam has failed to cite this discussion where he was answered with this source and he made no response to that message. Yet TB cites this outdated dispute on this report and pushes the same false claim as if TB was never introduced to the contradictory.
TrangaBellam is also misrepresenting the writings of Behera when the quote clearly says that "Census figures are quoted to indicate that the community is facing virtual extinction: in 1947 the Pandits constituted 15 percent of the Valley’s population, which fell to 5 percent by 1981, and after the exodus to 0.1 percent." To use this quotation to claim it to be "KP's representation of their own history" but not the existence of a Census figure is just a misrepresenation of source. This misrepresentation comes after another additional verification cited on the same discussion which said "The NHRC reported that the Pandit population in Jammu and Kashmir dropped from 15 percent in 1941 to 0.1 percent during the year."
Given these 2 instances alone, I am sure that TrangaBellam is clearly not in position to accurately interpret the sources. LearnIndology (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TrangaBellam you never talked about how "Kenoyer supports a link between Hindu swastika and IVC swastika". You are doing it for the first time on this noticeboard. Your actual message on the talk page was asking "If sources draw distinct links between Hindu Swastika and IVC Swastika", after which I cited this source along with p.10 because it said "Based on comparisons with later uses in South Asia in Buddhist, Jain and Brahmanical rituals, the symbol of the swastika represent order out of chaos. The chaos of the world is divided into four quarters and turned either to the right or the left. Where there is order, there is wealth and profit, and in South Asia, the swastika is associated with good luck and various deities that bring wealth, such as Ganesha and Saraswati." Drawing a link is not the same as being supportive of the hypothesis. LearnIndology (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you are quoting now is nothing new since this information already exists on the main article's section since that same day.[67] Can you show me where I objected to this wording? Your recent message still doesn't change that we were talking about sources that are drawing a connection, instead of supporting the specific connection. You can't claim the latter to misrepresent my response. LearnIndology (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Post-filing statements and responses by TrangaBellam[edit]
LI, I see that you have not chosen to discuss your mis-representation of sources about the Kashmir Exodus etc., which happened as late as March '22.You stake in about one substantial edit per month, excluding vandalism and routine maintenance; that invokes the necessity to examine your edits from a year ago. Every time you get a warning — Kautilya3 noted in March that he will take you to AE, shall such misrepresentation of source reoccur — you take a break from volatile areas for a couple of months and then start a new mess. Once that becomes too hot to manage, you remain low for another couple of months. This is an obvious gaming of the system because by the time, someone can get substantial evidence of disruption against you, they have become too old.You reverted Onel's redirect of the article and added content. Technically, not a creation but practically it is.My invocation of the content-deletion from 2022 Muhammad controversy concerns your edit-warring under what appears to be quite-spurious grounds, as rightfully held by a completely uninvolved admin. Even if you are right on the specifics, that does not excuse your edit-warring etc.This thread is not about me; if you have issues with my editing, please raise them at an appropriate venue (ANI/AE/..). Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On 9 August 2021, LI claims that Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, an expert on Indus Valley civilization supports that IVC swastikas became Hindu swastikas, an argument commonly found in Hindutva circles. [Kenoyer is the first of the links cited by him: the pdf.]
I critique his other sources and ask him to explain how the particular source of Kenoyer supported LI's conclusion. Because the cited pdf did not have anything to such effects.
I knew for certain that this was a fringe argument and doubted that Kenoyer was gullible enough to lend his support to such a fringe claim. Not very surprisingly, I found a source where Kenoyer expressly held that IVC swastikas were appropriated by political and religious leaders of the subcontinent to [claim ties with Hinduism.
All in all, again the same pattern of misrepresenting sources until being called out.
Re 5:
I have not mentioned another aspect.
LI's second source is a trade-book of considerable repute (Behera; BUP) but once again, LI misrepresents the content. The passage in the book (p. 125) goes:
The Kashmiri Pandits provide an important illustration of a community’s attempts to reconstruct history in view of its present political interests. Describing themselves as the original inhabitants of the Valley with a distinct subculture of the purest class of Aryans, the Pandits recount episodes of religious, linguistic, and political persecution by Muslim rulers over the past 650 years. Census figures are quoted to indicate that the community is facing virtual extinction: in 1947 the Pandits constituted 15 percent of the Valley’s population, which fell to 5 percent by 1981, and after the exodus to 0.1 percent. [Endnote 126]
[Endnote 126] (p. 312): Rasgotra argues that 1941 marks the beginning of a statistical assault on the Pandit numbers by the junior local Muslim officials, who underestimated the strength of the Pandits by nearly 10–15 percent [..] For a good account of the politics of numbers, see Alexander Evans, “A Departure from History: Kashmiri Pandits, 1999–2001,” Contemporary South Asia 11, no. 1 (2002): 23–27
As is obvious, Behera does not claim that KPs constituted 15% of the population; she notes these observations in the context of KP's representation of their own history.
All in all, we have usage of a very poor source + misrepresentation of source. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LI's latest justification of his usage of Behera only proves my point - I leave it to Bish/Abecedare to determine whether my accusations hold merit or not.
LI, you didn't debunk anything; I had cited Hiltebeitel (2017). Your insistence that Kenoyer supports a link between Hindu swastika and IVC swastika is amazing - once again, I leave it to Bish/Abecedare to determine whether the quoted line supports such an extrapolation. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LI, you continue to misrepresent Kenoyer by selectively quoting him, misunderstanding him, and engaging in semantic gymnastics. How is "[does] Kenoyer support a link between Hindu swastika and IVC swastika" different to "[do] sources draw distinct links between Hindu Swastika and IVC Swastika"?
The very preceding line goes, [h]owever, its specific meaning may have been quite different in each world region. The very next paragraph has, The swastika is not associated with any single religious tradition and was widely used by many different cultures which are in no way linked to Aryan traditions or religion. [..] These examples should be taken as a cautionary note to avoid projecting modern meaning onto ancient symbols without taking into account cultural, ideological and social contexts. In the lines you quote, Kenoyer speculates a possible meaning of Swastika in the IVC culture based on its meanings in later S. Asian traditions but also warns several times about the pitfalls of such an approach; obviously he does not "draw any distinct links between them". More interestingly, as currently cited in the article, Kenoyer notes Hindu politicians of having appropriated IVC artefacts which evidences that your conclusions were obviously wrong.
@Abecedare:, if you need more evidence, see this edit at Lohri during Jan' 22. A factoid about Lohri being dedicated to gods Indra, Agni, Surya and Lakshmi was introduced at the second line (!) of the lead sourced from a NON-HISTRS. This used to have a surreptitious presence at the infobox before LI jumped in.
Coincidentally or otherwise, scholars (Berti et al; consult works on ABISY) have documented Hindutva-tinted historians to have made efforts in appropriating all sorts of folk-festivals under a pan-Hindu banner and reify a Brahminic origin story while rejecting the multiplicity of subaltern legends that usually surround them. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw, if LI is T-Banned from India, that will not allow him to edit nine out of the ten articles. Culture of Kashmir, Srinagar, Kalash People, Kashmiris, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization, Religion in the Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Rohit Sardana - everything will be off limit. Himalayas will be a borderline case depending on the content of edits.
Even if a narrow topic ban concerning "politics, history, and culture of S. Asia" (or something like that) is imposed, the same situation prevails roughly. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responding to Abecedare's ping. I do not recall whether I have interacted with LI in a non-administrative capacity. I'm traveling and have limited internet, so I cannot research it either; so I'm posting here, out of an abundance of caution. I find numerous diffs here to be seriously concerning. This diff (The Mughal Harem) is appalling; in an experienced editor, that alone would be something I'd recommend sanctions for. The double standards on display here (Nupur Sharma's remarks) equally so. I recall some of the dispute about links between the IVC and Hinduism; the diffs here substantiate my memory that LI was more interested in digging up any source that supported what he wanted to see, rather than dispassionately summarizing the sources. A similar problem is evident here (Raksha Bandhan); I would guess, though I cannot be sure, that LI began be googling the sentence he wished to add to the article, rather than by reading the best sources about the subject. Given that this is a long-term issue, with innumerable warnings along the way, a TBAN seems very necessary. I see the crux of the issue being the application of the labels "Hindu" and "Indian" to various aspects of culture and history; but I don't see a clean way to delineate a TBAN around those. I believe any of the proposed TBANs ought to work, but my recommendation would be "history and politics within ARBIPA". I don't think the line around history is very fuzzy in this case; conversely, the Indian-not-Indian debate has been a problem area, and I suspect it'd lead to more wikilawyering. 22:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I'll comment on some stuff from 2021, acknowledging TrangaBellam's point that LearnIndology edits with so many gaps that it's reasonable to collect diffs from a longish time period to show a pattern. I find TB's links at 11 (July 2021) and 12 (February 2021) very egregious, but unfortunately I'd better leave analysis of the more recent examples to, hopefully, some admin or admins better read in Indian history. They're too wide-ranging for me to be sure of my footing. Anyway.
Re point 11: LearnIndology's editing in July 2021 of The Mughal Harem, a book by historian K. S. Lal, is eye-popping. (Actual diff, as opposed to revision, is here.) LI points out above that they didn't create the article — no, technically not. Somebody else (an IP) wrote most of the text back in 2017. But LI re-created it by reverting the redirect to K. S. Lal, stating "Per discussion, will expand more" in the edit summary. Per what discussion, one wonders - there was nothing on talk at the time, unless LI refers to this post from 2007 by a sock. Was that indeed the discussion, LI? Nor did any further expansion happen. The thus recreated article is an obnoxious piece of promotion. In it, the author, K. S. Lal, gets to (alone) describe the books reception — and describe it how? By quoting "touching" letters the author has received from other scholars. To me, as somebody who works in academe, those letters sound more like standard polite thank-you notes for a gift copy of a book that one can't really praise: "I am quite aware of the years of research that has gone into your work". Then a "dismissive" review of the book is briefly mentioned without specifics (why and how did the reviewer dismiss it?), only to be dismissed in turn by K.S Lal, who again has the floor and says what he thinks of the review. Amazing. Nobody except Lal himself is actually quoted in the article, in the state LI left it in. It's crude pro-Hindutva POV at its finest, and I'd be interested to see LI defend it.
Re point 12: It's very interesting to compare LI's efforts to remove "right wing Hindutva" from the lead of Koenraad Elst, a Hindutva promoter, (with edit warring) while simultaneously insisting (with edit warring) on adding "left wing Marxist" to the lead of Romila Thapar, a much-awarded Indian historian.[68][69] (And don't call Joshua Jonathan "honey", LI, do you mind??) In the discussions re Elst [70], and Thapar [71], LI defends his removals in Elst's article with "it is best to discuss the nature of an author's work in the article rather than declaring them as some ist in the very first line" at 12:11 UTC, and six hours later he argues for adding leftist and Marxist to the very first line of Romila Thapar. It's the very definition of tendentiousness and WP:POINT trolling. Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
My review of evidence presented by TrangaBellam. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For now, I am reviewing the evidence listed by TB and jotting down my notes. Will weigh in on the need for any AE action once I have finished the review, which may not be in the current session. Here goes:
Re point 1: Editwarring to retain a Dutch politician's statement while arguing that statements of this sort should be removed is mind-boggling. Similar to the pointy and tendentious editing issue Bishonen mentions above.
re point 3: Given that nobody has reverted their redirect, or otherwise objected to it, in over two months, I wouldn't hold this edit against LI and would regard it just as the B in WP:BRD
re point 4: Indefensible and this is not an isolated instance of misrepresentation of scholarly sources (see my note re point 12).
re point 5: Yes, the source LI was citing was of poor quality compared to the ones already used in the article but since they dropped the issue once this was pointed to them, I wouldn't make too big a deal of this in itself. Caveats: (1) I have only reviewed "The Pandit population" section of the discussion, and (2) I can understand that even relatively minor annoyances can add up to be disruptive if page regulars have to address them at length each time a wrong-minded objection to the article is raised. So, if there are other specific diffs or (short) discussion segment related to this article that i should look at, let me know.
Update: Agree with TB that LI misinterpreted and saw/provided insufficient context when citing Behara in this edit. Again, by itself, this could be explained by genuine misunderstanding or non-nuanced reading of the source.
re point 6: The use of generic Google Book finds to support content one wishes to add is not good, but far too common to be sanctionable by itself.
re point 7: As Joshua JonathannotedIt's telling that this page is (was) not an elaborated version of the info found at t he IVC-page, but a selective choice of bits and pieces which seem to support IVC-origins of Hinduism. This is pure POV-pushing!
Update: Setting aside later works that LI may not have seen, in the cited sourceKenoyer (p. 12) is, at best, non-committal about the whether IVC-Vedic swastika use were linked, and LI stretches what the source says in citing it here.
re point 9: The addition would not be a big deal in itself. Less innocuous when added to the accumulating evidence of LI pushing a particular POV, particularly considering the contents placement in the lede.
Update: The edits linked at the ANEW report are clear POV-pushing BLP violations and this response to the warning about edit-warring is clear trolling... only leavened by LI's admission of fault, albeit when facing a threat of a block.
re point 11: covered by Bishonen, whose analysis I concur with.
re point 12: covered by Bishonen, whose analysis I concur with. But I'll note that I checked the first source cited by LI to label Romila Thapar a "left wing Marxist" and found that it does no such thing! The article does not even include the word "left" or "wing" and the only place it talks about Marxist history is when it says, She [Thapar] also examines critically D. D. Kosambi's contribution to Indian history. She praises, on the one hand, Kosambi's successful attempt to change the paradigm of writing Indian history by adding Marxist economic and social dimensions to it. On the other hand, she exposes the limitations of his anthropological and historical assumptions and, more importantly, the inadequacy of his Marxist theory. I read the whole article to make sure I was not missing some nuance but can only conclude that LI blatantly misrepresented Wagle to push a POV at the BLP.
re point 13: TK
Update: Routine POV pushing that is not too uncommon at these pages; not too surprising to see LI, who was at that point a (relatively) new editor, make the arguments they did. But the last comment is noteworthy since it explicitly lays out the POV that we see reflected in several of the more recent problematic edits discussed above, Maybe you aren't a practicing Hindu, but I am. I recite Gayatri mantra (Rig Vedic mantra) every day, I chant the mantra of Mitra every morning. Yajna and Homa are performed periodically in our home. Maybe you don't follow these simple Vedic practices but the majority of Hindus do.... And about Lingam, I am proud to follow the culture of the Indus Valley civilization as well.
I'll cover the remaining evidence in a later session (may take me a day to get to it) and add my concluding remarks at that point. Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Finished review of the remaining pieces of evidence and responses by TB and LI. My updates (marked as such) have been added to the original list. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response to LI's coment above: tit-for-tat battleground arguments of the sort "if you call X right-wing, I'll label Y left-wing Marxist" or "if you include the Afghan spokesperson's statement, I'll include the Dutch politician's" is exactly what WP:POINT warns against.
Based on my review of the evidence, I see (usually) polite but persistent POV pushing, sometime involving (possibly good faith) misjudgment of source quality and content, and sometime outright misrepresentation. While individually, several of the transgressions are excusable (note the number of times I ended up using the qualifier "in itself" in my notes above), the overall pattern and the BLP violations are not. At a minimum, I would suggest a topic ban from all articles and discussions related to Indian religions, history and politics, which would still leave LI free to edit 7 of the 10 articles they have edited most often. Note though, that on a spot check of the first article on the list, I found this edit which changed the lede sentence from The culture of Kashmir is a diverse blend and highly influenced by Indian, Persian as well as Central Asian cultures to The culture of Kashmir is part of Indian culture..., which reflects a similar nationalistic POV pushing; see also [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] etc. So possibly a TBan from all India-related topics may be needed. Pinging @Bishonen, RegentsPark, Doug Weller, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff, and El C: who admin in this subject area for input. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree a sanction is needed. Limiting it to religion, history and politics is the kind of specificity that invites edge cases and arguments about grey zones. To be constantly asking oneself 'What exactly is politics?', or 'Where does religion end and discussion of the architecture of a temple begin?' would make for difficult and anxiety-provoking editing for LearnIndology. For admins, it would be harder and more timeconsuming to watch and adjudicate. Also, it's apparent from your diffs from Culture of Kashmir, Abecedare, that nationalist[77] and anti-Islam[78] edits can be inserted just fine in, as it might be, an article about culture. For those reasons, I lean towards making it simply a T-ban from Indian topics. Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Abecedare, thanks very much for your comprehensive and clear review. I would tend to agree that a topic ban is necessary here, and very much agree that making it too narrow is likely to lead to bickering over what exactly is covered by it. I would more lean toward a ban from Indian topics, or the ARBIPA topic area in general. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 23:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While we wait for further input, I just want to ask that nobody come in to close this with an (IMO useless) three-month T-ban. It needs to be indefinite, so that LI can't just wait it out and start editing again without having learned anything. The advantage of an indef isn't that it would necessarily be very long, but that the editor would have to demonstrate competence and good will in other areas/other projects, and to write an appeal that makes some undertakings for the future. Do other people agree? Bishonen | tålk 08:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[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 Abrvagl
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 26 January 2022
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I'm following up on this as I find Abrvagl is still being problematic and needs AE's attention. The first diff is a WP:HOUNDING by them, where they randomly "jumped" into a discussion between me and another user. This confused me at the time but I tried to not pay attention to it. However, because of their recent repeated hounding, I couldn't just restrain myself and ignore it; after my edits yesterday in Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, made this edit in the article among others, hours after me. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language [79], which isn't an improvement and shouldn't have been added. This kind of behavior with hounding is unpleasant to me and discourages me as an editor.
"Saying that bombardments of civilian areas of Ganja, which resulted in the death of civilians, was in response to Stepanakert civilian areas bombardment, which also resulted in the death of civilians, is an unsourced attempt to justify war crimes and insert of the wartime ethnic retribution logic into article. It is gross violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral and there no place for that in Wikipedia."
1) How convenient to "jump" into the middle of a discussion with me and another user, despite never editing on that article, and now claim the "page was on my watchlist".
2) The specific diff I linked isn't an improvement, you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article, hence it is hounding. And you did so hours after my edit despite hardly editing through 13-20 June. And again, you didn't have a single edit on that article prior.
3) I didn't cut anything from your conclusion segment, I included it as a whole, it's a publicly available diff. It's also convenient that you link your own comment judging what's "sufficiently substantiate" by a third-party editor, but didn't link my reply to you [80]. Considering all of this and the above, pretty sure your demanding good faith from me at this point could be considered WP:GAMING and perhaps WP:PACT. I'll leave that to admins to decide. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rosguill Perhaps I should've provided more diffs/context, but I didn't want this to get long. This isn't the first time Abrvagl is hounding someone, their hounding against a different user was brought up on this ANI report, which I happened to take part in. From that thread, there are quite a few other examples;
[81], [82], [83], [84][85] (these specifically show them hounding the user and edit-warring over an info cited by a partisan source, see discussion).
So this isn't the first time Abrvagl hounds someone, and the articles are very niche for them to randomly stumble upon, such things cannot happen repeatedly.
Regarding Ganja attacks, BBC reports that it was a response, attributing it to Artsakh. Eurasianet reports that it was a response with no attribution. Talk consensus is also against Abrvagl, as even the third-party user still disagrees with them. I honestly don't know what else I should do, it's not on me at this point to reach anything with Abrvagl. They could've used any mechanisms necessary like RfC, third opinion, etc. instead of dragging me every time to the talk page, since clearly as of now, talk consensus is against them. Bottom line is, I would kindly ask you to evaluate your opinion regarding hounding, since clearly this isn't the first time from them. And regarding Ganja strikes, I have nothing else to say. It's been enough already, I'm not planning to waste months of time just to appease this user. They know all the necessary tools, they should've already used them if they didn't like the talk consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not obliged to read through a 4000byte+ wall of text, so I'll address the diffs you brought up against me. I also think some of these were already brought up by Abrvagl in the previous AE, it's just repetition all over again;
1) Had it watchilsted way before you, proof? I'm not just going to say "I have it watchlisted" like you did, here my edit. Also, not a personal attack.
2) Same scenario as the first [86]. And what's the personal attack?
3) You probably found that discussion on my talk page User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Golden, so you should've seen just below that I, in good faith, also asked about it in the TeaHouse User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Your_thread_has_been_archived ([87]) because it was still unclear to me whether discussing user conduct on article talk pages should always be prohibited. I'm certainly more careful about this now, and I make sure just for good measure to raise complex conduct issues on user pages instead or appropriate noticeboards like I'm doing now.
You say I brought up 2-month-old diffs (which I only brought up as backup to my current accusation of your hounding and only after Rosguill's comment), but what are these then, and why are you bringing up these irrelevant even older diffs in AE case regarding your hounding; 26 March 2022, 10 April 2022?
And why are you discussing Kadyrova here? Have you forgotten the extensive talk page discussion? I thought we reached that RfC conclusion which you still have to launch, I'm so confused. Rosguill please tell me if I need to address anything here regarding Kadyrova or if this should be discussed on talk instead, I'm not sure about this essay comment and the purpose of it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Abrvagl
Seriously Zani, you could have at least tried to talk to me before dragging me into this unnecessary AE only 9 days after your last report.
1. 29 May 2022 This page and talk page are in my watchlist. I saw a conversation between two editors and shared my own view on the conversation. How is it Hounding? WP:HOUNDING clearly states: if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behaviour, my comment did not mean any of that. it was aimed to help conversation. It is really strange to hear such concerns. If my comment is hounding, what is this then, where you jumped into a discussion with +1,879 bytes of text and raising personal remarks about me? I believed you did that with good intentions because I assumed good faith every time you joined discussions like this and expected the same from you. But it seems I shouldn't have.
2. 20 June 2022 No hounding or else here. Page is on my watch list. It brought my attention because there were recent changes. I actually expanded and improved the article. Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, - as I mentioned earlier[88], I had emergency surgery and was having a rest. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language - [89] is the official webpage of State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, which is perfectly fine for statistical information about missing persons, especially considering that I correctly attributed it in the article. If you believe that source is not RS for that information, you could have talked to me or at least raise it to RS board.
3. 21 June 2022 - not sure how me asking you to stop writing personal remarks on the talk pages and informing you that we need to take this case to the dispute resolution is WP:PACT and WP:GAMING. Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that; I never said that Eurasianet is not reliable. You actually cut the conclusion out of the context which may lead to misunderstanding. Here is the full comment[90] read the paragraphs 9 and 11 about Euroasianet. And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else. - Zani, making personal remarks on the article talk page is not appropriate, I and other editors[91][92] already told you that many times. If you want to discuss anything unrelated to the article you are always welcome to use the editor's talk page. keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me - this third-party editor did not sufficiently substantiate his comment[93], as I already told him[94].
Reply 2
Rosguill I am not sure why Zani brought up diffs which are more than 2 months old and was not even related to him to say that I am hounding.
Diffs mentioned by Zani were a case when I noted that one of the editors was going through the Azerbaijan-related articles and removing tons of information(sometimes obvious information) from the articles with "unsourced" comments. At first look, it may look like edit warring, but in reality, I was reinstating removed material and adding sources. For example: Revert[95] and added source[96]. Revert[97] and adding source[98]. Revert[99] and added source[100] and so on.
ZaniGiovanni, didn't link my reply to you [26]. - I did not, because I did not want to show you in a bad light as you were making personal remarks about me there [101].
Zani, we shall always judge other people as we judge ourselves. If you saying that my good faith edits are Hounding, then can you please explain a few examples listed below? Do you think that they can be considered as hounding? I personally don't, as I assume good faith, but looks like you have a different view on what the hounding is.
[102] - you jumped into conversation writing personal remarks.
[103] - 17:21 I made a revert as consensus was not reached. 9 minutes later, you, who was uninvolved created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text again with personal remarks.
[104] - here you jumped into the conversation and made personal remarks about other editor's behaviours by bringing up eight 1-2 years old diffs.
you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article - I agree that the source generally not reliable as it is not this party source, however official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Not sure how it is hounding, but you could talk to me if you had concerns or at least take it to the RS board.
Zani, again, we shall judge others such as we judge ourselves. Here[105] you added two sources about the living person(WP:BLP). One of the sources is the Russian search engine Rambler.ru[106], which refers to not existing webpage Kdpconsulting.ru. When you click to open Kdpconsulting.ru, it actually opens an unknown yellow pages website runews.biz. The second source[107], which seems to be personal blog[108] focusing on IT from France perspective, does not even know if Kadyrova is male or female, and wrongly says that she is male, and focuses on her nationality calling her Azerbaijani journalist, while not mentioning that she is actually Russian journalist ...Azerbaijani journalist Saadat Kadyrova revealed to the Russian TV... He compared the residents to terrorists. Do you believe that sources are reliable for information about the living person?
Long story short - I never hounded anyone or had intentions to hound anyone, don't have anything else to add.
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Abrvagl
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Noting first for the record that both ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl contacted me on my talk page to ask for advice related to this dispute, reviewing the evidence here, I don't think that the HOUNDING accusation holds water. Having compared both editors' contributions on and immediately prior to June 20 and May 29, this looks like coincidental overlap on topics of mutual interest and don't see any clear-cut evidence of hounding. Reading through the entirety of the discussion at Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks, while Abrvagl's conclusions cited here in ZaniGiovanni's additional comments (with additional emphasis add by ZG) are hyperbolic, I don't think that the argumentation is tendentious overall: they acknowledge Eurasianet as an RS and make an argument that the reference in question does not fully support the claims made, then provide an analysis of other sources. While one need not agree with Abrvagl's argument, I don't think it's sanctionable. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, the additional diffs you provide are certainly edit warring and possibly hounding, but they're also around 2 months old. I'm open to hearing disagreement from uninvolved editors as far as my initial assessment on hounding, but at the moment I stand by my initial assessment of the recent edits. As far as the continued discussion regarding the Ganja strikes, you have no obligation to continue responding to Abrvagl's arguments; it appears that the stable status quo is your preferred version, so the ball is in Abrvagl's court to call for an RfC, since a third party has already weighed in and you're clearly not interested in taking it to DRN. Given that the state of discussion on the talk page is an extensive back-and-forth between you and Abrvagl, plus a single-sentence affirmation in favor of your perspective from another editor (we can also count Kevo's revert as another voice in favor), I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, no I don't think that Kadyrova needs to be discussed here. It's not really relevant to either of the allegations you raised in this case, and the argument as presented falls short of the evidence of persistent or willful failure to respect community standards and processes around sources that would justify sanctions in my view. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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
[109] June 25 The first edit to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's article, this user adds "far-left" to the lead, despite there not being any description of such in the body. This was later reverted by me and partially by Cullen328.
[110] Original insertion of "left wing politics" in the see-also section, which was what was removed by Cullen and JameyRivendell was asked to take it to the talk page for consensus.
[111] June 25 My original full reversion of the addition of both what seemed to be a nonsensical addition and the far-left in the lead.
[112] June 25 JR's revert of me, again with what appears to be an attempt at a pejorative in the edit summary
[113] re-adding left-wing into the lead again, without discussion or consensus
[114] June 25 Following my DS/GS notification, they moved onto Kenosha unrest shooting inserting "in self-defense" in the lead without any discussion or consensus, which I asked them to get in my first and only revert there.
[115] June 25 Nearly immediately i was reverted and called a vandal
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, diff
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I will also note that I reverted my second edit removing their edit as I didn't realize until afterward that it was a 24hr cycle restriction. Beyond that, it appears that JR is mostly here to stir up trouble in AP2 topics, given their editing history to the articles above, Matt Walsh (political commentator) and The Daily Wire. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bishonen I think I fixed it. Also I wanted to add, since notifying them of this request, they've been rather pleasant. why don't you fuck off, which leads me to believe my original assessment may be correct in that they are WP:NOTHERE. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.
JameyRivendell pleads not guilty. The left wing troll who keeps reverting my edits seems to have an agenda. I believe in symmetry of information. If every single conservative politician on wikipedia is labed "right wing" or "far right" using biased sources than this should apply to left wing politicians as well. AOC is far-left af for those in the bunker.
Wikipedia is not a DNC platform. Please stay neutral.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I can't get those diffs 1 — 7 of yours to work in any of my browsers, Praxidicae. Are they supposed to be like that? They go nowhere for me. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Completely apart from any arbitration enforcement action, I've blocked JR for 48 hours for the "left-wing troll" business and the various fuck offs. Acroterion(talk) 23:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 GizzyCatBella
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above: [116] - two blocks (both self-reverted, one technical) in August 2021
On 2 November 2021, GizzyCatBella challenged the usage of this source. GizzyCatBella properly challenged that article since it was non-scholarly and the user provided some sort of rationale other than the point of non-scholarship (in that case, the participation of banned Icewhiz). Acting on this challenge and given my interest in making that article as comprehensive as possible, I started what proved to be an acrimonious RfC three days later that later escalated to ArbCom. The RfC ultimately was closed with the following relevant point, that there is consensus that the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied.
In June, Jens Lallensack, who was not involved into any of the prior discussions, started the GA article review. GizzyCatBella stated in diff 1 that they don't want the reference to appear in there, without any qualifiers, if that was to be a GA, but ignored the request to refer the RfC to review. No policy I am aware of allows some sources for inferior articles but disallows for the others. The user repeatedly showed their will to challenge the closure and threatened to disregard it by removing the source in question (diff 3). They claim that the RfC closure said that since it is reliable as used in a footnote, it is not reliable anywhere else (likely due to the user's own opinion on it as unreliable), and suggested to go with an ArbCom clarification, or else challenge it again, which would be very likely burdensome for the community. [Another usage of that source is quoting from Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss, both subject-matter scholars]. The user repeatedly said that multiple other sources available for the same content, but provided none to back up their point. The user seems generally to believe that whatever was not written by a historian is unreliable for the topic, which is not what APLRS says.
GizzyCatBella additionally threatened to challenge two videos from YouTube, one being a France24 report, and the other being an Israeli TV interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust, without stating any problem other than being YouTube videos (WP:SQSAVOID obliges the reverts have a "clear substantive explanation", which the user avoided to share so far despite being asked to do so).
I ask the admins to instruct the user to comply with the closure, order the editor to stop abusing APLRS as a way to automatically remove any reference without explanation, and otherwise stop the uncooperative and combattive behaviour.
Also, given the very long discussion about that source (and several others you have engaged in, i.a. over the meaning of the word "hoax" in Wikipedia), obviously I've had enough of that once I've been that shitshow, and I struggle to understand why others haven't and want to remind us of that waste of editor resources over and over again.
My very best wishes, exclude a source for what reason? Reliability? The RfC said we were over it. DUEness? Also over it. Narrative of a banned Wikipedian? Well, it is there, no denial, but that objection was also overruled anyway as we don't cite it. I have no complaints about civility here, but repeating the same arguments in different venues, when the editor knows that these were overruled, and then trying to argue the RfC closure is not what (most) people think it is due to a grammatical/technical quirk, is disruptive. And even if we disregard all that, the editor knows that most people agreed to disagree anyway, so why raise this issue again? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GizzyCatBella, the problem here is not the source itself, it is your behaviour with relation to that close, which was clarified to mean what it means by plain reading of that source (thanks for confirming that, Isabelle). The enforcement request is about compliance with the RfC, it is not about the source, for which this venue is not appropriate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 GizzyCatBella
I'll address the issue as soon as I can (busy for most of the day) as there are numerous inaccuracies here such as number 3 (just a quick example for now) - a threat to remove --> Where do I say that I'll remove or where is the threat of me removing anything from the article Szmenderowiecki?
Meantime, please read the entire conversation and (among other things) notice this comment --> [118] were the filer disrespectfully insinuated that my good faith involvement in GA review is to overturn the RfC, which is untrue, that is not my intension at all.
Also Szmederowiecki, why didn't you ask for a wider input from our community, as I suggested, instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith? You came here to resolve the disagreement? You know that this might be a tremendous unnecessary time sink, right? You are requesting the AE to resolve that debate instead of asking the community for consensus? What's up with that Szmenderowiecki? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wugapodes - Sorry, I’m still busy, just scanning here. So the article with such troubled history could be freely used directly, anywhere in such uneasy toopic area? I understood the closing of RfC completaly different. (Use ok as a source for a footnote - only in this particular article) I’m not arguing with your evaluation, looks like you're skilled in Linguistics (judging by your front page also), and English is my second language, but I'm a little stunned.. Should we ask the closing editor for clarification or study the RfC and clarify it ourselves elsewhere? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki - So if you (quoting you) had enough of that once I've been that shits how why on earth it’s so important to you to maintain that particular source in the body of the article, to the point that you came here with this dishonest (not only my opinion) report? What it’s more important to you Szmenderowiecki? Maintaining the potentially troubled source in the body (instead of the footnote - no objections here) that has a prospect to destabilize the article in the future or passing the article into the GA status? Explain that to me, please? GizzyCatBella🍁 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recent conversation with the filer on the talk page of user Deborahjay preserved here for the record -->[119] (Initial Diff in case it gets archived) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is to be uncovered in the conversation linked above:
B) - Two days after this filing, on June 25, 2022, Szmenderowiecki asks for translation of the mentioned video declaring they don't speak Hebrew.
Findings:
Szmenderowiecki enters the source (video) into the article, they later argue (numerous times) to keep They used the source as an example while writing this report (quote from his above filing):
GizzyCatBella additionally threatened to challenge two videos from YouTube, one being a France24 report, and the other being an Israeli TV interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust, without stating any problem other than being YouTube videos.
Conclusion (related to this particular AE report only):
Szmenderowiecki enters unverified YouTube video, they later state they don't understand, into the article and uses it to reference information. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notice the subtitles/closed captions button in the above discussed video -->[120] Click CC button below the video - it says Subtitles/closed captions unavailable.
Question. What voice recognition software are you referring to in your remark here Szmenderowiecki? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judging by the dates and pictures in the video, it's most likely about Haaretz's article (now famous around here - courtesy of one banned Wikipedian) - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Statement by Volunteer Marek
Let me get this straight. User:Szmenderowiecki filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion??? Every single one of these diffs is a comment. Not article edits, not anything even resembling incivility, nothing. I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!”
I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for spuriousness..es..esses(?)
Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Statement by My very best wishes
A contributor (GizzyCatBella) can reasonably believe that a source should be removed from a page if we want this page to become a Good Article, regardless to any previous RfCs. This is not an unreasonable opinion because during the RfC a number of other contributors argued that the page would be better off without this reference. If we simply remove the disputed ref, the article will remain just as good (GA), as it is. End of story. Why bring this here? Perhaps there are some reasons, but I do not understand them. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wugapodes. Yes, I see it: Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. However, I do not see how anyone (like GizzyCatBella) arguing to exclude a source (an article in Haaretz) from a page to make it a Good Article might be viewed by anyone as a violator of sourcing requirements. Even if it was a reference satisfying the requirements by Arbcom, one can always argue to exclude it for whatever good reason. This is not a violation of any remedy by Arbcom. Only someone arguing to include an insufficiently good reference on talk (like Szmenderowiecki) might be viewed as a potential rather than an actual violator. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Statement by Isabelle
It seems like my poor domain of the English language has finally come to haunt me. Firstly, I have no opinion on this particular matter as it relates to GizzyCatBella, and am here just to clarify any misunderstandings related to this close. Wugapodes is correct in their assessment that my findings were that the article is reliable, generally speaking. While the discussion was focused entirely on the source as it related to the information found as a footnote, participants agreed that it was reliable, meaning that if that same information was to be added to the body of an article, it would still be reliable and usable (although I find it hard the community would find that WP:DUE). I hope this answers any questions. Feel free to ping me if any further comments are necessary. Isabelle🏳🌈 01:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Statement by Aquillion
I think that the RFC was clear, but that bringing up objections again in a WP:GA is fair (though I wouldn't have gone on as long as GizzyCatBella did for risk of BLUDGEONING an already-settled point.) WP:CCC applies - people are allowed to dissent from or disagree with previous RFCs, and even suggest that they be overturned or ignored - and contrary to what was said in that discussion it's not really required to request a close review. Doing so too often would be WP:BLUDGEON / WP:DEADHORSE behavior, but a GA nomination is a specific one-time thing where every significant concern over the article is supposed to be gone over, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to note, in that context, that they still think it's a problem, regardless of the previous RFC... even if such an objection is unlikely to go anywhere. And it's also at least not unreasonable to suggest that the standard for a GA is higher, which can lead to previous discussions being reconsidered (even if I think it was vanishingly unlikely in this case.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning GizzyCatBella
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
It's pretty clear to me that the RfC found the source was generally reliable. It says explicitly the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, so with that context I struggle to see why the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied should be read to mean it's only reliable for that footnote and nothing else like GizzyCatBella claims in the third diff. I think the phrase "used as a source for the footnote" is a restrictive relative clause that is used to specify which source is being discussed specifically. The ambiguity comes from the omission of the relative pronoun (common for restrictive clauses in English). So there are two potential readings depending on what relative pronoun you use to fill in that gap: "the Haaretz article [which is] used as a source..." or "the Haaretz article [when] used as a source...". Given that we list the source as "generally reliable in its areas of expertise" and the closer said the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, I think the interpretation is clearly "which" not "when". I can see how an editor could, in good faith, misunderstand that given the ambiguity, so I don't think there's any need for AE to do anything beyond clarify that. — Wug·a·po·des 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pace Wugapodes I think this is swatting at a fly with a table saw. No, I do not believe that this is what arbitration is for--first of all because it is a relatively small content matter, and second because IMO arbitration should be reserved for disputes that cannot be handled in any other matter, and I do not see that that stage has been reached already. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]