Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive227
MapSGV
[edit]| MapSGV is indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action (not an AE action). Sandstein 22:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning MapSGV[edit]
The user MAPS should be Topic banned from India-Pakistan articles indefinitely as they have shown that they cannot engage in debate without antagonizing others and attacking others. If disruption continues on other projects , perhaps a site wide ban.
This user has made no contributions to the project and thier presence is just antagonizing others. PErhaps if an experienced editor with thousands of edits messes up and makes a personal attack or pointed remark once in a while, he can be warned about it. But this user has around a hundred or so reverts/comments and out of those this large number is antagonistic. He should be removed from area of conflict. The India-Pak articles are very contentious even to begin with, and antagonizing remarks and personal attacks like this just destroy any chance of collaboration that there may be, causing irreparable harm to wikipedia.
Discussion concerning MapSGV[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MapSGV[edit]I would like to commend the analysis made by Lorstaking below, that I have been constantly harassed by some editors who are doing nothing but personalizing small and rather easy content disputes. Every of my comment was a reply to actual personal attack that often included false allegations that I am an SPA, sock,[2][3][4] and no evidence was ever provided for these claims. Civil POV pushing is a huge problem where a person looks to justify his disruption by falsely labelling every kind of opposition to his disruption as "personal attack" while exhibiting clear WP:IDHT, engaging in edit warring, misrepresenting sources, and such disruption is too prevalent here. Finally what degrades the quality of this website is these editors who are socking for a long time or they have been blocked/topic banned still they are insulting other editors (such as me) by calling them a sock/SPA and engaging in disruptive POV pushing, making personal attacks. But when you dispute any of their argument you are misrepresented as someone who is making personal attacks. That is nothing but WP:GAMING. — MapSGV (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by MBlaze[edit]This request should not be entertained as the filer is a blatant sock of a disruptive topic banned editor, [5] and is on the verge of getting site banned himself. —MBL talk 06:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by Lorstaking[edit]MapSGV's actions are perfect especially when we recognize the fact that he is a productive editor who is unfortunately dealing with a disruptive wikihounding sock of a topic ban evading user.[6] Elektricity is just trying to take wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and by filing this spurious report, where he deliberately failed to notify MapSGV, he is digging his own grave. Lorstaking (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC) @GoldenRing: I think you are only reading what MapSGV has said, but you are not reading what he was replying to. Users have engaged in great amount of incivility against him as well as range of false allegations in order to evade their WP:CIR issues. I can clarify the diffs right here:
Above diffs involve interaction with only 2 users, who have a bad block log and history of sanctions for editing in this very same area and even in above diffs you can see clear WP:IDHT. And this all started only after MapSGV argued that results must show that India won the war because that is what zillions of reliable sources say, but these two editors went to make personal attacks on him in place of providing sources that contradict the sourced content. I think they deserves to be sanctioned for their incompetence if anything. FWIW, 6 people against 3 have agreed with what MapSGV wants on talk page. I wouldn't go on describing rest of the diffs that are either free of ARBPAK coverage or they are a product of wikihounding and other sorts of harassment from the filer, who also was falsely alleging MapSGV to be a "sleeper-esque"[21] and "throw away sleeper"[22] for days before filing this spurious report. Talking about personal attacks, I don't see even a single personal attack here from MapSGV or false accusations like rest of others have carried out against him. There is no prohibition on much larger level of incivilities[23] in Wikipedia. Though I understand that this allegation of "personal attack" has been overblown in this report because filer failed to find his way to misrepresent sources, use self-published and non-reliable sources on the article for his POV pushing, hence he resorted to filing a spurious report. You can also have a look at the SPI where Capitals00 shows the evidence of him filing same spurious reports from his main account. I would better recommend this report should closed as spurious or the filer should be blocked for his deception and using the noticeboard for battleground. We should let the SPI have its run. Lorstaking (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning MapSGV[edit]
|
The Rambling Man
[edit]| No action. GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning The Rambling Man[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=828486522&oldid=828481054 Discussion concerning The Rambling Man[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling Man[edit]Statement by power~enwiki[edit]This looks like a complete waste of time. Saying that people aren't interested in DYK isn't insulting their motivations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by GreenMeansGo[edit]Sarek, please do us all a favor and withdraw this. This is silly. GMGtalk 21:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning The Rambling Man[edit]
|
Al-Andalusi
[edit]| In addition to the standard WP:ARBPIA restrictions, Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article for six months. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Al-Andalusi[edit]
As may be seen here Al-Andalusi talk page I requested Al-Andalusi self revert [25]. This was replied to with a While it may be possible to cast a wider net here, the unwillingness to self-revert on a 1RR warning appears to be straightforward, and Al-Andalusi's final talk-page comment is troubling.
Discussion concerning Al-Andalusi[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Al-Andalusi[edit]There is an ongoing discussion regarding this on my talk page involving Icewhiz and 2 admins (EdJohnston and Dennis Brown) here. I have pinged EdJohnston and have not heard back either from him or Dennis Brown, so I assumed this is a non-issue. Had EdJohnston or Dennis Brown replied back and confirmed the alleged violation, I would have gladly self-reverted, as I did in the past. Meanwhile, I continue to disagree with Icewhiz's description of events where he digs up edits that are at least one-month old (Jan 30, Jan 23) and I'm not even aware of, and then conveniently re-interprets some of my changes as being "reverts" of them. What he refers to as "revert 1" would not be called "reverts" on a normal day. Also, notice the use of dramatic sentences like "removal of some 45% of the article's contents". If the content is bad, then it should be removed, doesn't matter how large it is. I think everyone will agree with me on this. In this edit, user Zero0000 (talk · contribs) removed the same exact content from Middle East Monitor on Feb 11 on the same grounds as my removal of it from Middle East Eye. Someone had copy pasted the content to the 2 articles. Icewhiz, who clearly spent considerable time studying the editing history of both articles to construct his narrative, would not have missed this change. One important point: The history of editing on both articles shows that none of the editors treated the article as falling under 1RR. Icewhiz is misleading when he counts edits related to the Muslim Brotherhood as being ARBPIA-related. The Muslim Brotherhood does not even have a 1RR tag. Icewhiz does not explain why he treats Middle East Eye as a 1RR article in his report, and further, why he lists my edits at Middle East Eye before his arrival to the article as being ARBPIA related (point #4 on his list). I fail to see the connection. In the same list, for the other article, he counts my edit here as ARBPIA-related, even though the mention of Hamas is tangential and clearly not the intent of my edit. I ask that the admins not look at this case literally, as this is the angle that Icewhiz wants to focus on. Instead, ask if it is appropriate for a news organizations to be labelled as the "Muslim Brotherhood" based on sources critical of the news organization? Icewhiz restored the problematic Category:Muslim Brotherhood, knowing fully the problems that comes with it (he recently removed Category:Propaganda in Israel from Public diplomacy of Israel arguing that it is "POVish..."). Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Added - Feb 28:
Statement by Capitals00[edit]I had resumed watching editing of Al-Andalusi since he came off from a topic ban in December. I could see continued POV editing[31][32][33] that led the topic ban before, but this time I had decided not to report Al-Andalusi myself. Unfortunately, it didn't helped Al-Andalusi. I must say that Icewhiz has made best efforts to mentor Al-Andalusi about his violations,[34][35] however Al-Andalusi is not willing to improve. Continued POV editing[36][37] is concerning. Either a topic ban or a block is warranted. Capitals00 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis Brown[edit]I interjected into the discussion only to explain how contacting an admin wasn't "canvassing", and never reviewed the merits of the claim in depth. A cursory glance did show the claims were not so cut and dry; They need to be looked at closer than just the diffs provided. This is the busy time of year for me, so I didn't have time to look further, so I will just stay on this side of the admin line, this time. EdJohnston probably has more information on the merits, and I would welcome his input down below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]I don't know if this is 1RR or not, but my general view is that in this area, the rules are so convoluted that nobody knows how they work (including the people who write them). My own practice is to self-revert when asked, whether or not I think the request is right. This practice saves time and tedious wikilawyering in which one may or may not prevail. You can always make the edit a day later. Why take the risk? Let's put aside the wording and look at the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy. Let's forget the edit made a month earlier. Only look at edits diff1 (by Al-Andalusi), diff2 (by Icewhiz) and diff3 (again by Al-Andalusi). All of them happened within 24 hours. Diff1 removed the association of MEMO with the Muslim Brotherhood, diff2 restored it (using a bit different wording), and diff3 removed it again. The "spirit" of the remedy is to ensure that between diff3 and diff1 (made by the same person), there should be a bit of time, and ideally some discussion on the talkpage (which is happening on the MEMO talk page). I would therefore, ask Al-Andalusi to self-revert voluntarily (they can make the edit a day later if they still think it's justified) and this request be closed as no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Al-Andalusi[edit]
|
Mar4d
[edit]| Enough is enough. This entire report has become a wall of minutia, none of it actionable by itself, and frankly I'm left with the choice of doing nothing, or topic banning everyone who was foolish enough to participate in this mud slinging mess. WP:AE reports need to be concise, need to be convincing, need to be as simple as possible. This isn't ANI or a bar brawl, and frankly, there is enough blame to go around. Dismissing everything without action. Everyone who participates should consider themselves fully informed of the sanctions available, and if needed, sanctions can be issued to individuals without additional prior notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mar4d[edit]
Mar4d was adamant in his personal opinion that the Siachen conflict is an "ongoing conflict" and adding a result "is like adding a conclusion on Kashmir conflict",[63] despite multiple reliable sources saying to the contrary that the conflict ended with the ceasefire in 2003. One just has to take a glance at the talk page to notice the outright personal attacks he made on others (including false accusations of socking, SPA, etc), not to mention that he kept engaging in stonewalling, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, repeating the same personal opinion over and over again, and resorting to ad hominem strategies in place of refuting the arguments of others. As per discussion with Sandstein on MapSVG's talk page,[64] Sandstein told that he "will take a look" if a separate report is filed against those who also engaged in misconduct. The report against MapSVG was filed by a user who was already under a SPI investigation[65] and the report resulted in sanctions on MapSGV despite much of the diffs were showing his responses to ad hominem personal attacks and false accusations made by Mar4d, despite objections by multiple editors, and Mar4d's misconduct is much more than just incivility because it also concerns edit warring, treatment of Wikipedia as battleground, use of unreliable sources, misrepresentation of sources and lack of collaborative approach to resolve content dispute. For all these factors Mar4d should be sanctioned. —MBL talk 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mar4d[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mar4d[edit]As Willard84 noted above, this is yet another unsubstantiated, half-baked report with absolutely no substance. Note the same recurrent theme of allegations and accusations by a highly-involved editor(s); and the same, usual pattern of misrepresentation, and near-farcical cherry-pickings. What is deeply regrettable is the constant misuse of forums like arbitration, ANI, and other noticeboards, for settling personal vendettas and mudslinging over content disputes, to the extent of a WP:WITCHHUNT. The ultimate objective, it seems, is to drive out experienced, well-meaning editors from a topic area plagued by nationalist edit-warring. MBL has an axe to grind over their multiple content disputes and problematic editing, and in my defence below, I'd like to point out why:
Response to AshLin by Mar4d
Other comment/s
Statement by Capitals00[edit]His conduct on AfD of Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan has been also concerning where he is tirelessly defending an article that is surely going to get deleted. Some of his comments over there are:
These comments seems to be unnecessary assumption of bad faith and attempts to dispute the credibility of the editor who made their vote!, and that is also a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. These comments had to be made on content or why the article should be kept or deleted. While other recent examples of disruption have been already provided, there are also some examples that date a bit earlier, but still relevant enough to show the long term pattern of nationalistic POV editing.
If Mar4d had been sanctioned for such disruption earlier, I am sure that we wouldn't be having the problems highlighted by Mblaze Lightning above. Capitals00 (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by WBG[edit]
Statement by NadirAli[edit]This looks like the latest effort in MBlaze Lightning's series of spurious reports against opposing editors.[102] None of the diffs show any sort of problematic statements from Mar4d, who is one of our encyclopedia's most productive editors. If there are some statements from him about MapSGV's provocative behaviour that should not be a call for alarm because even the administrator Sandstein is suspicious of that account.[103]. I do wonder why users like MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 are so desperate to support MapSGV and so quick to file spurious reports. Capitals00[104] left no stone unturned to argue against MapSGV's block and topic ban. Such desperation was in their tone as if it was their own account they were defending. But none of these 2 had any presence on his talkpage before the block.
I do think a WP:BOOMERANG should be this case's outcome. Owais Khursheed filed an WP:SPI last year which the administrators ignored.[111] The SPI claimed that the filer was using IP socks to harass opposing editors. Now we saw this behavior from an Indian IP again today at Talk:Kashmir conflict.[112] I translated it and reported it To editor CambridgeBayWeather:.[113] I would suggest a full investigation. Enough is really enough.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Response to Kautilya3[edit]
IP [114][[115][116] in the background of WP:WITCHHUNTS such as these [117][118][119][120] involving false accusations against opposing editors by Kautilya3, MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00. A lot is explained, especially when there are suspicions of WP:TAGTEAM[121][122] and IP socking[123]. No tagteaming from Mar4d who has a long and lengthy involvement in the content dispute at Talk:Kashmir conflict unlike those who turn up to do reverts and deliver one liners in support of Kautilya3's position with hardly any other talkpage input.[124][125].
Response to Kautilya3 again[edit]To editor Dennis Brown: The claims made by Kautilya3 are wrong and the diffs shown are out of context. The DRN dispute was over a sentence while the later 2 reverts (none on the same day) by Mar4d concerned three larger sections. I will provide the context here. A large dispute over three POV sections began in late October between me, Mar4d, KA$HMIR and Kautilya3,[130] which led to two Rfcs. After the Rfcs ended KA$HMIR started on the 11th of January a new section on Talk:Kashmir conflict where an alternative text for three POV sections were being discussed.[131] I was keeping an eye on the talkpage because I had previously been part of these discussions with Kautilya3. Meanwhile discussion between KA$HMIR and Dilpa kaur on the alternative texts continued with some uncooperative input from Kautilya3. The discussion went dormant. We later found out that KA$HMIR had been busy when he responded[132] to Dilpa kaur's ping 13 days later.[133] During the dormancy period there was a dispute over a sentence modified by Kautilya3 in one of the three sections awaiting alternative texts. Mar4d first reverted that edit on the 9th of February because there had been text which was deleted in the process of Kautilya3's edit, which had the misleading edit summary of Copy edit and add sources. The edit actually deleted text.[134] That is when the smaller dispute began in the background of the larger dispute since October. Kautilya3's addition of new material was first objected to at the talkpage by Dilpa kaur at 1:45 10 February 2018. It was only after the talkpage objection was raised to Kautilya's edit that Mar4d made this second revert[135], which was appropriate as a discussion had begun over the new contentious edit. After this the discussion on the sentence went to DRN (note not the three sections), in which I participated. As Winged Blades points out DRN discussion is voluntary and it was probably wise that Mar4d did not participate, as the discussion between me and Kautilya3 failed, as had all other previous discussions on the talkpage between me, Kautilya3 and Mar4d at Talk:Kashmir conflict. While the DRN on the sentence (the smaller dispute) was getting nowhere, KA$HMIR who says he had been busy arrived and gave us his alternative texts (for the sections contested as part of the larger dispute). Everyone except Kautilya3 agreed to them so I added them into the mainspace. The new text had gained WP:CONSENSUS. That Kautilya3 was WP:STONEWALLING, by giving vague declarations that the text was ″not ready for mainspace″ (without even explaining his objections to the text), does not change anything because his was a case of WP:1AM which does not affect WP:CONSENSUS. Kautilya3 reverted my addition of the alternative text which had consensus,[136] following which Mar4d asked him to explain his specific objections to the text,[137] which Kautilya3 did not, only giving vague statements like ″it was not ready for mainspace″.[138]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC) A call for behavioural investigation[edit]Following that a mysterious IP from India arrives to revert Mar4d and threatens to get him blocked like Xinjao if he does not keep Kautilya3's version.[139] Mar4d reverting that[140] should not be a problem. But the question that leads us to is who is this mystery IP? What this mystery IP threatened is unfolding as we speak on this AE thread. I would call for a behavioural investigation on the filer and his supporters with the IPs. They have already been taken to SPI because of similar activity of the Kautilya3-supporting Indian IPs[141] but the administrators closed it because they thought in December that there was insufficient evidence to link the accounts. I would call for a fresh new investigation. I will be keeping an eye on Kashmir conflict and Talk:Kashmir conflict because we have just received threats that some Indian accounts are going to turn up to support Kautilya3 this time to get ″rid″ of the consensus version.[142]. Translation provided {{to}CambridgeBayWeather}} here. This is not surprising. The filer and Capitals00 have rocked up to the article before to do reverts to Kautilya3's versions[143][144] They also have hardly any major input on the discussions at talkpage, dropping by to give one-liners in support of Kautilya3 and his reverts[145][146]. This shows evidence of a WP:TAGTEAM. And I will be keeping an eye to see who turns up on the page and I will report them for a behavioural match with the bully IPs. It is also interesting to see here that Kautilya3 supported the editor MapSGV.[147] Kautilya3 claims MapSGV's personal attacks are not so ″egregrious″ to warrant a block. This is even though several admins find his behaviour worthy of a block.[148]. Then again Kautilya3 admits that the people Mar4d is reverting are pro-Indian editors-″reverting and name-calling any pro-India editors that he runs into″. Yet he does not say anything to these tendentious pro-India editors (all editors are required to be NPOV in their editing) but chooses to support action on the productive Mar4d instead, my guess is to get less opposition in his content disputes. With the number of content disputes Kautilya3 has with Pakistani/Kashmiri.Chinese many editors would say that his editing is not always neutral.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TripWire[edit]Another WP:WITCHHUNT attempt by MBL (see previous one), no wonder Capitals00 has also joined the bandwagon. They have become so desperate in casting WP:ASPERSIONS that they will say anything to put across their point (I dont even know Capitals00). I think there's a dire need to implement WP:BOOMERANG strictly so that such frivolous reports are avoided in the better interest of WP.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 09:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Additional comments Mar4d shouldn't be compared with MapSGV (even though his banning apparently seems the cause behind this report). Below are some edits by MapSGV (any sensible editor would feel offended at such a tone, a + for Mar4d for not loosing his cool); Mar4d was just trying to bring MapSGV to the table so that the issue(s) could be discussed:
Statements by wearied passers-by[edit]
Statement by Peoples colony[edit]
Statement by Kautilya3[edit]There was a time when Mar4d and I used to jointly defend India-Pakistan conflict pages from going toxic. Those days are long gone. Mar4d's fall from grace began with an atrocious article called India and state-sponsored terrorism that he created jointly with another editor. Since then I have been hard put to find any objective edits made by Mar4d. He basically edits along national lines, reverting and name-calling any pro-India editors that he runs into.
Winged Blades of Godric states that participation in WP:DRN is voluntary. That it is. But it would have been polite for Mar4d to mention either on the talk page or at the DRN that he has conceded the points at dispute. Instead, if he just lets the others carry the burden, then I am afraid it reinforces the impresison that he didn't actually dispute anything, he was just WP:TAGTEAMING. Doing so in a highly contentious subject like Kashmir conflict is very problematic. I am afraid, at this point, Mar4d is part of the problem rather than solution. Sandstein has drawn parallels between this case and that of Willard84 above. But I don't think there is any comparison. Willard84 is a highly productive editor as I pointed out above. On the other hand, Mar4d has not producing anything worthwhile in the last couple of years. His role seems to be limited to reverting edits and noise-making on the talk pages. A sad fall for a once-great editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Dennis Brown, here are the details of the DRN referral regarding Kashmir conflict (not Siachen conflict):
It is also worth pointing out that at the time when Mar4d claims
Statement by Samee[edit]The report is frivolous with no tangible evidence for anything actionable against a single user. I do not expect good faith from MBlaze Lightning pro tem for their multiple pointless warnings over a single incident of routine patrolling. Ironically, they’re taking a wikibreak to attend their education [per their user page] and don’t have enough time yet they find it at ease to file such reports. Perhaps WP:NOTHERE and in retaliation to MapSGV t-ban. samee talk 05:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by AshLin[edit]
Statement by D4iNa4[edit]Edit warring against consensus or edit warring when your edits are obviously not going to receive any support is also disruptive and Mar4d had been doing that on Rape in India, by showing clear failure to realize that the problems that had been already told to him during reverts and further discussion. I have to disagree with above comments by Winged Blades of Godric, because seeking protection for your non-consensus version after edit warring yourself for it is called disruptive editing. Mar4d also violated page restrictions with his 2 reverts[150][151] by restoring the controversial version that had no consensus. Mar4d's conduct as detailed by Capitals00 and AshLin above on an on going AfD is also problematic. He has created a toxic environment on this AfD by assuming bad faith towards other editors. He is still not getting per this comment on AfD that he is attacking other editors. @Dennis Brown: Evidently Mar4d was uncivil since his first comment on Talk:Siachen conflict[152] and MapSGV was still committed to "focus on content"[153], but Mar4d continued making personal attacks,[154] along with pushing personal opinion over WP:RS. He was attacking multiple other editors[155][156], but MapSGV was supporting what WP:RS say and unlike Mar4d he didn't engaged in original research. Evidence shows that Mar4d was a bigger problem not only for talk page but also for the main article. @Dennis Brown: Mar4d also avoids participating in DRN, and it is evidenced by above diffs regarding the incidents that took place in relation to Kashmir conflict, where Mar4d was a party of dispute resolution that spanned its duration from 14 February to 1 March,[157] it was expected that Mar4d would respond there and help resolving the content dispute. It seems that Mar4d was not interested in resolving content dispute but rather keeping his preferred version, which is also apparent with his edit warring against consensus and seeking protection[158] very soon after making the revert.[159] The diffs provided above concerning India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)[160], shows source misrepresentation from Mar4d and further establishes that Mar4d cannot be trusted with these controversial and sensitive subjects. There are more issues with Mar4d than what has been highlighted here. Mar4d is Wikihounding edits of Störm by disrupting every of his AfD nominations even when most of those AfDs ends up against Mar4d's vote![161][162][163][164][165][166], Störm had already asked Mar4d before to stop this[167] but Mar4d is not willing to. Also after reading these personal attacks from NadirAli[168], TripWire[169], Samee[170], I find it obvious that you can't justify the actions of Mar4d. You can only make personal attacks and false accusations against others in order to defend him. How many times Mar4d has been already blocked for his disruption? No one has time to have a watch over him, just to find out how much trouble he is creating. When Mar4d was blocked indefinitely from November 2015 to July 2016, the environment was much better but since he has returned we are only having more problems. Given the evidence here, as well as Mar4d's outright rejection of any misconduct and further misrepresentation despite being the root of many problems. When more better editors like Darkness Shines get topic banned indefinitely from this same noticeboard,[171] I am really seeing no reason why Mar4d should not be sanctioned for his long term problems. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: RegentsPark is WP:INVOLVED and appears have to have been canvassed to this report by Mar4d himself.[172] RegentsPark has been involved with Mar4d as an editor for a long time by participating in same content disputes.[173][174][175] In one of the above incident cited as evidence of misconduct of Mar4d, RegentsPark was also involved in content dispute.[176] I think his comments should be moved due to his close involvement. I am amazed that he is marginalizing the widespread issues into content dispute of a single article where he was canvassed by Mar4d, who posted a non-neutral and disparaging message on his talk page attacking other editors.[177] D4iNa4 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by 1990'sguy[edit]Mar4d has been badgering votes on the AfD where I participated,[178] and he is belittling the editors who are actually making policy-based argument unlike him.[179][180] There seems to be a long pattern of edit warring and disruptive editing, even his block log speaks about it and it also includes a block for long term sock puppetry that Mar4d carried out for almost 7 years.[181] I think any editor would be very cautious after incidents like that, but Mar4d has shown a lack of improvement and like Kautilya3 noted above, Mar4d has been more problematic than what he was before. His responses above further confirms my assessment, and I recommend a topic ban on Mar4d. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by code16[edit]I was involved on the Siachin dispute briefly. He was arguing a point based on the relevance of sources presented by the other side, and I supported him on that. I did not see anything worth topic-banning Mar4D over. Code16 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by Ma'az[edit]Mar4d is a productive editor and his conduct is satisfactory and cooperative. Regrettably, some editors have possibly reported this for their own interests. Differences exist but they can be resolved with sincerity and respect for each other. If anything needs to be done here, it's to end what is quite obvious. Mar4d is one of Wikipedia's most productive editors (ranked 800th on edit counts). If any unilateral action is taken against him, it would be certainly against the principles of equality and justice. M A A Z T A L K 16:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SheriffIsInTown[edit]
This report seems to be a frivolous attempt to get a tit for tat ban for Mar4d in response to the ban on MapSVG and deserves WP:BOOMERANG. Mar4d’s comments referenced here, here, here and here are very decent comments and more of an advice to the editor in question than an attack. MapSVG’s behavior has been proven to be problematic by the ban on him. If he was doing all things right then there is no reason for a ban. Mar4d’s comments should be considered as friendly warnings and pieces of advice for MapSVG by an experienced editor such as Mar4d. Editors like MapSVG and MBL should learn from his experience so they do not get banned at the end for their badly behavior. If he would have paid heed to Mar4d’s advice, today he would have been ban free. Mar4d’s statement about POV pushing was a generalized statement and not an attack against specific editor(s). The warning given here to Capitals00 was accurate in that situation. That is what the template is for. He removed the content without giving adequate explanation and he received the warning, I don’t see any threats to life in that warning. Mar4d advising MapSVG[edit]
Mar4d’s reported edits[edit]Edits which are reported as objectionable edits are clearly not objectionable at all. When there is a conflict, edits by any party can look objectionable to another party. Edit in Rape in India is clearly supported by many reputable sources.
On Kashmir conflict, the reporting editor himself accepts that Mar4d gave valid policy reasons for the reverts made on different days, actually many days apart, these edits also involved different material, for example 4 February 2018, 11 February 2018 and 24 February 2018 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Mar4d[edit]
|
Born2cycle
[edit]| Short version: indef block of Born2cycle by myself. See final statement for details. This is not an WP:AE action, it is a normal admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Born2cycle[edit]
Discussion concerning Born2cycle[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Born2cycle[edit]I think Tony means well, but he is totally misunderstanding my efforts. I suggest that when he has an issue with someone's behavior, he at least first try to resolve it by reaching out on that person's talk page, which he has not done with me. By the way, I did do that with him, and he suggested the discussion continue "in other forums"[183], which is exactly what has happened, and now he's complaining about that. I think my statements speak for themselves, but it's clear Tony and others misunderstand. I am accepting the opinions of others, I'm just trying to bring attention to certain issues. Building consensus through discussion, or trying to do that, is all I'm doing. This is how WP opinions evolve, for better or for worse. Nobody is required to participate in these discussions. Some people are interested. I'm open to changing my opinions - and I like to know what others think and why. This is all part of the process. I'm not demanding anyone see anything any particular way. I hope this is all I'll have to say about this. --В²C ☎ 18:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Regarding the Faberge situation, my recollection (it was over a year ago) is I reverted some page moves, my moves were reverted, so I started an RM. Consensus did not agree with me, and that was the end of it. --В²C ☎ 18:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC) In general, I have some strong opinions about how to improve WP in the area of titles. This is no secret; see my user page. Naturally, not everyone agrees with my opinions and ideas. Sadly, some develop animosity towards me personally as a result. So, you're seeing some of them pile on here. After the Sarah Jane Brown RM, I had three different major points to make, which I tried to make at the appropriate places. I expressed my concerns with the close at the closer's talk page. I shared my belief that closers should be encouraged to look for community consensus in discussions rather than counting raw !votes at the Wikipedia talk:RM. And I raised my question about the interpretation of WP:NATURALDIS at WT:D. As far as I know, all these are normal and appropriate issues to raise and discuss. --В²C ☎ 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Folks, not one person has even requested I change my behavior on my user talk page. I assure I would have responded by changing my behavior had that happened. I honestly don't get what the issue is with me commenting as much as I do, I do feel each of the recent discussions I started and participated in were fruitful (and I appreciate participation from everyone else), but I can certainly stop without being required to do so. I'm disappointed that so many people see my behavior as "rolling the dice" until I get "my way". I've tried to explain myself everywhere I post, my user page and my FAQ, but to little avail, apparently. But I get the message. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 19:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
General response to all comments[edit]I'm probably going to bury myself by saying this, but I'm just astonished by all the responses here. People I've respected and thought I had many productive discussions with are characterizing me and my behavior in a way that is totally foreign to me. I have no idea what most of you are talking about. And it's like you forget there is a real live human being behind the persona of "Born2cycle". Yes, I have strong opinions that I'm passionate about. I care about Wikipedia and want to make it better. I care about the community - the editors and the user. Yes, my opinions about improving WP, especially in the area of title decision-making (an area I'm guessing most of you don't care much about), are based on reasons, and I go out of my way to explain them. See my user page. And FAQ. This is a crime? Pardon my French, but WTF? You guys are literally talking about muzzling someone because you don't want to be forced to read what he has to say any more (as if anyone is forced to read anything anyone comments about), or because you don't care about what I do care about. Please keep in mind that we're talking exclusively about my "Tendentious Editing" on TALK pages, where, you know, we're supposed to TALK. In discussions, I tend to err on the side of clarity. Again... this is a crime? What's the point of talking if you're not even understood? Sometimes my opinion is with the majority; sometimes it's with a minority. Sometimes I'm persuasive; sometimes I'm not. Isn't all this normal? How it's supposed to go? It has been claimed, below, that discussing with me is a waste of time because "discussions [for me] are weaponized to defeat [my] enemies". First of all, I have no enemies. Some may think of me as an enemy, but that's a one-way street, I assure you. The idea of using a discussion as a weapon is inherently preposterous, at least in my mind. The whole point of diplomacy (i.e. discussion) is to avoid use of weapons! Discussion is the methodology of peacemakers. That's how I see it. but if people are seeing discussion as "weapons", well, that explains much (smh). And I certainly am not trying to defeat anyone. All I'm trying to do is make title decision-making less problematic and less contentious. Yes, I realize the irony in that, but the road to peace is often built with debate. I realize I often I hurt my own position by being too verbose, but, again, I tend to err on the side of clarity. And it's not like I'm copying/pasting the same text all over the place. Every single one of my talk page posts is an original edit; each character typed in one by one, like this one. I care deeply about what I'm writing about and I put an inordinate amount of my personal time into it; I get that not everyone else appreciates this. So the solution is to muzzle me? What is the matter with you people? Is that how you treat people in the real world? If so, I'm glad I don't know you in real life, but I doubt you do. Thankfully, for the 1st Amendment. If we had freedom of speech equivalent to 1st Amendment rights on WP, there would be nothing to discuss about my "behavior" here, would there? Consider that. It's not like I'm yelling "Fire!" in a theater, am I? Or, think of it like this. What if my exact same comments were made not by me, but by, say, three different people, A, B and C? The exact same words, but randomly signed by A, B or C instead of by just one person. How would anything be any different? All those who choose to be involved would still have to read the same text, consider the same arguments. There are claims that my postings are disruptive. But if they were made by A, B and C instead of by me, they wouldn't, would they? So, what is it about what I'm doing that is so problematic? What's the fundamental problem? If you're going to go through sanctioning someone, how about clearly explaining what the reasons are for the sanctioning - what is the real problem you believe you're addressing? Because, other than an apparent desire to muzzle me for tribal emotional reasons that we thankfully counter in the real word with recognition of free speech, I, for one, have no idea. --В²C ☎ 17:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC) MelanieN, somebody, please help me. I understand what "better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors" means. What I don't get is how I am not receptive to compromise or how I am not tolerant for the views of others. Being tolerant does not mean agreeing. For example, I'm tolerant of the decision at SJB - I just don't agree with. And I dropped it (though some feel I didn't, so we disagree about that too - how about some tolerance for my views?) --В²C ☎ 20:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC) FORUM SHOPPING?[edit]From WP:FORUMSHOP: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." I've been accused of forum shopping below, more than once. This is a charge made in good faith, but in error. Per the above, there were multiple issues involved, and I raised each at the appropriate place.
In retrospect I can understand given the timing and the fact that I raised each of these issues related to the close it can appear to be forum shopping, but it's not at all. Each is a separate general legitimate issue to raise at each of the respective venues, and raised appropriately after the close. If you actually look at each of the discussions, particularly at what I initially posted at each, you'll see that you couldn't reasonably do that at any of the other forums. It's not like I posted the same thing at multiple places; not at all. That is, each one was different and belonged where I posted it. Unfortunately, because of the timing and the participants, the discussions often did tend to drift back to the topic of rehashing the SJB close, but that was not my intent, and I stated as much in most if not all instances. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 17:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC) TonyBallioni: despite my explanation here, you still claim that I "shopped the close". You describe in your own slanted way what I did at WT:RM: "... essentially a rant about how people need to agree with what you think consensus is when they close discussions". Even if true, how is that shopping the close? My statement speaks for itself, there was no "need" for anyone to agree with me about anything; not implicitly nor explicitly. I'm sorry you read it that way, but I can't be responsible for words you read that are not there. The dearth of you quoting any of my actual words to back up your claim of me "shopping the close" and ranting about others "needing to agree with what I think" is telling. What, by the way, do you even mean by "shop the close"? The close was done. There was nothing left to say about it, especially not at WT:RM. If I wanted to challenge it beyond what I said at your talk page, I would have gone to MRV. Other than being most recently inspired by that close, my "rant" was not about the close. Do you really not see that? Perhaps read it again. As to WT:D, you claim that was me "trying to change consensus when [I was] told that [I was] wrong on what it was at WT:RM". Again, I'm bewildered that that is what you think that was about. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote there. Exactly what consensus do you think I was trying to change? The only issue there was the wording and meaning of NATURALDIS. This happens all the time after RMs. When RMs seem to go contrary to what policy says, a reasonable issue to pursue is whether some policy wording might need to change. For example, that's how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC got expanded at WP:D to include the historical significance criteria. Because at some RMs the consensus was that a certain topic should be "primary" due to its historical significance even if it's not the one most likely to be sought by users searching with the term in question. So the policy was updated accordingly, but only after someone (perhaps even me - I can't remember) brought it up on the WT:D talk page. The same kind of thing here. In fact, as a result of my starting that discussion, at least one editor even suggested an actual edit to address the issue I raised. You know, the issue my post was raising, as opposed to the one you imagined it to be about (to change some unidentified consensus about who-knows-what). --В²C ☎ 19:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by Primefac[edit]Another related incident (B2C refusing to accept the results of an RM) was at Fabergé egg. I had closed an RM at Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg), part of which resulted in a new/procedural RM to codify some questions raised at that RM. Following the close of the second RM (RM2), B2C calls into question the result of RM2, claims that it's not valid, and undoes all of the moves resulting from RM2 (see Talk:Fabergé egg/Archive 2). They then proceeded to start a third RM attempting to reverse the result of RM2, which was strongly opposed. These two RMs (the eggs and Brown) are the only two major interactions I've had with them, and I have consistently seen a battleground attitude where if it doesn't 100% absolutely match the written law of page naming, it's wrong and everyone who believes otherwise is wrong. It's not conducive towards a productive working environment, and undoubtedly has a chilling effect on RM participants. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]Considering the lengthy discussion you started on Tony's talk page, B2C, I'm not sure what you think would have been accomplished by him re-starting another discussion on essentially the same topic on your talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf[edit](Commenting here as I proposed sanctions in the most recent AN/I discussion, I'm uninvolved with the specific move discussions). It's less than a month since B2C was brought to AN/I where in a lengthy thread he was reminded (several times) about the arbcom finding and that his behaviour was not well thought of by a significant number of editors. Yet now we're here with evidence that he hasn't learned a single thing and continues to display the exact same behaviour. I think it's time that some restrictions were imposed - the AN/I showed some support for a restriction on the number of comments he may make in any single RM or other article titling disucssion, a prohibition on nominating articles at RM that have had a recent previous discussion (1 year iirc), and a limit to the number of concurrent RM nominations he may make. I'd consider adding to that a requirement that he may challenge the result of an RM discussion only through a formal move review nomination, with a maximum of one such discussion per page. I don't know whether AE has the authority to do that in this case or not though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment by SN54129[edit]
Statement by ValarianB[edit]As a participant in the Mrs. Brown discussion, and reading some of the following discussions on other talk pages and such (what a fascinating, years-long topic people have invested in this!), a line at User_talk:TonyBallioni#Sarah_Jane_Brown that was most concerning was this, Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]When B2C writes above: "...I meant no one came to my user talk page in regard to my behavior in discussions since the SJB decision, which is what apparently sparked this.", in all probability that's because anyone who has ever dealt with B2C, or followed the long-running B2C saga on the noticeboards, is aware that asking B2C to change their behavior is essentially like talking to a brick wall, and almost never results in any change in behavior. I mean, this has been going on for, what, years? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by Awilley[edit]I also commented in the AN/I discussion so I'm putting myself here. My only involvement that I can remember was as part of a 3-admin close panel some years ago at an RM where B2C had participated. I only remember it because they were so overbearing and tendentious in their approach. Anyway, I second support for the limited sanctions of the type proposed by User:Thryduulf that would limit the creation and participation in RM discussions but without shutting them out completely. It is their field of expertise and passion after all, I just think they need a throttle for the sake of everybody else. ~Awilley (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by Jayron32[edit]
Statement by MelanieN[edit]I have not interacted with B2C for years and have no opinion on the SJB title. I’d just like to note, reading this discussion, that he is his own best evidence against himself. In his latest comment, he continues to display exactly the behaviors that he has been accused of and warned about for at least six years. Instead of reflecting a "better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors," he accuses others of "an apparent desire to muzzle me for tribal emotional reasons". Illustrating his persistent IDHT attitude, he says "I have no idea what most of you are talking about." --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by andrewa[edit]The discussion between myself and B2C at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#See wt:DAB#Criteria for determining whether someone is "commonly called X" for WP:NATURALDIS is relevant I think, and my views are expressed there. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by (SmokeyJoe)[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Born2cycle[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ScratchMarshall
[edit]| Appeal unanimously declined. Sandstein 08:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#ScratchMarshall_promoting_conspiracy_theories logged at special:diff/828627380
Statement by ScratchMarshall[edit]Neil posted this 19:24 March 3rd: User_talk:ScratchMarshall#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban after MrX posted this 18:19 March 3rd https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=828626868#ScratchMarshall_promoting_conspiracy_theories which was 1 hour 5 minutes afterward. I am appealing this sanction because I do not believe my 2 redacted to the article about this person violated BLP policy. This was the keystone in the allegations made against me, and I believe it is grounds to have the case reviewed because it was a fraudulent accusation. I tried to talk directly to NeilN to appeal but special:diff/829060226 shows he denied my stage 1 appeal of direct communication. At special:diff/828310006 MrX left me a warning on my talk page on March 1st. MrX accused me of violating BLP policies. At special:diff/828529765 Acroterion banned me for 48 hours on March 3. Acroterion was an involved administrator. He alleges I posted defamatory speculation. These actions center around these edits. I must link the history page directly because of the lack of 'prev'. Presumably Acroterion scrubbed the history, I don't know how to check that. Neither of them would give any sort of detailed explanation as to how they supposedly thought I was violating BLP. MrX had mentioned:
I hadn't seen a problem with linking to heavy because the "5 Fast Facts" article was (and still is) cited on the article, I was merely duplicating the source in the talk page to discuss it. I will not edit the BLP article or its talk page until the sanctions are lifted, but it is essential that I am able to LINK to it, since it contains important evidence required for my appeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Hogg_(activist)&oldid=828083696 shows a version of the page as MrX left it on February 28. It includes 2 articles by Stephanie Dube Dwilson from Heavy.com, one of which was the one I had mentioned on the talk page. I submit this as evidence that MrX had absolutely no problem with Heavy, because he left these sources intact. Yet when I cited them merely on the talk page, this was somehow a BLP violation? I hadn't noticed that at the time, but had respected the objection as there were plenty of sources to cite and I had no attachment to Heavy. So that is why I created the "Business Insider" section, to provide an alternative more reputable-sounding source to see if MrX objected to it. So far, the citation of Allan Smith's article has not been redacted, so I assume no. You can read at User_talk:MrX#I_require_some_clarification how I attempted to learn more information about MrX's objection. Everything except what he erased in special:diff/828524383. This surrounds my addition of a talk page contribution citing an article on wusa9.com by a reporter named Eliana Block. This is not visible in the BLP talk page because of the removal of diffs, presumably by Acroterion. This was a Washington DC news source which is the largest market-size affiliate of CBS. It's been around since 1949. I was using these sources to report on notable debunkings. This has been twisted as if I were promoting the material which was debunked. I ask uninvolved admins, what serves to propogate conspiracy theories more?
What I did in this removed post, what Eliana Block did, was point out that some troll took a photograph of the Stoneman Douglas yearbook and said it was another school's yearbook, that a bunch of gullible people ran with that, and then a Stoneman Douglas student disproved the allegation by doing a live video showing the page was from the SD yearbook and not any other school's. Twitter is not a reliable source on its own, but it is when verified by reliable sources. Eliana Block of WUSA 9 is a reliable source, so it is grounds to link the the secondary source she cited. I am perplexed by these accusations and how nobody has spoken against them, because it is entirely clear that I was presenting reliably sourced debunkings of false accusations for discussion on the talk page, the exact opposite of promoting the accusations. This was not in any way promoting conspiracy theories. Debunking false accusations innoculates against conspiracy theories. Any theory based on "Redondo Yearbook" claim falls apart with the proof of it being a Stoneman Yearbook.
I do not believe the citation of Eliana Block's article or her Joey Wong video source was a BLP violation. If there was some aspect besides posting this which Acroterion believes was a BLP violation when he rolled back my edit, I leave it to Acroterion to clarify that. So far Acroterion's comments on this that I'm aware of are limited to:
Acroterion might take this opportunity to rephrase the nature of objection to the suppressed diffs if it was something other than citing from Eliana Block. If that's all it was, then yes, I do not believe doing so was a BLP violation, so suppressing that citation seems like an abuse of admin tools. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Re
I direct Neil to look at some statements presently included in articles, which I did not add. David_Hogg_(activist)#Attacks_and_conspiracy_theories
Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Conspiracy_theories,_disinformation,_and_harassment
Here we can see specific details of false allegations are reviewed rather than ignored. Do you have plans to remove all of this and issue BLP warnings to whoever added these details? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Your ANI appeal was a farce because only admins could view what was deleted. The opinions formed by people unable to see the suppressed diffs hold no weight. You actively misrepresented my edits as being BLP violations when they were not. You poisoned the well, ensuring there could be no neutral discussion at ANI. That is why an admin-only discussion is important. Acroterion was involved. Your calling him "uninvolved" is a falsehood.
More vagueness from you:
If my words are so detailed, why do yours remain so vague? The only thing I recall speculating on was why Hogg could've been in Redondo in 2017. I said I thought it was probably a summer vacation but that I would not add that to the article unless I found a source with that. I did end up finding said source. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's an ANTI-conspiracy theory. So really, be specific, because I think you're avoiding any specific details or examples of what I allegedly pushed because they don't exist.
These aren't BLP-violating allegations. The most offensive claim, that Hogg was a crisis actor, remains up on the page, and I did not put that there. All I did was bring up on the talk page was the debunking of memes. You keep talking as if you could read my motives, yet to anyone who understands this, debunking theories against Hogg would be the last thing someone would want to do if they wanted to promote conspiracy theory. Someone wanting to promote conspiracy theories would only post un-debunked theories, or only post theories in isolation without their debunking. Acroterion, please explain why the source you removed and the action you took (what I will term the "Block Block" because you blocked me after reverting an addition of an article by Eliana Block) are in line with BLP. How did Eliana Block's article endanger Hogg's reputation? As SarekOfVulcan has pointed out, there is no obvious BLP violation in those diffs.
Thank you for admitting that you abused your admin tools. I see these are no longer redacted. If you un-redacted the diffs, that should weigh in your favor, but that you only did so after your abuse was highlighted is no longer worth much. You still haven't actually restored the sections to the page though, which I think you should do, since you have admitted they are not BLP violations. They are not "clothed". You are assuming bad faith. These are reliable sources and I was responsibly trying to discuss how notable they were on the talk page instead of rushing to put them in the article. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
When you said "what you advocated here" you linked to a diff where the only URL I added was https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/david-hogg-florida-school-shooting-california-video/ The title of that article is "David Hogg: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know" by Stephanie Dube Dwilson, from 20 February 2018. This was a source ALREADY PRESENT IN THE ARTICLE. I may as well go track down who added it... @CookieMonster755: appears to be the one who added it, on February 25: special:diff/827485615 Notably MrX edited directly after this (less than 2 hours later): special:diff/827498926 and did not object to this source in any way. So this source remains in the article for 7 days and when I reproduce this same source (untouched in the article for a full week, nobody voices any problems with it) suddenly MrX has a problem with it! Interesting. Were you aware that this source was already in the article for a full week, that I had not added it, that MrX had been aware of the source and had no problem with it being in the article? Is there not an obvious double standard being applied where it's okay for CM755 to add this to the article and for MrX to tolerate it, but citing the same article on the talk page is suddenly sinister? ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
MrX claimed Heavy was an unreliable source and reverted my edit. You can see this Feb 1 at special:diff/828309263 Either it's a good source or a bad source. That Hogg was the target of an easily disproven yearbook claim IS factual material. However fringe LagBeachAntifa9 was is irrelevant, because enough people ran with it that it ceased to be fringe, as enough people were repeating the claim for Stephanie Dwilson to report on it, as well as other sources. The problem here is you are insisting it is "fringe" based on your own WP:OR, in direct contradiction of other sources which prove it is not fringe. That was why I followed up Heavy.com with BusinessInsider.com and WUSA9.com. The way we resolve disagreements on notability is by weighing sources, not injecting personal opinions. I took careful note of what Acroterion said. It was a "lightly-veiled" attack against me, and you are clearly endorising this form of personal attack against me. I was discussing widely-covered debunkings of theories which had caused enough waves to be worth reporting on to debunk by these reporters. There is no 'veiling' going on here. I was not and am not promoting those theories. Promoting discredited theories by posting the proof which debunks them would not make any sense. Why would someone promote a toothless theory? The theories which seem more dangerous to me are the broader ones without associated 100% debunkings of specific facts, like the allegation Hogg was coached or that he was a crisis actor. I never added those to the page, and their presence concerns me. These are the allegations which hold BLP risks, not "a video proved a page of photos was from the Stoneman Douglas Yearbook and not the Redondo Shores yearbook". That holds 0 risk to Hogg. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by NeilN[edit]I looked at the report filed by MrX at here and agreed with their statement, "ScratchMarshall has largely spent his time on Wikipedia subtly pushing far-right propaganda and conspiracy theories in the style of a concern troll" based on the evidence presented. The "concern troll" description is apt as we don't debunk fringe conspiracy theories by mentioning them in a BLP and then saying "but this is all unproven" - we simply ignore them. Editors have tried to communicate this to ScratchMarshall and their reactions can be read in the linked ANI thread. I feel a BLP topic ban is needed and justified as this editor needs to learn what "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" means. --NeilN talk to me 20:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
And now we have this. --NeilN talk to me 03:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]I carefully documented the fringe POV-pushing and disruption, at AN/I. Several editors reviewed the evidence and supported the same conclusion that I made. An uninvolved admin applied discretionary sanctions in accordance with policy. There is no legitimate basis for this appeal, so it should be denied.- MrX 🖋 21:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by Acroterion[edit]ScratchMarshal has been spitballing BLP-violating conspiracy theories on talkpages and in articles since last summer. MrX has amply documented this behavior over a range of topics. It has long been best practice on conspiracy-infused topics to refrain from quoting the conspiracy allegations in any more than the briefest terms. At Talk:David Hogg (activist) ScratchMarshal opened discussion by posting extensive quotes discussing the CTs with no clear emphasis other than getting it on the talkpage. The comments by ScratchMarshal at Talk:David Hogg (activist) are an unnecessary catalog of speculations, in considerable detail, on the conspiracy theories associated with Mr. Hogg, and taken in mass they are fringe gossip on a BLP talkpage. When warned of BLP concerns by MrX,[185] [186] ScratchMarshal waited a couple of hours and reposted the discussion MrX objected to on the talkpage[187]. This kind of gaming of other editors' clearly-stated concerns is disruptive and led directly to my block. In reviewing ScratchMarshal's edits at Talk:David Hogg (activist) I have reconsidered my redaction of some of ScratchMarshal's edits as essentially futile, in that, clothed as they are in refutation, they aren't blatant BLP violations, but it doesn't change my reasons for blocking. ScratchMarshal's backhanded practice of framing the allegations as debunked reports posted in full for discussion is a way of skirting the letter of BLP. Extensive discussion of BLP-violating allegations of this kind are unnecessary and are a lightly-veiled way of placing conspiracy theories about living people into Wikipedia namespaces. Talkpages are not fora for speculating about conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ScratchMarshall[edit]
Result of the appeal by ScratchMarshall[edit]
|
Willard84
[edit]| No admin has expressed an interest in taking action. See also the result of the request concerning Mar4d below. Sandstein 08:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Willard84[edit]
Warned by EdJohnston in July 2017 that: "If you continue to edit war on any topics related to India or Pakistan you are risking a topic ban."[188]
These are the two most recent incidents that I can name. The long term edit warring, stonewalling, civil POV pushing, misrepresentation of consensus, and demonstration of WP:INCOMPETENCE shows that Willard84 is truly careless about how much disruption he is causing. I believe that a topic ban is clearly warranted now. Excelse (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: I don't know anything about the report against Mar4d, though his messages and comparison of the report against him with this report about Willard84 is described in the first point of WP:SANCTIONGAME. We have a "clear-cut case" here that Willard84 had made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours on 1988 Gilgit Massacre right after coming off from a 4 days block back in July 2017. But he wasn't blocked for edit warring because EdJohnston thought it would be better to give him a stringent warning that further edit warring will lead to topic ban.[209] With Willard84's demonstration of his incompetence here we can simply agree that there are no chances of improvements. Since he has continued to edit war and there are many other issues with his disruptive editing and he has completed enough requirements for a topic ban, I am not sure what else needs to be clarified here. Excelse (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Willard84[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Willard84[edit]I’m confident the arbitrators will find this complaint to be unwarranted and not done in good faith. This is an editor who engaged me in a heated discussion months ago who now appears to be seeking some sort of discretionary sanctions based upon sour feelings. He’s making accusations essentially on behalf of others who didn’t find my behavior so disturbing that they themselves would file a request. Instead we have an editor with whom I haven’t interacted for many months randomly appearing out of the blue and stalking my edits to build a frivolous case against me. Out of many months of edits, and literally hundreds, if not thousands, of edits, he pulls out a few cherry picked examples to build a case. I think this violates the spirit of collaboration and I find this sort of stalking to be very objectionable - even worthy of sanctioning to be frank. If the arbitrators seriously feel these accusations warrant actual disciplinary measure against me, please ping me back to this page and I can dedicate more time to a rebuttal. So much of what he said is an inaccurate depiction that completely neglects so much, but just as a quick illustration of the sort of details that he neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page that he complained about was resolved cordially via discussion with that other editor.Willard84 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Raymond3023[edit]Willard84's on-going attempts to deceive others are concerning. He is still misrepresenting incidents and trying to throw mud on OP's report by falsely claiming the existence of the incidents that didn't even occurred when the report was filed. See WP:GAMING. The report was filed at 05:43 (UTC). At 08:37 (UTC) Willard84 changed timestamp of his 1 hour older response and makes a misleading claim that OP "neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page that he complained about was resolved",[211] after leaving a message on talk page at 08:32 (UTC), despite the report was filed almost 3 hours ago. Willard84 is now attempting to get away from the article by claiming that he "resolved cordially" when he is clearly giving up on the article and he failed to remove the sourced content and failed to get his puffery accepted because his disruption has been highlighted in this report. But I am sure he will resume his disruption on that article for his WP:OR.[212] Furthermore, edit warring of Willard84 didn't even stopped with this one edit[213] and one revert,[214] because after he failed to remove the content from lead, he still removed it from lead by creating a new section called "Etymology" and moving material there[215] and he provided no reason for his edit. Since his aim was to get rid of the meaning of the word from the lead, I would count it as 2 reverts for removing the meaning of the name, and 2 additional reverts for adding puffery. In total, he made 4 reverts. Seeing he is clearly working on deceiving others not only on articles but also here now, he is leaving me with no choice other than to support topic ban which would be still lenient because editors also get indeffed for such shenanigans. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by D4iNa4[edit]Willard84 you can't ignore your long term pattern of your nationalistic editing by making false accusations against others. Even if you had never edited the the main Template:History of Pakistan, your behavior on it's talk page has been purely disruptive, though you edit warred enough to get the template protected twice by restoring to a pseudohistorical nationalist version written by an editor who used a sock to notify you recently.[216] The template should be totally unprotected the way Template:History of India is, even though it is much more edited and visited than Template:History of Pakistan. But due to your disruption I think we will never reach there unless you are topic banned. I am really seeing no justification for your actions. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Response to D4Nai by Willard84[edit]Nationalistic editing? The Template discussion revolved around whether consensus had been reached - don’t misconstrue this into a question of competing nationalism. I think the arbitrators here are well aware of how to spot arrogant nationalism - and it isn’t coming from me. The debate has been ongoing since October, yet you made a change in late February after months of stalemate and resurrected a version which was objectionable for its inclusion of minor empires like the Marathas who ruled for not even 2 years and left essentially no trace of their presence,while you suggested that the Indus Valley Civilization (with its major sites in modern Pakistan) be removed from a template about Pakistan. In fact, the changes you made aren’t the changes you put forward for discussion - you made a set of changes that hasn’t been discussed in their entirety. I was pushing for a reversion to status quo - I think you’ll need to do a better job of demonstrating how this was pushing a nationalist viewpoint. Even the comment about Pakistani viewpoints was explained in the debate as a point brought up simply because this fell under wiki project Pakistan. And anyway, once the third party had stated they thought consensus had been reached, I dropped the issue even though I think that third party did not consider the context behind it. D4iNa4 has had his own history of belligerent POV editing against me. Here another reviewer had to explain to D4iNai and another user that Washington Post is a reliable source when D4 had sided with another user to ensure the page only reflected claims that the train was burned as a result of a pre meditated “conspiracy” by Muslim passengers, by ensuring that any mention of events prior to the burning which cast other non-Muslim passengers as rowdy were not included. Willard84 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3[edit]I would acknowledge that Willard84 is a bit quick to hit the revert button, but he is a good productive editor otherwise. Perhaps a warning should suffice for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by Lorstaking[edit]I agree with the filer, Raymond3023 and D4iNa4 but I disagree with Kautilya3. Another warning would be a waste of time since he has been already warned and blocked enough times for what he has been doing and he is not still not understanding the serious problems with his editing. According to his own statements here, he still believes that even if none of his edits were accepted they were still correct and also that others are engaging in misconduct by not accepting them. He still believes his edits are correct where he is treating princely states and their subdomains (Phulra, Khanate of Kalat, Dir, etc.) during British Raj as the main power as per his own edits[217][218] to paint a wrong picture that Pakistan was never really colonized by British and was mainly ruled by these vassals. Willard84 also wants to mention initial and outdated rumors about Godhra train burning as facts even after being told otherwise by Edjohnston and not just the involved editors. You just can't expect him to collaborate without creating enough problems. His input on talk pages[219][220] can be also described as mass bludgeoning just like his statements here, some of them have been already removed by Sandstein.[221] I am also noting that his accusations against others of misconduct without giving any evidence constitute personal attacks. He is saying in one of his statements here [222] that everyone is allowed to revert but he is now gaming 3RR by not reverting 3 times in 24 hours. Clearly that is how he managed to revert 4 times on Nanga_Parbat[223][224][225][226] In short words this is a clear case of disruptive nationalist POV pushing and WP:CIR. Lorstaking (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Response to Lorstaking by Willard84[edit]
Statement by Capitals00[edit]While a number of recent examples of continued disruption have been already provided, I think it is nonetheless worth it to describe the problem to be bigger and continuous. I have observed Willard84’s edits over a long period of time and many of them have proved to be problematic. Here are a few examples of nationalist editing over a broad range of articles:
These edits show Willard84's problematic editing behavior across many articles. Despite previous warnings and blocks, it has continued and Willard84's own comment indicates that this problem will remain. I would recommend a topic ban on India and Pakistan related articles broadly construed. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mar4d[edit]
Result concerning Willard84[edit]
|