Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive172
C1cada[edit]
| C1cada is topic-banned from all pages dealing with the Armenian Genocide for six months. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:13, 7 May 2015 (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 C1cada[edit]
The user has stated openly several times that he refuses to accept a consensus. This is in despite of the fact that there are at least seven editors who are opposed, for example, to just one of his proposals ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]):
The user edits in the main space to that effect. He unwaveringly commits to his goal by (re)inserting contentious information never discussed or agreed upon at the talk page:
The talk page of Armenian Genocide is filled of the user's ultimatums. He expects users to run off on his own schedule when it comes to them. He doesn't bother evaluating the concerns raised about his proposals. In fact, he acts as if those concerns, and the users that express them, don't exist. Without reaching a consensus, and considering the reasons as to why he is being reverted at the main space, the user returns to the talk page and declares more ultimatums until there's no response in the given time-period, and (re)inserts his edit again. The gaming of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BOLD, to further his intentions are also concerning. He was advised specifically for this very issue, but hasn't stopped since. The article has underwent several edit-wars due to this very reason.
In light of the ultimatums declared by the user, the user is also aware of the fact that the Armenian Genocide article is 1RR restricted. For several times now, after being reverted at Armenian Genocide, he declares beforehand that he plans to revert the next day, and then does so without hesitation a few hours after the 24 hour mark. In one such instance, the user stated: "after waiting response and observing a time period of some 36 hours so that the one revert per day rule was comfortably observed, I restored the wikilink to Grace Knapp and its citations with an edit that in fact reduced the caption length." The ultimatums above appear to be just another strategy to overcome the 1RR obstacle and reinsert his edits outside the 24 hour mark. These edits are coupled by the abuse of WP:BOLD to justify unilateral edits: [8] When the user has difficulty garnering support towards his position, he shops various Wikiprojects to help support his case. For example, when the user failed to gain support from other users regarding changes he wanted to implement in the POTD template, he went along and stuck the template in major Turkish-related WikiProjects and talk pages: WikiProject Turkey, Portal talk:Turkey, and Turkey. This continued even after being given a formal AA2 advisory from admin Fred Bauder when the user tried to canvass the very admin that gave the advisory: [9]
C1cada displays all of the signs of a disruptive editing pattern. The user does not engage in consensus building. He rejects or ignores community input. He cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. His editing pattern is tendentious and edit-wars frequently to get his way. This is mostly due to an attempt by the user to minimize and manipulate the legality and veracity of the Armenian Genocide by the use of his own POV to characterize the events. Most of this disruption occurs in one of the most sensitive articles in Wikipedia: Armenian Genocide. The article is under 1RR restrictions and the user, during its most sensitive time-period (100th anniversary of the AG), attempted to exclude 'massacre' from the POTD blurb for the Armenian Genocide. When that failed, he attempted to downgrade the systematic nature of the genocide by employing the term 'pogrom' instead, even when several users, as aforementioned, were against such classifications. In a more recent edit, he replaced the word 'killed' with 'perished' and 'genocide' with 'killings' in the lead. This wasn't discussed, let alone proposed in the TP. The user also plays with words by saying 'Genocide' is not the same as 'genocide' and advocates the use of 'genocidal' instead of 'genocide' (see: here and here respectively). This is also observed by this edit, which confines the AG to the year 1915. This POV then continues with each one of his proposals. Take, for example, "The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as genocide in international law." There has been no source provided by the user that claims that only the first year (1915-16) account as genocide under 'international law'. He points to a report by the IAGS ([10]), but the report doesn't make any mention that the genocide is acknowledged until 1916. Hence, the wording he chooses is nothing more than his personal observations and opinions. Such reports are neither scholarly or academic and cannot be considered a WP:RS either. Nevertheless, the user himself has said that there is no source needed for such claims [11]. The refusal to "get the point" regarding consensus and outright reluctance to provide any sources to justify his edits has been the cause of multiple edit-warring disputes. Also, I included some diffs prior to the formal warning to show that the user has not changed his conduct even after the advisory. So in light of all I mentioned here, I propose he be banned from editing topics related to Armenia, and more specifically: the Armenian Genocide. Related ANI reports:
Discussion concerning C1cada[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 C1cada[edit]I have addressed this user in very neutral terms since Fred warned me my behaviour had crossed a red line. Of course I'm very anxious to respect the Committee's strictures. The editing dispute here concerns two matters of fact. One is that the Armenian Genocide was not confined to the Armenians living within the boundaries of present-day Turkey and the second is that, so far, recognition of the genocide in its legal sense is confined to the atrocities of 1915-1916. The French Wikipedia currently gives the best account. My motivation for wishing to clarify on these issues stem not from a 'denialist' stance, but in the first place to record the experience of Russian Armenians living in present-day Armenia, and second to preserve the integrity of the word 'genocide' in its legal sense as a crime against humanity closely defined in international law. The editing dispute here seems to me to derive from inadequate copy skills in English. Faced with an editor making adjustments to copy to clarify details such as the above, an inadequate editor has no recourse but to revert copy to some safe haven of the past. When the copy is rephrased to accommodate their concerns, they nevertheless persist in claims of "edit-warring". For example, when I created a section "Massacres after World War I" recording the experience of the Russian Armenians, after pointing out the lede necessitated it and offering it first to the established editors, this user reverted it in full, insisting it be taken to the Talk Page. I took it to the Talk Page and over a period of a few days absolutely no modifications were suggested. When I restored it the article it was immediately reverted again, insisting that it record the genocidal nature of the attacks. I readily concurred since that was plainly implied by the context, "Ottoman policy", referenced in the text and the subsequent remarks. Finally the section remains in place. However the user could have avoided all the time wasting by inserting "genocidal" on their account, a clarification that, frankly, many readers might well think unnecessary in the context It's manifestly clear that that the Armenian Genocide article needs improvement. I intend to persist doing that. Presently my goals are to implement parenthetical referencing throughout and to correct obvious errors of copy such as "The Armenian Genocide has been corroborated by many authorities" that I reference on the Talk Page. Come fall, I hope to spend some time improving its contents. Too much of the article consists of quoted copy-paste. c1cada (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by 92slim[edit]@C1cada: has a long history of unnecessary talks in the Armenian Genocide talk page. This of course is not disruptive behaviour, but he has, nevertheless, borderline aggressively insisted that @EtienneDolet:'s "English skills" were lacking when this was not apparent from the latter, citing just one example of disruptive behaviour. The main problem is that C1cada masks his own POV ideas (which he never backed with any sources, including the dates he provides, AFAIK) with excuses such as "copy editing", or failing to understand what WP:CONSENSUS means when he wants to contribute to the page. If he's not restrained from editing the topic in question, the disruption and edit-warring on the articles will continue forever. After seeing that he ignores Admin advice all the time, it would be unexpected that he would listen to another user's advice. I think he needs to understand how Wikipedia works better. But this should be temporary in my opinion. --92slim (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Fred Bauder[edit]Please keep in mind that the enforcement alert addressed personal attacks not general editing behavior. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C1cada&oldid=659174876#Warning I see little evidence that direct personal attacks have continued. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield[edit]C1cada is to be commended for his good faith attempts at improving the Armenian Genocide article. The bringer of this complaint considered the article to be so perfect that he actually nominated it for GA status - but the GA reviewer thought the article to be in such a state that it did not even pass the initial stage of its review. The Armenian Genocide article seems ruled by two cliques: AG deniers and Armenian opponents of those AG deniers. Together, those two camps have been responsible for the articles current dire state, and have been responsible for filling 22 talk pages with mostly useless discussion. C1cada is approaching the article's obvious problems with a new set of hands and a fresh pair of eyes. It is little surprise that the old guard are trying everything to stop him, in particular using claims of "consensus" to restrict his edits. Consensus should not be used to retain incorrect content, or unreferenced content, and should not be used to remove properly referenced new content or restrict the right to be bold when faced with an article containing obvious problems that incumbent editors seem to have been happy to live with. I don't agree with every edit C1cada makes or with every piece of content he wants added or rewritten - but he IS moving the article forward with positive editing and that, in the end, should be what matters the most. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes[edit]It appears that C1cada has been involved in slow-motion 1RR edit war on the page about Armenian genocide after receiving an WP:AE warning on 18:00 April 25: [13], [14],[15],[16]. Although most edits by C1cada seem to be reasonable, some of them may be interpreted as POV-pushing on "pro-Turkish" side:
And his comments are obviously not appropriate [20]: "It is not as if the problem is that you are perhaps dyslexic or educationally disadvantaged" and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Dr.K.[edit]This case represents a rather difficult situation which has arisen in the flagship article of the very contentious area of AA2. Although my discussions with C1cada have been pleasant and courteous I don't think I have accomplished much toward my goal of attempting to bring C1cada to accept my argument, namely that his editing approach invoking WP:EDITCONSENSUS at every opportunity and then issuing a correspondent ultimatum and after that proceeding with his proposed edit, is not constructive in this DS/1RR-regulated area and that his/her approach is a recipe for an endless, diachronic, but ironically 1-RR-respecting edit-war. This type of slow-edit-war-driven editing in a DS-regulated area is unacceptable imo. Further, C1cada has declared multiple times that some of his edits are not subject to consensus because they are self-evident. That too I find disturbing, especially in a WP:CONSENSUS-driven project. There is also C1ada's insistence on commenting on the relation of editors to English in terms of being native speakers of the language or not that I find problematic. These issues are addressed in my reply to the editor, one of several examples. There are more diffs I can give but I believe in diff-minimisation for optimum results. If AE can somehow resolve these issues it will be a positive development. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning C1cada[edit]
|
Ohconfucius[edit]
| Two pages about Falun Gong in Ohconfucius's user space are being deleted. No other action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Ohconfucius[edit]
During Ohconfucius’ one-year reprieve, he has continued a pattern of POV editing, edit warring, and commenting inappropriately on other users. Most worrying, he restored a polemical anti-Falun Gong essay in userspace after being told by arbitrators to permanently delete it. Background (see also WP:GAME)[edit]In July 2012, Arbcom voted to indefinitely ban Ohconfucius from Falun Gong-related topics due to edit warring, incivility, and violations of WP:NPOV. In April 2014, Ohconfucius appealed to lift the topic ban, and assured arbitration committee that he would not return to editing Falun Gong. Arbcom’s response to this request was tepid, but seven arbs ultimately agreed to provisionally suspend the ban with a probationary period of one year. One arbitrator said his agreement was conditional and asked Ohconfucius to "steer well clear of matters of controversy" related to Falun Gong. Ohconfucius reneged on his promises and quickly resumed making controversial edits to Falun Gong articles. It seems to me that he had gamed the system, and not for the last time. He was brought back to Arbcom. The arbitrators again urged caution; one arb said to "move on" from editing Falun Gong, and another told him that he must permanently delete all of the anti-Falun Gong essays that he kept in his userspace and refrain from commenting on other editors or else he (the arbitrator) would request reinstatement of the ban. [21] Ohconfucius deleted the offending essays in his userspace. After the ArbCom case was closed, however, he simply reposted a permalinked version on his user page.[22] This week he restored the page entirely.[23] Violations of WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, WP:POLEMIC[edit][24] – Ohconfucius’ polemical essay on Falun Gong contains attacks against named individuals, groups, and several Wikipedia editors (myself included), violating WP:NPA, WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, and WP:POLEMIC. Note that Ohconfucius has been told on two occasions, by two members of Arbcom, that this essay is inappropriate. User:Seraphimblade told him to permanently delete it or else face reimposition of the topic ban.[25] Violations of WP:NPOV[edit]Ohconfucius has continued previous patterns of POV editing. Most edits involve deleting/whitewashing reliably sourced information on the Chinese government’s human rights practices or claiming material is not supported by sources when it actually is. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Violation of WP:WAR[edit]Ohconfucius made multiple reverts on September 9 on a Falun Gong-related article, ignoring talk page discussions. (Note: I initially thought these were a 3RR violation, but because some were performed in succession, it’s actually more like 3 reverts). [34] – misstates facts about the history of the 610 Office [35] – reverts (apparently convinced that he's right, while he's not) [36] – deletes information because it was unsourced (see bottom of diff) [37] – after a source was added, deletes it again [38] – deletes information from lede [39] – deletes again [40] – adds quote from Chinese government source and omits Ownby's views [41] – same edit again [42] – deletes information about man in Chengde [43] – deletes again (he's right about this one, but a revert nonetheless) Violations of WP:CIVIL[edit][44] – This talk page discussion is representative of an inability to assume good faith and a reflexive tendency to personalize discussions – something he’s been warned about repeatedly.
Just a quick comment. I believe Ohconfucius' reply elucidates the problem. Instead of addressing his apparent breaches of policy and ArbCom rulings, such as direct personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a platform for ax-grinding and polemics, we get more name-calling from a seemingly unblockable ivory tower and "no further comments." I am not a Falun Gong activist or a so-called Falun Gongster and fundamentally do not see this as a content dispute. Neither have I said that Ohconfucius is "pro-regime." I stated that the direction of his edits on this topic generally serve to improve the image of the Chinese government. Note that he admits to editing from an "anti-Falun Gong" viewpoint instead of NPOV and seems to perceive the Falun Gong namespace as a zero-sum game. There were valid reasons for his indefinite topic ban in the first place; later he was put on probation, and I simply believe the situation should be assessed once again. Best regards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Ohconfucius[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 Ohconfucius[edit]I have said time and again that I try hard to leave my personal opinions outside of the mainspace articles. Nowadays, I only make a very small number of edits on Falun Gong topics, yet I still get continually attacked by Falun Gong activists, so I'm not going to dwell on the issue before us. Falun Gong are known for their tenacity and relentlessness, wearing their critics down. The attacks were stressful for me in the past. I just find their attacks on me tiring. Tiring that the Falun Gong activists manifest the very intolerance of criticism of their movement that the Regime does with people who criticise their rule. I have repeatedly asserted that the Falun Gong and the Regime are heavily shaped by the Cultural Revolution, and are thus the antitheses of each other, and this observation/position appears to rile Falun Gong activists. This request is yet another content dispute with the filer of the request and User:TheBlueCanoe, both of whom have a history of editing Falun Gong articles from what I believe is a highly partisan and advocate's viewpoint and with whom I have had running content disputes over the years. A new and inexperienced Falun Gong editor, who for the moment shall remain nameless, has joined their ranks recently, and may have contributed with text copied verbatim from elsewhere. I would merely say that I find copyright violations equally objectionable as the propaganda of the Falun Dafa and of the Regime, and part of that editing work is to remove copyvios or otherwise make clear that these are positions and not fact. All my edits have, I believe, adequate edit summaries explaining my rationale. Whilst the complainant has only found examples he objects to showing my bias, he failed to give me any credit for this comment (for example), which certainly shows that I am editing objectively and in good faith. The Regime almost insists upon the "L'état, c'est moi" conflation between the party and the state in the same way as Falun Gongsters insist on labelling all people who do not support their movement as supporters of the Regime. IIndeed, I restored the essay within my own userspace after learning about the former's complaint to EdJohnson, in which he repeated his previous provocative smear that I was somehow "pro-Regime". It made me suspect whether he understood that anti-Regime people can also be anti-Falun Gong. If the distinction between the two is not clear in his own head, one must question whether he ought to be editing such polemic topics on Wikiepdia. In view of the foregoing, I would state that the assembled should not be too surprised if there were no further comments from me on this case. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by John Carter[edit]It is worth noting that this subject has already been discussed with Ed Johnston at User talk:EdJohnston#Request for reinstating indefinite topic ban on User:Ohconfucius and the comments Ed made in response.
Statement by coldacid (uninvolved)[edit]Despite the conversation on EdJohnston's talk, this essay is certainly questionable, and considering Seraphimblade's comment in the June 2014 amendment request, it seems that Ohconfucius is definitely tempting fate. Whether this is the editor taking the WP:ROPE they were given and hanging themself with it, or not, I can't say. For sure, though, we should hear from Seraphimblade on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by coldacid (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC) I have to agree with TheSoundAndTheFury's "quick comment". Regardless of the content dispute, Ohconfucius' attitude even here on this AE request demonstrates that the editor should be strongly encouraged to edit other topics. At the very least, they should be topic-banned from anything relating to Falun Gong, and their attack essay deleted and salted. Ohconfucius has been given enough rope. @Seraphimblade: Would still like to hear from you on this. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Comment by My very best wishes[edit]This edit by Ohconfucius strikes me as very recent and highly problematic (I know how important this article is to Falun Gong propagandists, but you should accept it as an unfortunate consequence of one of your fellow FLG editors choosing to plagiarise an entire chunk of it). Otherwise, I am not sure this AE request would be reasonable, given that most other diffs/edits by Ohconfucius were rather old (although also problematic), and Arbcom did not ask for reviewing this matter after a year, judging from their motion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by TheBlueCanoe[edit]Here’s what Seraphimblade said at arbitration:
Reposting an archived version of the userspace essay less than a month later was clearly defying the spirit, if not the letter, of the request[49]. More interesting is that Ohconfucius completely restored the essay last week, after a complaint about it was filed on EdJohnston’s talk page.[50] I have no idea how to account for this--tempting fate, or maybe Ohconfucius thinks he's unblockable. On the NPOV issue, some of these diffs bear examining more closely:
I’ve tried to give the benefit of the doubt that these were all honest mistakes, and maybe they are. But looking more closely at the history I’m not so sure, and it does seem that the user is ideologically driven. Certainly some of the reasons he’s given for deleting cited information on these pages are pretty flimsy (e.g. [55][56] ) It also goes without saying that I don’t appreciate the insinuations that I’m a sock, a “meatpuppet” or a “Falun Gong propagandists” for trying to address and correct the issues I see on these pages.TheBlueCanoe 16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by OccultZone[edit]I have also seen a lot of work by Ohconfucius around, I agree that he knows how content can be made better, every allegations that have been made here, I have no comments on them, and I really believe that EdJohnston is correct with his assertion, he had asked Ohconfucius to blank the pages, and Ohconfucius did blanked them. I would also like to correct TheBlueCanoe that Ohconfucius was never banned.(Check WP:BAN) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ohconfucius[edit]
|
Xtremedood[edit]
| Blocked 48 hours for edit warring as a regular admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Xtremedood[edit]
Discussion concerning Xtremedood[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 Xtremedood[edit]OccultZone has already made a complaint in the past which was dismissed. He seems to have been stalking my contributions, rather than engage in a pragmatic debate on whether or not the Battle of Rajasthan article should be deleted. To claim a battle with such limited sources is "popular" is a clear fallacy. OccultZone has not been able to provide a single legitimate source as to the relevant location of the supposed conflict, the generals involved, and why there are sources saying that conflict continued till 739 A.D. when OccultZone's sources say the decisive battle to stop all battles occurred in 738 A.D. 1) I have not violated WP:RGW, as various other users have agreed with me about the scarcity of sources pertaining to this supposed battle. There are even other users claiming that the article's name should be changed (thus opposing the legitimacy of this as a "popular" battle). 2) These edits do not constitute "edit warring." FreeatlastChitchat and I have been debating for over a month as to whether certain content should be allowed or omitted on the article. There was a DRN discussion mediated by Keithbob, in which we discussed in great detail this article. There has been no resolution as of now, and FreeatlastChitchat's attempt to mediate has also been rejected. Clearly OccultZone seems very desperate to try gather up information about me, he seems to be stalking my contributions. He does not know the background information pertaining to this whole thing. The 3RR was also respected. In the past he also accussed me of making wrong edits of the Mughal-Sikh war battles. However, a thorough investigation found (by administration) that I was correct in my edits. OccultZone's heavily biased accusations should therefore be dismissed. 3) Consensus was not reached in this matter.I agreed to wait for consensus after OccultZone's first complaint. However, OccultZone did not answer my relevant questions pertaining to the sources at hand. From April 20th to April 29th, there was no response. OccultZone, rather than wait for consensus simply reverted the article on April 28th, [82]. This means for 8 days he did not make a response, and randomly suggested that 2 against 1 constituted a consensus, which it does not according to WP:Consensus. OccultZone has failed to answer why the 3,843 figure by the Indian government should not be in the Indian Claims section when that section exists. He also failed to properly detail why the source was supposedly incorrect. The source that I wanted was a third-party source (non-Governmental) and it may therefore be less biased. 4) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing the context of these changes. I had a meaningful discussion with Nijgoykar in which he verified the source of an Arab invasion (the sources were largely Indian) but was unable to verify the source of "forced conversion," therefore the changes meet proper discussion. see [[83]]. WP:Verifiability states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." I was looking to verify this information and followed proper procedure. As for the Invasion of Rajasthan difference, I have stated it here that I deleted it: [[84]]. There is simply no source for a 40,000 Hindus against 100,000 Arabs battle occuring during this time. OccultZone may be ignorant of the immense dynamics of warfare. 100,000 soldiers is not a small figure. There should be some historical record of this. I am still waiting for anyone to source me this figure. As for the third link, I have already stated that there is no historical record of the battle of Rajasthan existing. The only sources are biased and do not adhere to WP:Identifying reliable sources. 5) This does not adhere to the 5 points outlined in WP:Soapboxing. OccultZone did not wait for Administrative decision, rather he tried to delete the template. This is not right. He should have atleast tried to contest it. This may represent heavy ideological bias. Simply saying "not a hoax" here [85] does not suffice to not contest it. 6) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing to context or simply trying to defame. The context of the conversation may be seen here [86]. 7) This does not constitute canvassing. Another user (AshLin) first invited 2 people. Consensus on AfD is not based upon a tally of votes, as outlined here: [[87]]. Bringing forth more diverse discourse may provide for more policy-related discourse. See the full dicussion here. [88] 8) Statement was aimed at fostering more diverse dialogue. See point 7. OccultZone's twisting of statements should not be taken seriously. There are clearly a lot more users with interest in Indian topics being involved than many other users. OccultZone is on record of using blackmailing attempts, threatening me to withdraw a statement or he will inform administration. He said "If you wouldn't retract that part from your comment, I would consider bringing you to either WP:ARE or WP:ANI."[89]. This constitutes clear blackmailing.[90] He also displays immense bias by simply deleting a template, rather than try and engage in constructive dialogue by contesting it. The real battleground mentality is being displayed by OccultZone in his failed (previous) attempt to accuse me of wrong edits on the Mughal-Sikh related articles, his inability to properly address concerns pertaining to the 1971 war article, and his "speedy keep" bias pertaining to the Battle of Rajasthan. Xtremedood (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Response to Dolescum[edit]As to adhere to Wikipedia's policy WP:Other Stuff Exists, which states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." If that section did not exist for these articles [91][92], then it should not exist for this one. The heavy anti-Muslim bias is something I wish to oppose that sadly exists on certain articles on Wikipedia. This bias goes against NPOV. I provided my reasoning in the edit summary [93]. It was based upon sound reasoning. I did not brake any revert rules, it was a one time edit. Any changes I made can be found in that edit. Better left for discussion on the talk page. Xtremedood (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Response to Delibzr[edit]I am not the one who put A.R. Rahman on the list, look at the history, it has been there longer. I simply organized the format and added some new figures. Your source for Dharmendra that he was a Sikh does not work, I looked at the source. The source indicated in the article states he was a former Hindu. If you have a legitimate source feel free to remove it and to discuss it in the talk page with me. Your accustion of me removing content on the Criticism of Sikhism page is baseless. The link for the supposed criticism does not work [[94]], either fix the link or provide me proof of that. I did not find any source that said that Nanak had a debate with Mullahs in Makkah. The whole story sounds fishy to me as why would a person who Sikhs claim to be a non-Muslim (who are not allowed in Makkah) go there and have a debate with religious leaders? The whole passage seems kind of weird and the link did not work. You need a legitimate source for that. Xtremedood (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Dolescum[edit]Further to the appearance of removing material he disapproved of, Xtremedood recently attempted to remove all mentions of Criticism of Muhammad from the Muhammad article. The reason given was to point to the Jesus article and provide a very selective reading of WP:OSE. Dolescum (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Delibzr[edit]Xtremedood has brought bad references(rumor sites[95][96][97]) on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. He claims that A. R. Rahman was a Hindu who converted into Islam, when he was atheist.[98] He claims that Dharmendra was a Hindu who converted to Islam, when he is a devoted Sikh,[99] same with his son.[100] He is violating biographies of living persons on these articles. On Criticism of Sikhism he removed[101] what he disliked, and wanted to see. Reference was already accessible and supported that info. Xtremedood has misused references on Battle of Rajasthan, and he has insulted the academics. That article is not going to be deleted or even end up with a merge or redirect, that means his participation was totally disruptive on that AFD. He had to use talk page not AFD or speedy deletions for his doubts, but he seems not to be capable of engaging in a proper discussion without edit warring. He has issues with WP:COMPETENCE. Delibzr (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Calypsomusic[edit]Xtremedood (talk · contribs) is adding source misrepresentation in articles In Muhammed bin Qasim he writes about other scholars:
Elliot is a mainstream pillar of British historiography on medieval India, so the claim that he hates Islam is absurd. Xtremedood is claiming that this source "Maclean, Derryl N. Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Brill Academic Publishers, 1989 ISBN 90-04-08551-3 pg.22-29" says that Elliot "hates" Islam. But the source says nothing of the sort about Elliot or Thakkur: [109] There is also a series of unexplained edits by him with blanking of sections, for example here and here He even marked one of those edits as Minor in the edit summary. [110] His disruptive editing has been brought to his attention by @Kautilya3: @FreeatlastChitchat: @OccultZone: @Kansas Bear: @Ghatus:, and at DR and at ARE but as these edits show, nothing has changed. Statement by Sitush[edit]Xtremedood was basically right regarding the Battle of Rajasthan. Ok, it wasn't deleted but it is already changing dramatically because (a) the "battle" only seems to exist in the eyes of Hindu nationalists and their ilk; (b) as the later comments here indicate, the title is likely to be changed. Effectively, it was a hoax title, if not an entirely fictitious article. Xtremedood is also basically right here. They've dealt with it poorly at the end but 2 vs 1 is not much of a consensus, perhaps especially when Ghatus is involved, and using a Government of India source in the way that was being proposed clearly wasn't ideal. Xtremedood should have run through WP:DR for options but underlying it all is a desire to use decent sources and that has struck me in my other limited dealings with them. I don't have time to go through everything but I do know from things I've seen at Mughal-Maratha Wars that Xtremedood is basically one of the good 'uns there, which Delibzr and Ghatus are not. This type of thing from Delibzr is clearly very poor but Xtremedood's reversion was in turn reverted and Ghatus, who should know better, seemed to have no inclination to set things straight. Similarly, Xtremedood is wanting to use modern reliable sources there but the other two seem not so keen - again, Ghatus could have done something with the article given things said in this thread but they showed no inclination and seem arguably to still be insisting that an outdated historian with a very well known Hindu bias should carry weight disproportionate to NPOV. Xtremedood's way of handling things might be better but it is my suspicion that they are up against a series of pro-Hindu, pro-India "usual suspects". It's at worst a "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other" scrap and I can feel the frustration. They should be advised to make better use of things outlined at WP:DR and given a decent warning that if they do not then things could get worse for them very quickly. That's all, although warnings to others who are involved might not go amiss. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Kautilya3[edit]My feeling is that Xtremedood is a bit of an overenthusiastic new editor, whose infractions are nothing unusual. He made a series of POV edits here, which I queried on the talk page. When he didn't respond after a few days, I reverted them. On the AfD for Battle of Rajasthan, his original point was well-made and I supported deletion initially. His overenthusiasm shows in the huge number of posts he made on the AfD page (something like 60-70 in a week). But the subject is a tricky one. So, on balance, we decided to retain the page but work on the content and the somewhat problematic page title. I think a mild warning to be a bit more cooperative with the other editors is all that is needed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Xtremedood[edit]
|
TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]
Closing with no action, but also no review of the actual complaint, see closing notes for detailed explanation Zad68 14:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]
Refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing per WP:BATTLEGROUND or accept the validity of the Arbitration Committee's findings[edit]
Adds an anti-Gamergate "flag" to their user page[edit]
Continues battleground behavior[edit]
In response to the comments above, they're politely reminded to avoid battleground behavior[edit]
Continues despite reminder[edit]
Additional[edit]
While these linked edits are the most recent and problematic this editor's contributions to the topic area are generally unconstructive and combative. I encourage those reviewing to confirm this with their own random sampling of contributions since the official admonishment. In summary: the result of the sanction seems to have had little or no effect on the editor's BATTLEGROUND mentality, only a reduction in the frequency with which they post in the topic area. The several months elapsed since their sanction, their inapparent change in attitude and their reluctance to avoid the topic area or accept the committee's findings of wrongdoing suggest only explicit prohibition will eliminate this disruption. I expect arguments in opposition will focus on my status as an IP editor rather than the substance of my filing, suggesting the message is less important than the messenger. Such arguments should be weighed accordingly. I expect secondary criticism for not constructively engaging on the editor's talk page prior to filing. Please note the editor's pattern of dismissing or ignoring rather frequent criticisms on their talk page from more respected editors, across a broad range of topics, then consider the likely effect an IP editor's comments would have. 168.1.75.18 (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Responses[edit]@MarkBernstein: Your allegation of "off-wiki planning" is baseless. Either provide evidence or redact the claim. 107.77.70.115 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom[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 TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]It seems far more likely that this IP editor is treating Wikipedia as a battleground than TRPoD is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC) It's worth noting that the IP who claims to be the same IP as that which originally posted this request did not register an account (or, perhaps, use their original account) because they were worried that they'd be blocked. Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]Clearly without merit, this appears to be mere sour grapes in a familiar content dispute. What is interesting here is the apparent tactic of coming to AE from a phony or hidden account with no history; instead of “throwaway” accounts used in the past, this time we seem to have a true Teflon account which cannot be sanctioned. If that’s true, it’s yet another example of how Gamergate is publishing a roadmap that can be used by more professional and resourceful organizations to subvert the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Oh -- and calling down the sanction hammer for referring obliquely to sea lions, not to mention the concerted off-wiki planning carried on in plain sight of all -- would deserve plenty of trout, has the complaining party not taken steps to appear here wearing a trout-proof raincoat as a disguise. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Starship.paint[edit]Is anybody actually reading the diffs as they are explained now? Try focusing on the message and not the messenger; an offense is the same no matter who reports it. The diffs show me a consistent history of inflammatory comments, of which some seem to be written in anger. We need to lessen the heat in this area. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]I am very concerned about grievances brought to this venue by an IP who cannot in any way be held accountable for their actions, or even be easily identified from moment to moment. I know this is not the place to discuss it, but I would be in favor of not allowing dynamic IPs to participate here unless they create an account. BMK (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by GregJackP[edit]I do not believe that a dynamic IP should have standing to file this complaint. Especially since the articles in question don't allow editing by IPs. Let them create an account if they want to file. GregJackP Boomer! 01:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (anonymous)[edit]@Beyond My Ken: @GregJackP: @Zad68: I cannot believe what I am reading. Shame on you all for suggesting such absurd, unjust, perversions of policy and the very fundamental principles Wikipedia is based upon. Is this or is this not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? "Setting a precedent" is irrelevant. That IPs haven't brought action before is no reason to suppose there is any prohibition against them doing so. I see no such regulation. The default assumption is that IP editors can do anything that editors with accounts can do - that is why pages are "protected" against the IP edits that are possible by default, not "opened" to editing by IPs. If Wikipedia doesn't like this then the WMF should stop pretending to run an open encyclopedia and require an account for any modification. The question of the filer possibly avoiding scrutiny is an obvious and pointless distraction. Even if it were immediately evident that the filer had done something wrong, it would not reflect on any judgment of TheRedPenOfDoom. The idea that "standing" is required to bring a complaint is also absurd. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and pointing it out should not require being directly affected by it. As for contacting TRPoD directly to "address the behaviour"? Have you looked at how many diffs there are? Have you considered that this is in the aftermath of an Arbcom proceeding where "battleground behaviour" was explicitly one of the issues examined? How many times do people need to be told to behave themselves? Besides which, the IP already illustrated that someone else attempted this in the interim. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Dumuzid[edit]As a very recent editor, I thought I'd give impressions from a slightly different perspective. First of all, the bar to getting an account on Wikipedia is astoundingly low. It is not a great injustice to ask that a person be minimally responsible for their actions when they try to adversely affect someone else's rights. Being the encyclopedia anyone can edit does not mean that Wikipedia should be institutionally blind to the relative merit of contributors. Allowing anonymous third parties to bring enforcement actions, especially based on "battleground conduct," is to invite chaos. I'd go so far as to say "Battleground behavior" complaints should be limited to those who allege they have been directly affected by said conduct, but that's not the question here. Standing is a useful concept for a reason, and I think it is utterly lacking here. But I will of course defer to the wiser wikipedians among us! Dumuzid (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by zzuuzz[edit]I am only tangentially involved through the block of the filer. I find the IP editor's credentials lacking. The reliance on a proxy then a mobile phone is unconvincing. Perhaps we could say to accuse someone of battleground behaviour you need to first be in the war. This resembles the behaviour of a blocked or banned user who has been in the war and is trying to evade something. I think IP editors are entirely entitled to lodge complaints, however I do not believe at this time that this unregistered user is an IP editor (we have ways of classifying dynamic IP editors). A new account will not be convincing either. This complaint, which I have no intention of reading, will need support from someone else if it is to stick, in my opinion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]Without any regard at all concerning the merits of the actual complaint, I am concerned about setting a precedent for allowing this sort of AE filing by a dynamic IP editor with no provable history of editing alongside the named editor, especially in this particular topic area. There's a surprising number of topic-bans, IBANs, editors with relevant block log entries and histories of bad behavior. I have gone through the AE archives and reviewed the last dozen pages of AE filings, about 3+ months worth, 75 cases. Not a single one of them was filed by an IP, and I found at least two cases where the filer was a very young account and the case handling was colored against the filer for that reason. Points raised were that it was impossible to tell whether the young-account filer was a sock of a blocked or topic-banned user, or had created an alternate account to avoid scrutiny of their own edits. With this filing by a dynamic IP, the same issues apply: How can I tell whether the IP is being operated by a topic-banned or IBANned editor who would have no standing to bring this complaint? Would allowing this case to move forward set a precedent that would encourage those with "unclean hands" in this area to start filing cases as IPs? What's worse is that not only is the Gamergate controversy not editable by IPs, Talk:Gamergate controversy itself isn't editable by IPs. And I don't see any IPs from the filer's range attempting to address the issue with TRPoD on their User Talk page. This is really too much for me to believe that this IP editor is simply an innocent bystander who happened to notice something and bring it to AE's attention. I am very strongly leaning toward closing this without action, but without prejudice against having an editor with standing of bringing a complaint.
I understand the argument "Who cares how the request gets filed, just look at the diffs" but that ignores the real concerns of opening up AE to misuse, which would degrade the usefulness of the process and lead to damage to the encyclopedia.
I note in this closing that the actual merits of the complaint have not been reviewed, this is a procedural close.
|
TheRedPenOfDoom, second filing[edit]
Filing by topic-banned editor rejected Zad68 13:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]
Refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing per WP:BATTLEGROUND or accept the validity of the Arbitration Committee's findings[edit]
Adds an anti-Gamergate "flag" to their user page[edit]
Continues battleground behavior[edit]
In response to the comments above, they're politely reminded to avoid battleground behavior[edit]
Continues despite reminder[edit]
Additional[edit]
Reposting the Ip's thing because people only focused on the fact that they were an IP, so im reposting it because i dont give a flying fuck if i violate my ban or not because lets face it: i lost the will to edit due to GG. I suspect that this too will be ignored because i'm topic banned and ill probably get sanctioned because of it. @PeterTheFourth: none of those diffs have me calling TRPOD a "fag", also nce speed, you collect diffs on everyone that you dislike? And i Dont care if i get banned. Retartist 10:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&diff=662281028&oldid=662259524
Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom[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 TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]See here and here for actual battleground combat by the filer of this request e.g. calling TRPoD a 'faggot'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Relevant question: is a topic banned editor eligible to file requests for the sanctioning of other editors based on what happened in that topic area? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Lukeno94[edit]
Statement by Andy Dingley[edit]I too have no stake in this particular case. However I've had a fair bit of experience with Red Pen before, at the usual variety of articles for such a prolific editor. I cannot think of an example of his editing, on any topic, where he has not exemplified the very worst of "battleground mentality". I first encountered him at List of unusual deaths, where the article history and long talk: archives are a prime example of his editing style: focussed on ego, self-aggrandisement and the application of petty bureaucracy and wikilawyering to push his personal viewpoint. I have never yet seen him editing in a way simply to improve an encylopedia, except when it was shoving a (usually hardline deletionist) agenda. As to Retartist's re-filing of this, then I commend him for that. This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (even with all the collateral damage that brings to articles) and we start restricting that over politically sensitive topics like this at our peril. I believe that those trying to quash enforcement action here, when there is so clearly a case to answer, are acting awfully close to hushing up a case because they're defending the editor involved, and not through the claimed reasons for why IPs aren't now allowed to raise cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq[edit]Retartist is ' Upon examination, the shotgun diffs do not live up to their claims. The February/March diffs are old and tame—the excited description of "Nazi" is entirely incorrect because the mention of superior orders was with regard to the well-known "I was just following orders" defense which is a criticism of a line of reasoning, not a "you're a nazi!" attack. The 5 May 2015 diff ("the THIRTY FUCKING SIX pages of archives are more than enough evidence that what the page DOES NOT NEED is more rehashing of the same baseless position") is entirely appropriate when read in context and is certainly not "Insults fellow editor". Would admins reviewing this request please browse the section concerned: Talk:Gamergate controversy#Topic Shift: to hat or not to hat (and the Topic original can go archive) (permalink). Complaining about TRDOD's response misses the point that the entire section (particularly given the thirty six pages of archives!) is a misuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Masem[edit]As directly involved/engaged, I believe that tRPoD (among others, but he's the only one there that has been specifically under sanction) is continuing a battleground attitude to the page, but to a degree that the isolated incidents that I observed would be difficult to make a proper case out of and were far from bright line problems. But ignoring the issues with how this case was filed (and if it is a meritable filing), the total sum shows the same attitudes and behaviors that those that were sanctioned on the actual cases were behaving as: that is, a refusal to discuss anything that isn't within their primary narrative, shutting down discussions and showing contempt for the Gamergate supporters/movement that are the key subject for the article and thus a possible COI with editing the article. To take what Johnuniq has pointed out, I'm fully aware there's 36 archive talk pages (Heck, I found a academic study that analyzed the nature of the GG article talk page discussion as of January, that's how much data there is), and in context of that specific thread, it was frustration with an editor that felt the thread should have been kept open and was edit warring the hatting of the thread on the talk page to do so. But in context of the larger picture, this is a sign of how tRPoD does not want to engage in discussions of any point contrary to how the current article's narrative is. As per the original case and the proposed issues that some editors had with me, ArbCom recognized that talk is completely the right place to discuss issues with the article instead of edit warring. Trying to shut down discussion by saying "there's 36 pages of archives!" is not helpful particularly if they are coming from new voices to the article discussion. Yes, many of these are the same "the article is biased, fix it!" with no followup or actionable points, and that is weary - hence why we have a talk page FAQ to point these people to. But this is not true for all such new contributors. This is the same behavior that people like Ryulong and NSBS were engaged with - they didn't want to hear there were any problems with the article and would refuse to engage in dispute resolution processes. Mind you, this is a difficult article to write under our policies and as it involves potential BLP we have to be careful, but policies (outside BLP) are not hard-fast rules, and editors like tRPoD are using such policies as a tool to shut down discussion rather than a starting point to figure out how best to write the article in a objective neutral manner. That is not helpful and fuels the battleground mentality that the case warned about before. This might be the normal approach tRPoD uses per Andy above and might be okay in other areas of WP that aren't as contentious, but on the GG talk page, it is not warranted particularly in light of the Arbcom decision. Whether this is actionable at this time, I really don't know - as fully engaged, I have not reached a point where I felt a ArbCom request like this was necessary - but if we're going to leave this request open for comment, this seems like the right place to mention these issues. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]
Filing by topic-banned editor rejected. Masem if you'd like to draw up your own request, feel free. |
