EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) (→Statement by EvergreenFir: save; more to come) |
|||
Line 638: | Line 638: | ||
[[User:Baxter329|Baxter329]] ([[User talk:Baxter329|talk]]) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
[[User:Baxter329|Baxter329]] ([[User talk:Baxter329|talk]]) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
I see that [[User:FDW777]] just said, "Conveniently demonstrating the "general cluelessness and failure to listen" I mentioned, they twice say here that "no one has given any valid explanation" as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless." |
|||
That's the problem - you're "speechless." |
|||
I have repeatedly asked for a reason why Patrisse Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" section of [[Patrisse Cullors]]. It is precisely your being "speechless" that I am objecting to. I have repeatedly asked why this content should not be included in "Ideology and policy positions" section of [[Patrisse Cullors]]. And you have not given a legitimate reason. You are indeed being "speechless," and that is the problem. Please "speak." Please give a legitimate reason why Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in "Ideology and policy positions" section of [[Patrisse Cullors]]. [[User:Baxter329|Baxter329]] ([[User talk:Baxter329|talk]]) 23:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by EvergreenFir==== |
====Statement by EvergreenFir==== |
Revision as of 23:20, 26 February 2022
Mzajac
I think Paul Siebert summed it up well "... I see not much problem with you as a user (in that sense, this request may be seen as frivolous), but I am not sure your behaviour is consistent with your admin's status."
WP:AE is not authorized to review or sanction for WP:ADMINACCT directly. Because of this, yes, the filing was premature, for if Mzajac was not an admin, the request would be considered trivial and no sanction would be forthcoming. In my opinion, the behavior of Mzajac (as an admin) was extremely subpar and it appears to be an ongoing issue. We just can't do anything about it here. Only WP:RFAR may review instances of "Repeated or consistent poor judgment" outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. Whether it is ripe for Arbitration or not, I do not know, as that is a pretty high threshold. I'm not going to bother to warn or instruct Mzajac, for as an admin, they are expected to know what the standard of conduct is, even when they have so woefully failed to live up to it. I am closing without action because there is no action we can take here that would be appropriate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 19 February 2022 (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 Mzajac
Discussion concerning MzajacStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MzajacRe: User:Paul Siebert, composing a reply to this enforcement request will take more of my time and attention than individual article edits in spare moments. I hope you can appreciated that this is serious and not something I can just rattle off. —Michael Z. 04:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Paul SiebertFirst, to save space, I just provide a link to this my post [2]. I don't think calling other users "reactionary" should be considered a serious violation. However, I propose to take a look at that from different perspective.
In connection to that, I am wondering how can all of that be consistent with admin's status?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Mzajac
|
Venkat TL
Those involved are reminded to moderate their tone, and to refrain from edit warring. While no further action is necessary at this time, it could become so if those issues continue to be disruptive. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 19 February 2022 (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 Venkat TL
I got to read about this all after the notification made by this editor on a familiar noticeboard. With so much disruption in an entire day, I think this editor is unfit to contribute to this contentious topic area.
Discussion concerning Venkat TLStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Venkat TLTLDR: A list of minor stuff and content disputes have been grossly misrepresented and editorialized by User:Abhishek0831996 in his report to make them appear as though they are 'chronic, intractable problems'. The attempt is to paint a sinister picture. All this because, I believe User:Abhishek0831996 did not like the article I created. Full response: User:Abhishek0831996 has published this list of diffs on a mobile, I think it is not easy to do this on a mobile, so credits to Abhishek0831996 for his dedication, time and efforts. I have never come across this user Abhishek0831996. So this report by him came as a surprise and looks very odd to me. Before bringing this to the admin page, Abhishek0831996 never discussed his concerns with me on my user talk page, where I could have explained and resolved every concerns he had about me and my intentions. Straightaway bringing this to the Admin Arbitration page for admin action, makes me suspect that, Abhishek0831996's intention here is not to resolve the situation or find a solution but the intention is to snipe me, using gross misrepresentation of the actual facts. Why? I have no idea, but my guess would be probably because he did not like the article I had created. Whatever the case may be, here is my side of the story.
I conclude saying I have acted in good faith with best intentions and contributed constructively. I will be happy to elaborate more if any further clarification is needed from me. Please ping me when you ask the question. Venkat TL (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by CapnJackSp@RegentsPark and Stifle: But see how Venkat TL has failed to justify the misrepresentation of source as evidenced on diff no.1.[22] He claims that the CNN source supported his statement when it didn't. See the discussion at Talk:Bulli Bai case#February 2022. I would also mention that just 4 days ago Venkat TL was reported on edit warring noticeboard, where he was asked to stop with personal attacks[23] and the report evidenced that he was undoubtedly edit warring. The diffs cited on this report came after this yet another recent episode of disruption. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by usernameResult concerning Venkat TL
|
Hemantha
All editors are reminded that (1) various WP:DR processes exist to help resolve content dispute; (2) that it is best to come to AE only if you can demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior across multiple articles; and (3) WP:AGF --RegentsPark (comment) 17:47, 22 February 2022 (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 Hemantha
The user created his account in 2013 but started any serioous editing in only November 2021. He came to the page on 2022 Karnataka hijab row on 15 February, roughly a week after it was created, and started contesting bits of existing content, claiming it to be WP:OR. In all cases, the sources do support the content in some form, even though they might be open to interpretation. Wholesale deletion would be uncalled for. For this little bit of contribution to the main page, he made some 32 posts on the talk page between 15 February and 17 February (and apparently 8 more posts today). As an example of how this discussion goes, we can look at the discussion concerning diff 4 above, where it is apparent that content was supported by the cited source from the beginning, but the editor is not satisfied despite being shown several quotes from the source for support. Rise in student numbers is a commonplace phenomenon worldwide, and is in no way central to this dispute. No good faith editor should be arguing such details. (By the way, a later paragraph in the #Background section gives statistics for the rise in numbers, along with a comprehensive source.) He has argued about the spelling of a Kannada word, despite the fact that spellings stated were as in the cited sources. After having argued till yesteray that negotiations happened in December, today he started supporting the idea that ban was decided in January. If the ban happened only in January, what was being negotiated in December? It wouldn't make sense. He has even edit-warred over where a reflist-talk box should go on the talk page! And there was discussion on it on my user talk as well. Ever since he came on the scene, all new writing of content has stopped, despite new developments taking place practically everyday. We are having to spend all our time arguing with him. His overall profile shows a similar trend, with low contributions (37%) to the main space. His top edited page in the mainspace shows only deletions, no new content. His other editing is similar as well. Despite being clever and quite capable, this editor is showing only tendencies of WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Aquillion, all conduct issues ride on content issues to some extent (unless it is egregious misconduct). The point here is that the editor's tendency to do zero content work, but to engage in endless haranguing on the talk pages is in effect a WP:heckler's veto, and is obstructing other people's content work. The objection to "instigators" terminology is fine. I haven't contested it. But (a) adding tags like I have worked on enough contentious pages for long enough that I know what disputes are. These are not "disputes". This is just mindless haranguing. He did it again this morning by the way, and he also deleted the content for which RegentsPark said "what the heck is Hemantha going on about". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning HemanthaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HemanthaAbout the diffs reported here:
Rest of the screed by filer shows more about his own behavior than requiring any serious response from me. I note only that he is synthesizing two sources when he connects statistics about student numbers to the claim that "a rise required uniforms". While I wouldn't see these as nitpicks, I agree with Tayi that these weren't major on Feb 15th. But then, I was reverted on each one of them with no basis at all. Apart from the one on CFI/SDPI, I had no idea that any of my edits touched the filer's contributions until I was reverted. My vocalness on talk (though do note, filer himself had 40+ posts in the 4 days before my involvement) stems both from the stonewalling and from a previous discussion (possibly the roots of this filing) where the filer's disdain for Wikipedia sourcing policy and his attitude of making up his own rules was made evident to me(diff) The objection to NYT in this instance on flimsy basis also shows how he regards sources not aligned with his POV and the talk shows the lengths to which he will stonewall minor corrections. If I were to take an opportunity to present diffs (some samples) of filer's own (as well as WP:OWN) behavior in this instance, should I file a new report or can it be done here? Hemantha (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Venkat TLTLDR : Misuse of 'Arbitration Request' by OP to snipe an opponent of content dispute, instead of trying Dispute resolution. I have been involved in multiple debates/discussions/disputes etc with Hemantha on article talk pages and Wikiproject pages. I have always found Hemantha to be a productive contributor who provides constructive feedback and engages in discussion in good faith with an aim to steer the discussion towards consensus. The article being discussed in this dispute is a very controversial article that is still progressing as more facts are coming out as days progress. It is understandable that the participants will have objections and disputes. The discussions on its talk page are a clear indication of the controversial nature of the page. On this article, Kautilya3 has not been acting as a saint either. Kautilya3 has already used Admin boards inappropriately in an attempt to snipe his opponents and get rid of them as a way out of content dispute. Few days back he had filed an inappropriate and made up Edit war report against me combining diffs of Copyvio reverts and already resolved disputes in trying to misrepresent the situation and painted a grim picture. Unfortunately for him the admins did not buy his claims and the report was closed as No action. This Arbitration Request also appears to me as a second exercise with a similar goal to snipe a content dispute opponent. Instead of going for Dispute Resolution to resolve content disputes, Kautilya3 runs to admin boards and file complaints like this. Perhaps it has worked for him in past. I suggest the admins to also evaluate the behavior of Kautilya3 on this article before making any conclusion on his reports. Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Tayi ArajakateI've headache by now and my interest in their dispute is mostly gone. Long story short, it started with a dispute over using an NYT article where Kautilya won't budge on using it which was followed by Hemantha essentially trying to nitpick some of Kautilya's other edits over which neither of them wants to budge. But yeah, this should just be kicked back to the article's talk pages considering there isn't any serious conduct issue from either of them. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by CapnJackSpI’ll split my remarks into two separate sections, one for my opinions and one for some issues raised by editors. Personally, I would by and large agree with Kautilya3 here. Hemantha has been arguing over minute differences in terminology, with suggested rewordings being rejected outright. To me, often it seems the case of “my way or the highway”. Rewordings of the source are tagged as OR, and if written in a manner similar to the source it’s CLOP. Leaves little space for editing, especially in an ongoing matter. This pattern was experienced before as well, during the creation of the Tek Fog page, where Hemantha raised irrelevant issues and ground to a halt any attempts to make constructive edits, demanding a consensus on every edit and then stalling DR on the talk page with WP:BLUDGEONING [a]. Till the intervention of editor Kautilya3, the article maintained a version grossly violating NPOV, with OR and SYNTH encompassing large parts of the material. As for the remarks made by Venkat TL, I find them rather distasteful. Instead of the issues at hand, Venkat has somehow dismissed them on account of his personal opinions. His statements here appear extremely misleading - The edit warring notice against him was closed on a technical point, since he had stopped edit warring post filing of the report. Edit warring is clearly visible from the diffs provided. Venkat falsely accuses the OP of filing illegitimate reports. Venkat’s own report on ANI against me as well as his repeated misleading statements can be accessed here[b] TLDR- Edits made are not generally aligned with the good faith expected of editors. Sanctions left to the discretion of the admins.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by AquillionUnless I'm missing something, this just looks like a standard content dispute; AE isn't the venue to determine whether something is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH or not unless the situation is so clear-cut that one side is plainly WP:STONEWALLING, lacks WP:COMPETENCE, or is otherwise violating conduct policies. That doesn't seem to be the case here. In particular "instigators" is very WP:EXCEPTIONAL language (you're blaming the entire incident on those groups) which requires high-quality sources that unambiguously say the same thing. I'm not saying they're definitely correct, just that at a glance it's obviously not something so clear-cut as to be a conduct issue. Hash it out on talk, and if you're at loggerheads then have an RFC to call in additional opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Iskandar323I also couldn't help but notice that this appears to be an almost pure content dispute with no evidence of anything AE-worthy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Hemantha
|
Kautilya3
Withdrawn by filer.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:42, 22 February 2022 (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 Kautilya3Thinking more about this, while I still stand by my statement, since there is no possible scenario where a 70k+edits editor is going to be action-ed here on the basis of 5-6 contested diffs from someone like me, I do not want to waste others' time as he has done mine. I'd like to WITHDRAW the following report, with apologies for those who already did go through this. Hemantha (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
(all bolding in quotes mine)
He has expressed his own novel interpretations of WP:RS previously to disregard sources he doesn't like. Above diffs show that lackadaisical (at best) attitude towards source-text integrity in mainspace edits. But since it is employed to push specific convictions, I believe they require scrutiny. The WP:OWN behavior shown by the bristling at corrections, minor or major, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of filing reports (two in the past week - on me, on Venkat) make civil attempts at countering the POV push unduly difficult. Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kautilya3Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kautilya3Please put this on hold for a couple of days as I am quite busy in RL at the moment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by AquillionEverything that applies above applies here, too; this is basically a content dispute. Also, most of the time if you feel the filer is at fault for problems in the specific dispute they brought to AE, it makes more sense to suggest a WP:BOOMERANG than to start another section - but either way, this doesn't reach that point. Simply being wrong (assuming they are wrong) or having idiosyncratic views on how a source can be used isn't enough for something to be a conduct issue on its own; they have to be so obviously wrong that it either strains good faith or raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. None of that applies there - if we brought AE sanctions against users for stuff of this level, controversial topic areas would have almost no editors left. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Venkat TL@Aquillion: With the 500 word limit to the response in place. I don't think it is possible to merge the two requests. --Venkat TL (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Kautilya3
|
Nobita456
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Nobita456
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ekdalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Nobita456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:CASTE
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 08Feb22_1 & 08Feb22_2 Edit warring with neutral trusted editor, attempting POV pushing
- 14Feb22 continued with edit warring
- 09Feb22 Another one, incorrect edit summary, LukeEmily who added the tag was okay with it's removal, please check 06Feb22
- 21Feb22 Misinformation; in spite of having discussion with Sitush, misrepresenting the fact saying I only opposed their proposed section; please check conversation with Sitush here
- 22Feb22 Raising duplicate discussion at WP:RSN as pointed out by LukeEmily just in order to push caste agenda
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Nobita456 is a suspected sock of Bengaliwikipro & their sockfarm, meant for POV pushing related to Baidya/Vaidya. CU has used the term 'Possilikely'; please check here. Admins are literally frustrated; please check here as well as here and even suggested topic ban here. Suggestion by senior editor e.g. this. IMO, Nobita456, whether a sock or not, is not here to build an encyclopedia; rather active only in order to push caste related personal agenda.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Nobita456
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Nobita456
- Ekdalian almost tried every admin to block me but failed and now this.First he tried me to block for socking but failed. just because I exposed his POV in caste related articles he is getting frustrated with me. that guy using old sources to push his POV in wikipedia. I try to do conversation with other users before doing my edis. many users even thanked me for my edits. admins even warned Ekdalian for filing complain against me everyday,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Further Ekdalin reverted my sourced edits see. LukeEmily said it was well sourced see. other Editors Satnam and Chanchaldm also agreed with me see 1 2. I even initiated a RFC after that. Nobita456 (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown this guy Ekdalian almost in every discussion try to represent me as a sockpuppet and do personal attacks on me like I am POV pusher. Nobita456 (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Now Trangabellam who also accused me of socking filing another case against me. Please note I already identified and fixed his faulty edits in Badiya article (like citing a direct census in a caste article and giving half information), Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Another user edited the Baidya article but Trangabellam except him thinks everyone is a POV pusher.how can he revert sourced content by saying this?
- It is all Wikipedia editor's right including me to verify sourced content, That's why I enquired about Hag nothing else. I even said if the source is reliable then I have no problem with that. Wikipedia is a platform that asks every editor to contribute, If Trangabellam reverts everyone's sourced content like this, then it is very hard for editors like us to contribute. Nobita456 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Vanamonde the block I got for edit war was really unintentional, though I should not have done that, after getting some experience and advice by Admins I really think edit war is a foolish thing to do. I promised it will not happen again and I will definitely follow it. and regarding the primary source any senior admin could have advised me not to put that as you advised me. but editors were too busy to complain against me. anyway I apologize for those actions, I really beg your pardon as a new editor who is still learning the rules of Wikipedia. and why my edits are limited to a subject I explained to Regendspark park on his talk page. please see it. I will definitely try to broaden my edit range, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ekdalian you are again cherry-picking Sitush comments, admins please see what Sitush actually said, He said
does that mean Rejecting? again a misinterpretation by Ekdalian? Further Sitush SaidI don't understand why a separate section would be required
@Nobita456 :I am not interested. As I have said on a few occasions recently, I am using the app at the moment and it isn't great for tracking pings, reading convoluted discussions, or checking diffs.
what does that mean? he is not able to judge it for his technical issues. After that I even initiated a talk section to gain consensus, LukeEmily did a great job there. The content-related dispute should not be taken here unless I edit war Or proven misinterpretation or use unreliable sources But He is trying to divert the admin's concentration from this. and regarding Socks, I cant see every intention of them, and defend myself one by one against it. Every editor do some grammar or spelling mistakes so what does that mean? Everyone is a sockpuppet? I already gave my comments at Sockpuppet Investigation before. Ekdalian is not talking about contents in the article's talk page as well But busy complaining here Trying their best to prove me shocking Which is already rejected. I can completely delete Hutton for which he doesn't have consensus WP:RSN See. But I did not remove it completely. Because it is essential. I am here to contribute to Wikipedia. It is very hard for me to defend myself every day against your repeated allegations. Nobita456 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ekdalian
I have said "Nobita456 is a suspected sock of Bengaliwikipro & their sockfarm, meant for POV pushing related to Baidya/Vaidya. CU has used the term 'Possilikely'." Dennis Brown, I have never claimed that the CU linked Nobita456 with a sockmaster. How do you say, "I find your representation of that SPI report to be very misleading and a real problem. That is the kind of misrepresentation that can backfire on you at WP:AE, and can even get YOU sanctioned." Did I misrepresent what CU said? They used the term 'Possilikely', that's the reason I used the term 'suspected sock'. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by TrangaBellam
Please keep this open for a couple of days. I have a case to make against Nobita456. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am quite busy in RL but let me draw your attention to the latest antic of Nobita456 to have a source declared as unreliable, as emblematic of their worrying levels of incompetency:
- A cursory Google search should have led Nobita456 to Haag's faculty-profile at one of the most prestigious grandes écoles of social sciences in France, which has —
Chaire : Psychologie et linguistique dans le monde indien:
[..] Une reprise d’études l’a amenée à un doctorat en Études indiennes (2002) et ses recherches ont porté principalement, jusqu’en 2011, sur la grammaire sanskrite, la philosophie du langage et l’histoire des théories linguistique indiennes [..]
- The publisher (D.K. Printworld) is mentioned in our citations in the proper format but yet Nobita456 requests that we provide the name of publisher. Sealioning?
- Anyway, LukeEmily gave a decent reply and emphasized that a monograph written by a UPenn faculty and published by University of Chicago Press (Mukharji) had explicitly urged readers to consult Haag's work for a detailed discussion of Baidya mobility, thus being an obvious indicator of Haag's reliability. Nobita456's reply is borderline incoherent wherein one of the claims is that Haag's book was
not published by a publisher
.
- The energy expended in these pointless discussions is a strain on the few editors who patrol these topics. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- A cursory Google search should have led Nobita456 to Haag's faculty-profile at one of the most prestigious grandes écoles of social sciences in France, which has —
Statement by Vanamonde
I do not consider myself INVOLVED here, but I'm posting in this section as I'm contributing evidence, and I don't have the time to evaluate all of Nobita's conduct. I have had two exchanges with Nobita about their use of sources; 1, 2. In both instances, they were not being sufficiently careful to avoid original research, and more importantly, did not at any point acknowledge that they had overstepped. I would not impose a sanction for those instances alone, but some editors participating here may wish to read those conversations. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ekdalian (additional behavioral evidence)
RegentsPark, Bishonen, I am posting here once again considering RegentsPark's remarks on behavioural evidence, and keeping this open for further comments. I would like to highlight some conclusive (IMO) behavioral pattern since as per CU as well, "Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)". Admins may not have the time to devote in order to dig deeper into behavioral evidence. I am thankful that RegentsPark pointed out the same & mentioned about the cursory look by the admin concerned, not just looking at the last statement by CU & drawing conclusions! Thanks Bishonen for your continuous support! Coming to the behavioral evidence: Bengaliwikipro and their socks showed unusual interest on Baidya, and another article Bengali Kayastha since they had inter caste rivalry during medieval times (regarding who ranks higher after Brahmins in Bengal); agenda is to promote Baidya (puffery) & demote Kayasthas (caste war in 2022)!
- 1 as rightly pointed out by TrangaBellam while rejecting Nobita's proposed section.
- 2 Comments by Sitush clearly rejecting the proposed section, but misinterpreted (seems intentional) by Nobita. Sitush mentioned he could not submit his opinion on Bengali Kayastha talk page through his app, having trouble with pings, diffs & viewing convoluted discussions, and Nobita's interpretation is this on Talk:Bengali Kayastha.
- 3 comments by Gorezka46 (another sock of Bengaliwikipro), who similarly showed interest on Bengali Kayastha apart from Baidya.
- Behavioural evidence, random comments by Nobita, 1, 2, same pattern be it talk page comments or edit summary; just have a look at the sentences; none of the sentence begin with Caps after full stop. Same is evident for Bengaliwikipro & their socks e.g. Miller110's edit summary 3, Biplop4568's edit summary 4, in fact the sockmaster Bengaliwikipro's edit summary 5, also Nobita's edit summary 6, Miller110's talk page comments 7, Nobita's comments on RegentsPark's talk page 8 all follow the same behavioral pattern; no Caps even after full stop! It is actually difficult to hide your writing pattern (equivalent to signature); next time they would be cautious though.
Also, namimg convention as pointed out by TrangaBellam during the recent CU discussions, almost all the socks have similar naming convention, please check TB:s comments, "Another interesting similarity lies in the user names: 6 alphabets concatenated to 3 numbers. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)".
I guess it's too lengthy (since behavioral pattern requires details); can cite more, but I believe this is enough! Admins, you may remove/archive my comments after going through the same. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning Nobita456
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Let's take it point by point, using your numbering system.
- 1. I see a little revert jockeying, in the article as a whole, including some self-reverts by Nabita and others. I don't see this as edit warring at this stage, although several editors need to be careful.
- 2. A single revert, putting existing material back into the article. For the most part, that content is still in the article now.
- 3. You are kind of misrepresenting what LukeEmily said here. He didn't say he was ok with removal, he qualified it with a condition. It's a bit in the eye of the beholder, but it isn't a clear cut declaration or misprepresentation.
- 4. You're just linking your own comment, which doesn't provide any info.
- 5. As for raising issues at WP:RSN that have already been answered, I don't see how that is so disruptive, unless it was massive amounts.
- The article is very active, lots of bumping here and there, but I'm not seeing the kind of activity that rises to the level that requires strong sanctions at WP:AE. It is normal in caste articles to have strong opinions and disagreement, but the talk page is being used, and while there is a little sparring with the revert button, it's doesn't seem to be genuinely disruptive. While sometimes heated, I don't see what is outside the norm here. Is there something I'm missing? Something bigger than what is here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm looking around and seeing lots of prior episodes with Nabita, but I may just have a higher tolerance than some admin on articles like this. I'm of the mind set that if you over-enforce, you only encourage the passive aggressive POV pushers and you lose balance in the article. This isn't saying Nabita is a model editor. Still, it looks like other admin have blocked them already, so I'm still not sure if WP:AE is the right answer if other methods are being used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- One thing I forgot to point out, Ekdalian, is the claim that the CU linked Nobita456 with a sockmaster. You focus on this initial possible link but completely dismiss the actually finding by the CU: "I came back to this and took another look at Nobita456. I don't see anything that convinces me they're a sock,..." I find your representation of that SPI report to be very misleading and a real problem. That is the kind of misrepresentation that can backfire on you at WP:AE, and can even get YOU sanctioned. CU is difficult on SE Asia topics for technical reasons, which is why Roy was so careful and came back after doing some extra homework. I don't fault him, particularly since he didn't do a hit and run on the CU, but dug deeper. I'm more inclined to follow his last sentence in that report, rather than his first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ekdalian, you need to read more carefully, for your own benefit. In the end, the CU said that a link is unlikely. For you to come here and try to use the first half of a report to cast aspersions against another editor is unacceptable. I don't suggest you take this line of action again, or it will result in sanctions against you. Don't cherry pick parts of a report just to make someone look bad. This whole report is starting to look like an attempt by you to take out an opponent. Nabita is no saint and needs to be more careful, but your own actions are suspect enough that you would be best to listen to what is being said, and like the CU report, not just hear what you want to hear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Getting a bit more light on the subject. This wasn't helped by the exaggerations by Ekdalian, which hurts their own argument and makes it look as if you are trying to take out an opponent, something we see too often here. One person who has been around the topic area a great deal and is experienced (and who I am familiar with and trust), is Sitush. I would like to hear his perspective, if he would be so generous with his time. There are obviously problems here, that was obvious from the start, but I'm not sure how deep these problems run. It is one thing to ask the same things twice because you forgot or didn't understand, and another to do it solely to bog things down, and that is one of the things I'm trying to determine: which is it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nobita456, I strongly advise you to cool it with the incremental posting here. You have 500 words, which you may need later. Don't waste them with stuff like complaining about a comment from TrangaBellam that doesn't even exist yet..! Please note that it will not be welcome if you later blank your own previous comments to make space for new, as that would wrongfoot people who have already commented on your comments. So please think before you post, and weigh your words. (I'll have more to say later, I hope.) Bishonen | tålk 12:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC).
- I'm looking at the SPI report linked to by Ekdalian and it seems to me that there was no behavioral evaluation (except for a cursory look by Ed). Add the poss/likely and I'm willing to cut Ekdalian some slack in quoting that report. Nobita456 has edited almost exclusively in the Baidya caste sphere and appears to be a constant fixture on Talk:Baidya and that is concerning (both Bishonen and I did advise them to broaden their interests but that hasn't really happened). I think we should wait and see what other editors (@LukeEmily and TrangaBellam:) have to say before drawing any conclusions. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Baxter329
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Baxter329
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Baxter329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 23:33, 23 February 2022 At Patrisse Cullors ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), adds text
In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist."
They had been informed here and here of the Rfc at Talk:Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?, and after saying here thatI am considering adding the Politifact quote of her saying she's a "trained Marxist" to the Patrisse Cullors article
they were also told here thatI would strongly recommend against adding the quote at Patrisse Cullors
. But they went ahead and did it anyway. - 23:15, 21 February 2022 Adds WP:LEAD violation at Black Lives Matter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 22:03, 22 February 2022 Re-adds material from diff#2 without consensus (I'd probably give them a pass on that since it was removed without any explanation, just including it for thoroughness)
- 22:52, 22 February 2022 Re-adds material from diff#2 despite it being specifically challenged on WP:LEAD, lack of consensus from previous talk page discussions and WP:ONUS. See also talk page post made prior to that revert detailing more discussions about that particular quote.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
n/a
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
There's a general cluelessness and failure to listen at Talk:Black Lives Matter in general. FDW777 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Conveniently demonstrating the
general cluelessness and failure to listen
I mentioned, they twice say here thatno one has given any valid explanation
as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless. FDW777 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
In the last 15 minutes, Baxter329 has restored disputed content relating to Black politician Winsome Sears ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) accusing her of being a white supremacist, with one of the references being Fox News. This is despite their November attempt to add the same content being reverted. I remain speechless. FDW777 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Baxter329
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Baxter329
I stand by all of my additions to Black Lives Matter. My additions to Black Lives Matter are relevant and reliably sourced.
At the same time, I also respect the consensus to not include the content. I will not add any of those things to Black Lives Matter again. I disagree with the consensus. But I will obey it.
I also stand by my addition of the following to Patrisse Cullors, in the section titled "Ideology and policy positions."
In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist."[1] In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.[2]
No one has given me any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" of Patrisse Cullors.
I added that content to Patrisse Cullors exactly one time. After someone removed it, I never put it back.
And again, no one has given any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors.
My only defense of any of my additions to either Black Lives Matter or Patrisse Cullors is the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."
Given that Patrisse Cullors has a section called, "Ideology and policy positions," why should that content not be included in the article?
Baxter329 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I was not aware that I was not allowed to add that content to my sandbox.
On 23:08, 23 February 2022, at Talk:Black Lives Matter, I said:
"while I still think both quotes should be included in this article, I will not bring up that subject in any new talk page discussions for this article. I acknowledge that the consensus is against including them in this article. I don't agree with that consensus, but I must respect it."
But this arbitration section was created on 23:43, 23 February 2022.
In other words, this arbitration section was created 35 minutes after I promised to respect the consensus regarding Black Lives Matter. So that issue had already been solved before this arbitration was created.
Thus, the only remaining issue is my addition of the following to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors:
In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist."[3] In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.[4]
I added that content to Patrisse Cullors one time. Someone removed it. I never put it back in.
No one has given a legitimate explanation for why the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors should not include that content.
I still maintain the following as my only justification for adding that content to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."
Baxter329 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to show that Winsome Sears was a white supremacist. Instead, I was trying to show that some of her opponents had accused her of being a white supremacist. I stand by my edit.
My edit to food desert is relevant, notable, and reliably sourced. Numerous reliable sources have reported that shoplifting and rioting are major causes of food deserts. Before I added this content, the article made zero mention of shoplifting and rioting as causes of food deserts. I stand by my edit.
The video that I cited gives an extensive explanation by Patrisse Cullors, in her own words, of what she meant when she called herself a "trained Marxist." I stand by my edit. And I stand by my comment that no one has given a legitimate reason why this content should not be included in the section of her article titled, "Ideology and policy positions."
Baxter329 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I see that User:FDW777 just said, "Conveniently demonstrating the "general cluelessness and failure to listen" I mentioned, they twice say here that "no one has given any valid explanation" as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless."
That's the problem - you're "speechless."
I have repeatedly asked for a reason why Patrisse Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. It is precisely your being "speechless" that I am objecting to. I have repeatedly asked why this content should not be included in "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. And you have not given a legitimate reason. You are indeed being "speechless," and that is the problem. Please "speak." Please give a legitimate reason why Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. Baxter329 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by EvergreenFir
I am WP:INVOLVED but I was thinking of bring an AE request against Baxter if they continued their disruption. I support an AP2 topic ban. I will add some more diffs in a couple hours to demonstrate the pattern of disruption by this user. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- POV against liberals, solely negative edits
- Rebecca Watson - "Defending shoplifting" (with a dash of SYNTH)
- Winsome Sears - Accused of white supremacy by liberals
- George Gascón - [29] and [30] about recall vote
- Institutional racism - Joe Biden sponsored crime bill
- Black Lives Matter
- Looting - [31]
- Racial antagonism
- 2022 Philadelphia apartment fire - Somehow the fire is related to African-American family structure?
- Literacy test scores (multiple pages) - Education in New York (state), New York (state), Standardized test, Institutional racism
EvergreenFir (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by DanielRigal
I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:Rebecca Watson#Defending shoplifting?. I think we may have a broader pattern of problematic POV editing where they are constantly trying to spin sources (see Talk:Food desert#Shoplifting) or just confect complete non-issues (e.g. the issue on Watson's article) into something to support obvious POV narratives and possibly even grudges against BLP subjects. I suspect that this is indicative a general WP:NOTHERE attitude but, if it is not, then WP:CIR becomes the issue. What I don't see is much editing outside of these problematic areas. If they were doing good work in other areas then I'd be happy let them continue with that but, as they are not, I wonder whether there is any point in any sanction other than a block.
As for the "trained Marxist" thing, I think it is a pretty much meaningless phrase with very unclear implications and I suspect that that is the intent. I also find it funny because it makes Marxism sound like some sort of martial art and inadvertently makes it sound way cooler than it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Baxter329
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This all seems centered around Baxter329 continually adding "marxist" or "trained marxist" against a well established consensus. I'm a bit confused over how that consensus developed, and could see how the term could be used in a very limited circumstance, but it doesn't matter what I think. The RFC was valid and very clear that the threshold to use that term hasn't been met, not by a lack of sources, but from a lack of the term being properly defined in those sources, as "Marxist" is a bit of a catchall phrase that could mean many things. It seem that Baxter329 was aware of it before inserting it in the article multiple times. So Baxter329, the ball is kind of in your court. Please shed some light on this so we don't have to assume the worst. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I totally agree that saying "trained Marxist" in Wiki voice would be a no no, but this is how they described themselves in a reliable interview, so this is a reliable primary source. I don't even know what a "trained Marxist" is supposed to mean. If they refuse to come and discuss, I would be inclined to say a 30 day tban from the topic to start, simply because they knew there was an RFC and they ignored it. You can't just ignore an RFC in contentious areas. If you disagree, you have to take the long way and see it overturned. I prefer to hear from them, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Dennis with the caveat that I can see why "trained Marxist" could be a POV statement. If we fail to hear from Baxter329 some sort of action (a tban from AP2, which is pretty much the only area they edit in?). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Without that RfC, these edits would be within the bounds of normal content editing; given that Baxter329 was aware of that RfC, though, the first diff appears disruptive. I note they have also added the same content to their sandbox after being told of the RfC. I'd like to hear from Baxter329 here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
ObtuseAngles
Rendered moot when Ponyo used her Checkuser voodoo and blocked ObtuseAngles --> SlideAndSlip as a CU action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:32, 26 February 2022 (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 ObtuseAngles
n/a
See also the repeated attampts to issue me with a DS warning, despite me clearly being aware already.
Discussion concerning ObtuseAnglesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ObtuseAnglesThis editor is obviously much more experienced than I am and knows how to game the system (I see they have reported multiple editors to this page) and try and trick new editors into making procedural mistakes and get them into bother. This editor tried to get the article Dungiven landmine and gun attack deleted at AfD. But when that did not succeed they tried to Merge the article and has had an issue with me ever since I disagreed with their position on the talk page. Obviously they didn't like that and since then has started spamming my talk page with warning notices. I consider this unfriendly and aggressive but it looks like they were potentially goading me to try to set my up to bring me here. Then today they followed me to the Violet-Anne Wynne article. This lady is in the news today as they resigned from their party today. So it was my intention to expend the article today. I have started that by adding material to every section of the article until this editor stopped me in my tracks. This editor seems to have an issue with two particular parts of my editing. 1. The date of birth. 2. The rent arrears section. I'm not sure what is controversial about these edit? The date of birth is outlined here and the rent arrears issue was national news with multiple media outlets covering the story and this story is the reason most people in Ireland ever heard of Wynne. I don't think anyone is disputing anything I added. I tried to discuss the matter with this editor but they obviously didn't want to know. My guess is because discussing the matter would have stopped them walking me into this trap. So they just deleted my message. I am not saying I am a perfect editor. I am not saying I know all the rules and regulations here. I am learning. But this editor is acting in a very sneaky way and trying to trap and inexperienced editor that they disagree with in an attempt to shut them up. Again every edit I made was backed up by sources, no one is disagreeing with any of the content I added it just looks to me like this editor loves causing trouble and throwing their superior knowledge of the system around. Poor form.--ObtuseAngles (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Serial Number 54129ObtuseAngles suggests that FDW777 Statement by 86.4.163.59I agree with FDW as far as the content dispute is concerned, but do not see why they brought it here. It is not a BLP/AE issue. 86.4.163.59 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning ObtuseAngles
|
- ^ Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?, Politifact, July 21, 2020
- ^ Am I A Marxist?, Patrisse Cullors, YouTube, December 14, 2020
- ^ Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?, Politifact, July 21, 2020
- ^ Am I A Marxist?, Patrisse Cullors, YouTube, December 14, 2020