| |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk21:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are foundhere. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (seeWP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by NomanPK44[edit]I removed the edit from here[1] becauseThePrint is not a reliable source forBalochistan Liberation Army as it has been speculated that it has been supported by India so only third party sources are considered reliable after that I also added a reliable source on that page for the correct size of them[2]. Now if you look toSmuggling tunnel edit I removed the text because it was added using only INDIAN SOURCES no other media source was present there it clearly looks like to be against Pakistan. Because the section was about India-Pakistan so a third-party source should be reliable in this matter rather than all INDIAN SOURCES. Now if you look into the third one[3] I modified it by linking an closedWP:RFCTalk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory? while the other discussionhere is not closed yet. Now on the last edit[4] another user already told me to go to the talk page and also told me that it is a friendly warning and I already have opened a discussion on the talk page after that[5]NomanPK44 (talk)18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by El_C[edit]The diff that I cite in the sanction notice as an example reads (in full): Not sure if other AE admins are with me on this (hopefully!), but I am at the point now of just not wanting to let IPA misconduct be overlooked any longer, for whatever reason, and generally am interested in setting a higher standard in this key topic area with respect to following up trouble with enforcement, firmly so. Noting also my pervious AE action against the appellant a month ago, involving a 2-weekpartial block from theInsurgency in Balochistan mainspace article due to a 1RR violation (seeWP:AEL#India-Pakistan for my log entry).El_C18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Srijanx22[edit]As the filer of the report which resulted in topic ban, I would recommend declining because NomanPk44 sees nothing wrong with any of his edits and justifies his edits over what "has been speculated" and continued doubling downing with his poor understanding of what isWP:RS.Srijanx22 (talk)19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NomanPK44[edit]Result of the appeal by NomanPK44[edit]
|
| Rtr315 blocked for 72 hours after multiple warnings to avoidWP:CIRCULAR referencing (expressly so) continued to be ignored. Being new does not immune oneself from what is generally expected from experienced users (or, at least, it only hold to a certain degree).El_C18:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Rtr315[edit]
User continues to remove reliably sourced content and replace it with original research and poorly sourced content from Hindi Wikipedia, caste association websites, and other poor sources. Sanctions against this user must be placed in order to enforce the ruling ofWP:GS/CASTE due to this user's disruptive edits in the topic area. User was warned several times but did not heed them, as seen onUser talk:Rtr315.
Discussion concerning Rtr315[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rtr315[edit]Statement by Chariotrider555[edit]User:Rtr315 continues to bear no heed to Wikipedia's policies of WP:RS, WP:OR, or WP:V, as stated above and seen here.[11] The user continues their disruptive and damaging behavior despiteUser:El C's stern warning on User:Rtr315's talk page. Sanctions must be placed and enforced on User:Rtr315, as they have shown they have absolutely no care for Wikipedia's policies and will continue their disruptive behavior even after all warnings.Chariotrider555 (talk)13:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Rtr315[edit]
|
Although some limited communication withMclarenfan17 did occur atUser_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement, they continue to sidestep the point (as of mere minutes ago, even) about their usage of multiple accounts to circumvent the sanction. Per Black Kite's suggestion, I have indefinitely blocked the Mclarenfan17 account for socking. Black Kite has also noted that range blocking isn't feasible at this time due to high collateral, so we're down to semiprotections — Robert McClenon has compiled a list of these, which I have since applied. From this point on, protections for affected pages may be requested atWP:RFPP, noting specifically that this is
|
|---|
| 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 Mclarenfan17[edit]
Not applicable
I'm reporting1.129.108.95 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) per the instructions in the outcome ofthe recent arbitration request. The IP made a number of edits in the same generale style and purpose of the edits of this user and edited the a group of articles they frequently edited. The IP also strems from the range they generally use.Tvx123:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Update: The user has nowdirectly reverted an edit of mine (in fact a blanket revert of a series of edits I had executed), which is another direct violation of the interaction ban.Tvx103:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] One remark toRobert McClenon's statement. I think requiring that the person simply limits themself to using the Mclarenfan17 account could also be an option. As far as I can understand it has been truly established that they cannot access that account anymore.Tvx117:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Black Kite: what concerns me the most is thatthe first of the edits you referred to directly reverted a set of edits of mine, which is a clear violation of the interaction ban.Tvx102:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Mclarenfan17[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mclarenfan17[edit]I find Tvx1's claims to be made in bad faith. I am largely retired these days; I have been doing a bit of editing recently because of virus restrictions. When he first posted here, he could not cite a single edit that he believed that I had made. He even posted to this page a few days ago and was told that he needed something more concrete. Furthermore, Tvx1 madethis edit at 22:31 GMT. It ignored a consensus which was established on thearticle talk page. Then at 23:01 GMT, Tvx1 posted here at arbitration enforcement claiming that I have been circumventing the terms of arbitration, even though he had no proof of it. Tvx1 is well aware that there is only a small handful of regular editors to that article. In effect, he has made an edit that ignored a consensus, them came here almost immediately to try and have sanctions imposed against me to shut me out of the editing process, if I was ever involved in it to begin with; I was, but given that he could not point toany edits that I had allegedly made, this has clearly been done in bad faith. He has not made any other contributions to that article except to circumvent a consensus, and his interest in the topic waned when I went into semi-retirement last year. Tvx1 has a history of ignoring consensus and of wikilawyering, both of which were acknowledged in the original arbitration discussion by the arbitration committee. I think he is trying to use arbitration enforcement to shut editors he disagrees with out of the editing process so that he can then ignore a consensus that he personally dislikes. Furthermore, the device that I edit from has a dynamic IP address. While I am aware of this, I do not know how to switch it off. So while I might appear to be hopping between IP addresses, everything that I have done has been done in good faith. I am not trying to circumvent the arbitration ruling and have generally avoided Tvx1 since I became active again.1.129.108.95 (talk)05:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]I don't know exactly what is meant by an explicit one-account restriction, but I will either suggest or agree with the idea that unregistered editing should be disallowed in the motorsports area, at least in articles thatUser:Tvx1 has edited. I have tried in the past to be neutral in this dispute because I was previously trying to act as a neutral mediator, but McLarenfan17 has made it impossible for me to be neutral. As a scientist and a historian of science by education, I applyOccam's Razor, which is to use the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation of this motorsports dispute between two editors is that Prisonermonkeys / Mclarenfan17 isgaming the system by the use of IP addresses. It no longer matters whether they have lost their password a second time, or whether they lost it a first time. They know how to create a third account, and their failure to do so can only be explained by trying togame the system and evade theinteraction ban. Their statements that Tvx1 is acting in bad faith are ahandwave to distract attention from the way that they are acting in bad faith. The way that they can re-establish good faith would be to create a third account. I think that the human who has beenUser:Prisonermonkeys andUser:Mclarenfan17 should be given a choice of two options. First, create a third account and edit only from it, and never from IP addresses. Second, completely retire from Wikipedia and make no edits in the motorsports area. In either case, motorsports articles should be semi-protected. If the human who has been Mclarenfan17 does not agree to one of the two choices, then either the admins atAE or the ArbCom or the community shouldban the human, and treat all such edits as edits by a banned user. That's my opinion.Robert McClenon (talk)16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's aWhac-a-mole exercise.Robert McClenon (talk)22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment by GoodDay[edit]Clarification needed. Why is any editor being allowed to editsigned-out, when they have a registered account?GoodDay (talk)17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] His IP range should be blocked, as it appears as though the editor-in-question is giving the figurative 'middle finger' to the project. There comes a point, when the project has to acknowledge when an individual 'may be' -bleeping around- with them.GoodDay (talk)21:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mclarenfan17[edit]
|
| Flushing Girl is indefinitelytopic banned from all pages related toEastern Europe or theBalkans, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk12:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Flushing Girl[edit]
This user came across my watchlist last year, making a series of POV edits related to Eastern Europe and particularly Kosovo. They were given a DS notice by Neutrality in January,[12] and I gave them a final warning earlier this month.[13] One of their main problematic behaviours (repeatedly on several pages) consists of removing Kosovo-related links from lists relating to Yugoslavia successor states, or removing Kosovo-related categories from articles that have categories of other Yugoslavia successor states.
They have been reverted by multiple editors, but continue to make the same type of edits, or repeat reverted ones. Cheers,Number5721:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Flushing Girl[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Flushing Girl[edit]Okay I will leave any articles about Kosovo alone. Thanks. Guys I will not edit Kosovo anymore. I just thought that it was something good because I didn’t really approve of Kosovo in these articles and then I got carried away. I will be more careful next time. I also removed the controversial symbol above as well. Anyway thanks. Look people I just didn’t like the fact that Kosovo was used in the articles about Yugoslavia. I just removed some things about Kosovo but I did because of my opinion that Kosovo is not an independent state. I should have left the articles alone. Anyway I will not change anything at all about Yugoslavia soon. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Flushing Girl[edit]
|
| Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk14:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | ||||||
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are foundhere. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (seeWP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Nicoljaus[edit]The administrator who imposed the restrictions put forward two reasons. The first one, as he himself admitted during the discussion on my talk page[48], is irrelevant (he claimed that I admit my HOUNDING of the user and even justify it). In fact, the situation is completely reversed and El_C even warned the user that I "hounded"[49]. So, one of the reasons for the indefinite topic ban can be discarded and I think we should expect some easing of sanctions. The second situation is more complicated. I found in the contribution ofMhorg some features that seemed suspicious to me. When Mhorg submitted anAE request to another user they were "fighting" with, I shared my observations so that a non-involved administrator could evaluate them by making a decision on the request[50]. The administrator El_C in response made some claims that I may have misunderstood. Later, during the discussion on my talk page, he mentioned that the site I link to was in Italian. But there was no indication of this in his message[51] (actually, I don't read Italian either, but I didn't have any problems). I felt that it was necessary to specify more precisely which part of the ruleWP:NOTHERE I refer to and specified the corresponding line, that's all. Reaction of administrator El_C seems excessive. I may have underestimated how serious the charge of violating theWP:NOTHERE rule is (my previous wiki experience doesn't give a reason for this). It is also possible that my observations do not provide sufficient grounds for such accusations, but I have not received direct explanation for this. As a result, I find the measures taken, on the one hand, unnecessarily harsh, and on the other hand, do not allow me to understand what is wrong. I write a lot on the subject of the Second World War and the history of Russia and usually had no problems with my fellow Wikipedians. My previous blocks is usually arose from the fact that I was constantly attacked by the sockpuppets of disruptive users such asCrovata orUmertan. (WithMikola22, there was a special story, and I admit that I was wrong). I'm asking for lifting, or, at least the modification of the topic ban) – guys, seriously, what are the problems if I write articles likeDmitry Krasny,Battle of Belyov,Izyum-Barvenkovo Offensive,Alexander Bubnov,15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism (except for my poor English, of course)?--Nicoljaus (talk)10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully request for an extension of the 500 words limit to expand the collapsed part, as the user claimsWP:NOTSILENCE:[56]. The new word counter will be about 850--Nicoljaus (talk)08:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by El_C[edit]
Statement by Mhorg[edit]My accuses of Following\Hounding come in relation to this AEWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes.User:Nicoljaus was trying to find something to discredit my work on Wikipedia (which is public, and I am still waiting for someone to tell me when I have acted maliciously) looking in my edits history... In fact, the user first made an edit[57] to contest an old edit of mine of25 May 2020, thenaccidentally removed all my edit[58] (with the motivation that he was fighting with an anonymous user, I don't know...).
Statement by involved editor My very best wishes[edit]We have had a discussion with El_C about it on thetalk page of Nicoljaus. Yes, I know: admins have discretion. Sure, El_C had a reason for issuing the topic ban. But I do not think Nicoljaus behave so badly to deserve the topic ban. For example,
Statement by Mikola22[edit]As for our conflicts in the past is concerned I think they were unnecessary, childish and fight about irrelevant information's, but with violation of revert rules. These blocks are now counted in every possible report against me or editor Nicoljaus. We do not meet in the articles after these conflicts and even if we meet I think we would resolve possible problems in good faith. Current editing of editor Nicoljaus I don't follow so I can't say anything about it, but if our conflicts ie blocks are also counted in this procedure I can only ask the authorities not to take our blocks too seriously, if this can be asked at all (I say this from the present time perspective when these conflicts seem ridiculous to me). Thanks.Mikola22 (talk)12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (involved editor 4)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus[edit]
Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus[edit]
|
| Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action for being a disruption-only account. (Not an AE action, as AE does not do indefinite blocks.)Bishonen |tålk14:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC).[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mb 9702[edit]
Before alert
After alert
References References
Discussion concerning Mb 9702[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mb 9702[edit]
But yet they removed my edits illegally though Inspite of my reference to genuine sources they are not letting me edit this page Love Jihad illegally by provoking me and trying to insult me. Mainly Gene83k,NarSakSasLee,Suneye1 these are the main conspirators and they are treating this page as if it's their monopoly. And they are complaining against my rightful edit though they are trying to insult another person's belief by saying that its "Islamophobic Conspiracy"in the first para itself and saying that it's taken from genuine and highly researched articles and sources.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMb 9702 (talk •contribs)06:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] block <NarSakSasLee>,block <Newslinger>,block <Gene93k>,block <ClueBot NG>— Precedingunsigned comment added byMb 9702 (talk •contribs)06:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<block> NarSakSasLee as he is repeatedly trying to vandalize the Love Jihad article by illegally trying to hurt others values and religious sentiments by mentioning "Islamophobia" and "Conspiracy theory" <report> <report NarSakSasLee>
On 27th February 2021 Newslinger is not letting me edit this article wrongfully misusing as Islamophobia, Conspiracy theory and trying to hurt ones religious sentiments. Please check. <report> <block> Newslinger— Precedingunsigned comment added byMb 9702 (talk •contribs)07:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by NarSakSasLee[edit]I concur [with Bishonen]. Numerous editors have been involved in trying to get him to engage, including me, but nothing has come from it. The editor now seems to be edit warring on the actualLove Jihad page. He appears to be a believer in the conspiracy theory given his most recent edits where he attempts to use politicians as reliable sources on the matter instead of academic sources. I think an indefinite block might work better too.NarSakSasLee (talk)22:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give you guys an update he is nowreporting people individually onWP:ANI for "edit warring" when the entire purpose of his account is to engage in that pastime. Can we finally take some action?NarSakSasLee (talk)13:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[@Mb 9702:]
Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]The account seems to only have been created to edit that very article. Their user page was even created to only contain "Love Jihad". This indicatesWP:RGW andWP:NOTHERE. —PaleoNeonate –08:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by 36.76.234.82[edit]The account seems to only used for vandalism, and any time Mb 9702 use the account, it is only use to replace it with wrong information. I believe the user already reported inAIV. IMO, this user should be blocked.36.76.234.82 (talk)09:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mb 9702[edit]
|
| This is a content dispute with conduct that has not risen to the point of requiring Arbitration Enforcement or standard administrative sanctions. No action taken. I would suggest using standard dispute resolution, such as an RFC to determine consensus.Dennis Brown -2¢11:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | ||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning My very best wishes[edit]
The user removed with confidence a huge amount of data of the past of politicianAlexei Navalny (approximately 7 years of documented pro-nationalistfacts and political views from 2007-2013), mainly the controversial one (together with RS), justifying itself in the many (on purpose?) engulfed wall-text-discussions we had[81][82][83][84][85] mainly in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography",[86] abusing everywhere, in my opinion, of the magic word "Undue weight". Or "his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant",[87] confusing Wikipedia for LinkedIn.
Not applicable
Discussion concerning My very best wishes[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by My very best wishes[edit]
Statement by Nicoljaus[edit]I think it's enough to look at the "Top edited pages" of Mhorg[160] and the VoxKomm main page[161] to see almost a complete intersection by topics. Obviously, the user here is justWP:NOTHERE.--Nicoljaus (talk)09:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]It looks like AE is being used to win content disputes to me. -GizzyCatBella🍁09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]The filing editor filed a request atthe Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on 10 February, which had to do with a survey that had been disrupted bysockpuppetry. The DRN request listed eight editors, the eight who had responded to the survey, which is more than DRN can normally work with effectively. I recommended that the survey, which was sort of an informal RFC, be converted to a formal RFC, with the assistance of a volunteer. Mhorg then requested to put the DRN on hold, which was done. Mhorg then said that there was a complex mix of content and conduct issues, and that they wished to withdraw the DRN in order to file a conduct report, which is this thread. They have now asked me a question on my talk page about the word limit. I can see that they are using a lot of words. I haven't researched the details of the conduct dispute, and have nothing more to add at this point.Robert McClenon (talk)19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Bob not snob[edit]Over in the Western side of Eastern Europe, I encountered My Very Best Wishes inthis recent edit in which he restored information sourced toPublicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza. This is an "anti-socialist" webpage or blog, that is right-wing extremist, and is not a reliable source for anything. The extremist nature is quite obvious, onthe archived source itself there is animage ofDonald Tusk with a German and Polish flag, with text expressing opposition to the election of a "German candidate" to the Polish presidency. Theabout page describes how this website was initially the website of theMasovian district of the Real Politics Union, a small extremist political party. The site itself is mainly the work of one individual, Krzysztof Pawlak. When Ipointed this out to My very best wishes, hefirst reverted my post and then laterposted on my talk page: "Unfortunately, I do not know Polish, and I am not sufficiently familiar with Polish sources and politics to respond to your comment". Moments before placing this extremist source, heremoved content from an academic source. If My Very Best Wishes is unable to assess Polish sources, why is he restoring contentremoved with the edit summary of "This is not a reliable source"?Bob not snob (talk)09:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Alaexis[edit]I participated in discussions with both users on the talkpage ofAlexei Navalny article, from which most of the diffs in the request come from. It is a content dispute, primarily about what constitutes due weight, and should be dealt with as a content dispute. I don't think that either editor has displayed bad faith in those discussions.Alaexis¿question?06:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]
Result concerning My very best wishes[edit]
Paul, extension granted. Though, I can't guarantee I'll get to review your lengthy submission or otherwise follow up on this case. (Possibly, there's a misapprehension that I am to fully attend toevery request at the AE noticeboard, but I wish to relieve anyone of that mistaken notion.)El_C21:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Indefinite block as a non-AE action underWP:NOTHERE. Looking at the totality of contribs, it seems obvious that the sole purpose of the account is to push a political agenda rather than create an encyclopedia. The person could have been indef topic banned but since it appears to be here for a singular purpose, this would have simply been kicking the can down the road and would have been an overly bureaucratic solution to what is an obvious problem. Additionally, it seems obvious that this person is not a new editor and likely a sockpuppet of someone previously blocked for similar disruption. As perWP:BEANS, I will decline to provide more information, but it is doesn't matter as there is ample reason to block without demonstration of evading block.Dennis Brown -2¢12:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning AFPchadking[edit]
None
AFPchadking appears to be here solely to POV-push on theNick Fuentes article and the relatedAmerica First Political Action Conference. In fact, I suspect the "AFP" in their username refers to this. They have repeatedly cast aspersions against editors atTalk:Nick Fuentes and made what seem like vague threats ("This will no longer be tolerated" ×2; "this kind of stuff is done being tolerated here, we are going to be ameliorating this page imminently"); now they're edit warring despitemy attempt to start a discussion at America First Political Action Conference.GorillaWarfare (talk)17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning AFPchadking[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AFPchadking[edit]The user GorillaWarfare is part of a select group of people who are attempting to control the narrative around certain figures associated with dissident, Right-Wing politics in America. These users have reverted every change made to the above-mentioned pages, including minor grammatical changes. Moreover, the user has a demonstrable bias towards the people and topics in question. This can be observed on a number of pages the user has created, as well as her personal twitter and website. In addition, the user has refused to attempt to reach any sort of compromise on any of the issues above. They often resort to hiding behind or bending the rules to accommodate their biases. I have made no attempt to whitewash or change anything beyond what is fair and within the rules. Moreover, I did not intend to cast aspersions or anything of the sort. I simply meant to imply that I would be editing the page even if the user disagreed with my edits. I, of course, expected a healthy debate with the user, however, I was met with the opposite.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAFPchadking (talk •contribs)
I have no COI, though I appreciate your posting of the rules, as I was not fully aware of them. (AFPchadking (talk)21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Statement by Hipal[edit]I just ran across AFPchadking's editing while looking into comments atTalk:Jared Taylor andTalk:Nick Fuentes. I've asked AFPchadking to respond to the likely conflict of interest. I agree that this looks like a NOTHERE situation, likely driven by a COI. --Hipal (talk)19:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Given AFP's statement that there's no COI[166], when there obviously is just by the username alone, a ban is needed. --Hipal (talk)23:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning AFPchadking[edit]
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history •in system log
@Manasbose:
1. You "trimmed or removed" content in Dilip Ghosh while adding the same WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIARY in Mamata Bannerjee. I informed you I was only including material that had a lot of press attention.[187]
2. 90% of the edit is optimistic about her, while you censored it claimingRemoved unnecessary information
3. No decieving, you reincluded it[188][189]
@Johnuniq: Manasbose "trimmed" all controversies in Dilip Ghosh, a highly controversial man from23 April 2020 to21 October 2020 which he calls as WP:NOTDIARY simultaneously stuffing his opposition Mamata Bannerjee with criticism and NOTNEWS from28 March 2020 to3 March 2021. I included only content that received a lot of media attention. If I write everything about him, the page will be brimming with his controversies.[190]. RecentlyUser:Adinew56 is also involved in both articles sugarcoating Dilip Ghosh and defaming Mamata Bannerjee.[191]. I did not include those on my own, I restored what Manasbose deleted slowly for months in the sandbox.
"I recommend that admins keep an eye on both pages in case political supporters decide to manipulate it again to their desires"
ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା (talk)07:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Lets go point by point.
1. In Dilip Ghosh article, I've trimmed or removed mostly some regular statements from his political rallies which falls underWP:NOTNEWS andWP:NOTDIARY. On the other hand user ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା (along withUser:Walrus Ji who is currently blocked from editing) continuously added political statements and lawsuits in "personal life" despite many other users in the past reverting their edits. Not to mention user ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା has only edited Dilip Ghosh page and most probably is aWP:SPA. Also an adminUser:Johnuniq called these editstypical gotcha nonsense
(See:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#User:Amkgp is falsely accusing me of vandalism threatens block)
2. User says I removedreliably sourced accomplishments
, I don't know but I removed"In a statement on 17 October 2012, Banerjee attributed the increasing incidence of rape in the country to "more free interaction between men and women". She said that "Earlier if men and women would hold hands, they would get caught by parents and reprimanded but now everything is so open. It’s like an open market with open options." She was criticised in the national media for these statements." in the same edit too, and it does not look like "accomplishment". As I said earlier, I mostly removed text which I thought falls underWP:NOTNEWS.
3. In thenext edit, I replaced the word "founded" with "first used" as per the sources.
4. I don't know why electoral history ofAtal Bihari Vajpayee needs 20-30 more independent candidate who polled less than 1% of the votes? Also, if my memory serves me right, I was the one who mistakenly added them in the first place.
5. If you had so much time to go through my edit history, you should have also seen the talk page. Firstly the page itself was created by me, andUser:Modussiccandi tagged the page for deletion on basis of copy paste, so I just removed the questionable part until the discussion was over.
5. I didn't know supporting any particular ideology was a crime in Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a website where everyone can edit in civilly order irrespective of their ideology. -- Manasbose(talk |edits)10:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Manasbose ought to be aware that copying withing Wikipedia[193] requires attribution, given that they received awarning about this fromDiannaa 13 months ago, and anotherwarning from me eight months ago. Also, as in the above section about ChandlerMinh, the lack of communication about some of these edits is concerning. Edit-summaries are recommended for most edits; for contentious material, they are an absolute necessity.Vanamonde (Talk)16:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've encountered some of Manasbose's contributions from time to time and I would concur with the filer that they have an advocacy oriented editing. Many of the articles they have edited are likely going to require a lot of cleanup. For instance, I had to remove a large portion of their addition on15:19, 24 April 2020, on the page ofMamata Banerjee. The sources made no mention of Banerjee whereas Manasbose attributed a number of riots to her.
Other than this, most of their edits seem to consist of editing pages on elections and state units of the Bharatiya Janata Party. While there is nothing wrong with that in of itself but many of them currently have a promotional tinge. I had also noticed their slow trimming on the page onDilip Ghosh with smaller edits and over a period spanning months, followed by an edit war over it. This struck me as deceptive and so I reverted their edits on18:57, 12 October 2020 with an edit summary suggesting the people in dispute to make use of the talk page. The edit warring since then seems to have continued unabated.
I don't think its possible to have a neutral articles in this topic area if this kind of editing goes unaddressed, and especially if it involves lack of communication. I would also state that the filer themselves are to blame for imitating some of this behavior during the dispute from what I can see.Tayi ArajakateTalk11:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A CU has found some evidence of possible sockpuppeting byତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା. See details atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walrus Ji. Thank you —Amkgp💬20:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only to the SPI listed above and not the merits of this case, it is unlikely a block will happen for sockpuppetry, as I've investigated the case and the "link" is between two accounts where one stopped editing before the other started, so there is no possible abuse, so the outcome of the SPI should have no effect on the rest of this case.Dennis Brown -2¢23:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
