Revision as of 07:11, 26 October 2024 editGhostOfDanGurney (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,820 edits →Request concerning Southasianhistorian8: I concede that it was originally written by SAH and will strike where appropriate; However, I very much restored the content after it had been removed in the interim (as can be seen in the provided diff), leading to this confusion. Apologies.← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:46, 26 October 2024 edit undoSrijanx22 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,198 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile editNext edit → | ||
Line 256: | Line 256: | ||
:Admins, I apologize if I went over the word limit as I have zero experience in A/E, but I strongly request you to take action against Ghost's allegation that I plagiarized his work. For Christ's sake, comes before , no? ] (]) 06:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | :Admins, I apologize if I went over the word limit as I have zero experience in A/E, but I strongly request you to take action against Ghost's allegation that I plagiarized his work. For Christ's sake, comes before , no? ] (]) 06:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
====Statement by Srijanx22==== | |||
] has been created just today and needs improvement. The highlighted disputes should be handled on the talk page without either of the users ]. It would be better if they can get along. I don't see any need for sanctions as of yet. ] (]) 09:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | ====Statement by (username)==== |
Revision as of 09:46, 26 October 2024
"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Raskolnikov.Rev
I withdraw this request. — xDanielx /C\ 15:31, 15 October 2024 (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 Raskolnikov.Rev
Recent incivility:
As far as WP:AGF violations go, it doesn't get any clearer than calling multiple users "malicious" or a "bad faith actor", in forums that are not for dispute resolution. Other editors shouldn't have to tolerate such aggression.
N/A
Raskolnikov.Rev's response seems sincere; I'm optimistic that this might be resolved without necessarily needing formal action. I'm open to just withdrawing this if that's an accepted/encouraged practice? — xDanielx /C\ 22:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC) If there's no objection (procedural or otherwise), I'm withdrawing this. Since Raskolnikov.Rev seems to sincerely intend to self-correct, it seems like no formal action is needed at this time. — xDanielx /C\ 15:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Raskolnikov.RevStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Raskolnikov.RevI believe this is a reasonable complaint to raise, and I will make sure to not use emotive and needlessly abrasive language like that going forward, and always assume good faith. And to the editors who were on the other side of my barbs, I apologize, and I hope going forward we can all collaborate together with mutual respect to improve Wiki. Here are some more detailed reflections on each cited case: 2024-10-11 "it is frankly absurd to pretend ..." 2024-10-12 "It seems like you're incapable of grasping ... I know it's embarrassing that you presented ..." Here I was letting my emotions get the better of me, which again I'll make sure to not let happen again. To add some context: in the first case I was not referring to any specific editor, and it was part of a general statement where I cited extensive RS. Still, it was entirely needless to do that, and won't happen again. Regarding the second one, @XDanielx initiated the language of being incapable of grasping something: "It seems like you haven't fully grasped...", but I shouldn't have mirrored it. That was a mistake that I will not make again. 2024-10-12 "If you continue with this behavior, I will bring it up in arbitration. And I will revert your latest malicious edit ... do you think people will not bother to click on the links you provide?" Here I am referring to an edit by @XDanielx making an addition to a long-standing consensus text that was contested in Talk and did not have consensus, which they were aware of as they were a participant in said discussion. Calling it a "malicious edit" however was entirely needless and unproductive. The second part of the quote is referring to a link provided that contains text which @XDanielx said was not contained in it, but again, it was needless and unproductive. I could and should have merely made the case without those remarks. 2024-10-09 "Since it's pro-Israel though I doubt you'll take that up ..." Here an editor came into my talk to tell me to self-revert after misunderstanding Misplaced Pages policy concerning 1RR, as they later admitted. Another editor had actually violated it, and I was referring to that, but there was no point in doing that, completely needlessly abrasive. That will not happen again. 5 to 11 are from a lengthy debate where aforementioned editor violated 1RR, and repeatedly violated established consensus. My warnings were an attempt to persuade them to stop doing so, and they were not merely hollow threats, I have been working on a report concerning this editor. But I realize that it is not constructive to say you are going to make a report about someone, and to refer to their edits as malicious. If that is indeed the case, then it has to be shown in a report brought to arbitration, without the emotive language, and just the facts of the case. I hope the admins can see that I invest time and thought into editing, and that my engagement with the various materials, though at times including needless emotionally charged language that I will immediately rectify and ensure will not happen again, is a good faith serious and constructive effort to help improve Wiki. And I know I have to not only assume, but accept that that is also the case for others. Thank you all for taking the time to read this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by AndrevanAs the respondent on diff 4, I agree that even though I was there making a mistake that I ended up striking and withdrawing, the response I received was hostile and bad faith, and accused me of disruption based on something that was grossly misinterpreted and flatly distorted from December 2023. I wasn't going to open an AE report on that alone but I was troubled by it and I'm glad that xDanielx opened a report so I can comment that yes, it was not an appropriate response to my polite, if completely wrong and mistaken message. Andre🚐 01:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Raskolnikov.Rev
|
Invaluable22
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 Invaluable22
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Relmcheatham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Invaluable22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 9 April 2023 Vandalized Dylan Mulvaney's page with wrong pronouns and a plainly bigoted 'reaction' section.
- 9 April 2023 After the above edit was reverted, they restored it.
- 9 April 2023 Then restored it a third time. A minute later they recieved the GENSEX warning on their profile.
- 21 September 2024 After a year of not touching GENSEX topics they edited Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull three times in a row with WP:TEND editing (see additional comment).
- 21 September 2024 ^ second edit
- 21 September 2024 ^ third edit
- 22 September 2024 They then add their POV to the QnA section a few hours after it was reverted (see additional comment).
- 22 September 2024 Shortly thereafter they post their reasoning on the talk page.
- 22 September 2024 More explanation.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 April 2023
- Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic. (See additional comments below)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I refer to the edits at KJKM's article as WP:TEND and in violation of GENSEX due to the 22 different topics where that specific edit of 'anti-trans advocate' has been discussed on the talk page and the talk page's QnA which they added to in diff #7 showing they were aware of this prior concensus. Right above the qna segment on the talk page is the arbitration remedies notice. This is my first time utilizing this process, so I apologize for any errors in my understanding or formatting. Relm (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Invaluable22
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 Invaluable22
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Invaluable22
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This is pretty stale, and this diff presented with the report is reasonable in that we shouldn't be calling someone a neo-Nazi. The misgendering a year and a half ago is bad, but I'm less concerned about the discussion of anti-transgender versus women's rights. Most new editors with ~25 edits probably aren't aware of a history of discussions, the sourcing requirements, etc. With the staleness I'd be more likely to go with a logged warning than a topic ban, but won't stand in the way if others think a topic ban on for an editor this experienced is the right play. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be closing with a warning soon, absent some other admin input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- The early diffs are bad but very stale, and the recent ones do not rise to the level of sanctions for me. I am most concerned by this, and would log a warning specifically for the addition of unsourced contentious material. Users are not required to agree with community consensus. They are required to respect it, but I have not yet seen evidence that Invaluable22 has not done so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see Invaluable22 is a very sporadic editor: it's likely they have not seen this discussion, but we cannot reasonably leave it open until they do. I'd support closing this quickly, as it's only a warning on the table. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Southasianhistorian8
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 Southasianhistorian8
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Southasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBIPA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 00:22, 2024 October 26 Raises temperature of an existing talk page discussion discussion with multiple personal attacks, accuses me of
"preemptive poisoning the well"
, of"nearing WP:BULLYING conduct"
and"trying to muffle Indian viewpoints and opinions"
. - 00:38, 2024 October 26 Ignores WP:ONUS to restore content that was removed without first getting consensus to restore the content. Continues the "muzzle" PA against me in the edit summary.
- 01:39, 2024 October 26 Second revert in an hour, reverts my attempt at a compromise with further personal attacks/WP:ABF in the edit summary about my motives (
"and intentionally caricutrarizing his quote"
. - 01:41, 2024 October 26 Gives me a level-4 (!) template further accusing my attempt at compromise as
"WP:POINTy"
(aka disruptive editing).
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 20:47, 2022 May 30 Indeff'd for abusing multiple accounts in the area of conflict as per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Suthasianhistorian8/Archive. Unblocked in December 2022 following a standard offer.
- 19:06, 2021 November 11 48hrs for edit warring in the area of conflict.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:31, 2021 November 27 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
SAH appears to have little to no good faith towards me, making PAs and airing old dirty laundry in an article talk page discussion which prior to their arrival had remained focused on content(Permlink to version of talk page prior SAH posting). They take issue with my use of the phrases "sour grapes" and "cherry picked" when referring to content in my edit summaries, but then turn around and make PAs and aspersions in theirs. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm here because I don't know how else to respond to "repeated-PAs-on-CTOP-article-talkpage-into-level-4-template" and if the statement in defense of evidence of PAs being made is to exceed their wordcount entirely on the other party, then that is pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is not conductive to editing on this project. In addition,
- You bring up supposed misconduct at Hardeep Singh Nijjar, but you omit that you copied content
that I had writtenin that article into Khalistan movement without attribution, so I don't know why you're all of a sudden questioning my sincerity in there? "Ghost, in his own words..."
not only is this stale, this is an outright lie Just click the diff SAH provided.- Okay, I apologized for something bad I did. Can you find where I was dragged to a noticeboard and sanctioned for it, or faced any kind of pressure, on or off-wiki (private if need be, I don't disclose any accounts) to apologize? No? So reporting an unsolicited apology is a low blow, doubly so that it's stale. Should admins have any questions regarding any of the other diffs SAH has posted, I will need a word extension.
- SAH also accuses others of POV-pushing, so spending their wordcount here about my general comment on how "pro-India skewing" should be a PA doesn't seem fair. They also call out others for not heeding WP:ONUS so their failure to do so themself tonight is also dubious. These two diffs also happen to have both occurred at Khalsa, where SAH was trying to restore content critical of that Sikh community.
- I believe, given the above information that a topic ban from Sikhism, the Khalistan movement and related topics, broadly construed for SAH be considered. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm already at 503 words, but SAH is blatantly ignoring the word limit. See this diff where I
addedrestored the line"having a reputation for torqueing evidence to fit with political objectives"
― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm already at 503 words, but SAH is blatantly ignoring the word limit. See this diff where I
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Southasianhistorian8
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 Southasianhistorian8
This is a completely unnecessary escalation, which I believe to be an extension of Ghost's firm convictions that Misplaced Pages ought to amplify pro-Canadian narratives and vitiate Canada's opponents. The bizarre thing about this conflict is that I'm a Canadian citizen myself, and have been living in Canada for over 95% of my life. My stance is that Misplaced Pages should not overtly amplify/muzzle pro-Canadian or pro-Indian narratives respectively, but neutrally explain both sides' arguments.
- One the page Air India Flight 182, Ghost, in his own words, stated his own convictions ought to take precedence over cold, hard facts-, contravening Misplaced Pages's policies on NOTCENSORED.
- He extensively edit-warred with numerous editors, yet dishes out the same accusations against others-
- He then basically admitted to following a user whom he was engaged in a dispute with, and left him a message on Twitter-. It's fair to infer that the message he left was likely antagonistic in nature, given the heated edit war that preceded and his need to give an apology.
- On the page Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Ghost was tacitly vitiating a Globe and Mail report, which included some fairly unsavoury details about the subject at hand. Notable examples include this edit in which he removed details which were clearly written in the article. Here he added a disingenuous descriptor that would make it appear as though the relationship between Dhaliwal, an arrested associate of Nijjar's, and some mutual associates who admitted that Nijjar was involved in clandestine activities, was based on hearsay, contrary to the report's tone. Here, he disingenuously attributed the descriptor "un-credible" to testimonies from people in India's custody to the Globe report, even though the Globe report itself attributed this claim to a Canadian-Sikh organization
- Remarkably, while Ghost admitted to having a pro-Canadian bias, he regularly scolds others for "pro- India skewing", which should be regarded as a personal attack. While I did agree with some of Ghost's edits, his edit summaries, in which he was unnecessarily interjecting his disdain for "Indian narratives" left a grating impression on me
- Here he removed an edit of mine in which I added a relevant view of a prominent Indian diplomat, accusing me of cherry-picking and adding a claim without evidence (another personal attack), even though the claim was attributed and the Misplaced Pages page itself contains numerous claims from Canadian officials, whom as of yet have not yet publicly disclosed pertinent evidence.
- - Here, he replaced my sentence which was neutrally worded and attributed, and replaced it with an obvious caricature of Verma's quote in a not so thinly veiled attempt to undermine India's position. He used this article, despite not citing it correctly, in which an interview transcript was provided below. It should be noted first and foremost that an interview transcript is a primary source, and the quote "I also know that some of these Khalistani extremists and terrorists are deep assets of CSIS. So I'm giving that accusation again; I'm not giving you an evidence.", or a summary or analysis of the quote was not provided beyond the transcript, hence rendering it unusable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages as per WP:PRIMARY. Secondly, if you read beyond that quote, it's clear that Verma was making the point that Canadian officials had not provided evidence implicating India's involvement in the murder, and he was basically using the same logic against them. It was an undeniable and objective violation of WP:NPOV, and it justified a harsh warning.
I also suspect that the last diff was GhostofDanGurney trying to bait me into reverting what was an obviously bad edit, so he could entrap me and report me.
- Ghost has once again levied a false allegation against me, claiming that I copied content written by him on Hardeep Singh Nijjar to the Khalistan movement-This is an outright and outrageous lie. The paragraph starting with "According to a Globe and Mail report published one year after Nijjar's death," was my own summary of the Globe report, it was not written by Ghost. I was the one who originally added the following content to the Nijjar page right after the Globe came out-"The report further claims that some Canadian security experts did not believe India's claims about him, remarking that there was inadequate evidence to arrest Nijjar and that India had a "reputation for torqueing evidence to fit with political objective". This was done well before GhostofDanGurney's modifications.
- Ghost is basically trying to kick me off a topic area where I've helped counter vandalism and POV pushing for the past 2 years, all because I disagreed with him and objected to his persistent personal attacks and rude edit summaries. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Admins, I apologize if I went over the word limit as I have zero experience in A/E, but I strongly request you to take action against Ghost's allegation that I plagiarized his work. For Christ's sake, June comes before July, no? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Srijanx22
Canada–India diplomatic row has been created just today and needs improvement. The highlighted disputes should be handled on the talk page without either of the users commenting on each other. It would be better if they can get along. I don't see any need for sanctions as of yet. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Southasianhistorian8
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
DangalOh
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 DangalOh
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- DangalOh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBIPA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 20:59, 22 September 2024 Personally attacks another editor.
- 14:32, 25 September 2024 Misuses article talkpage to post forum like comments and claims that "some editors" will be happy if he quits editing.
- 20:57, 28 September 2024 Claims that an article with title "Maratha resurrection" warrants inclusion because it's inclusion might lead to the term getting more traction, in future.
- 13:07, 2 October 2024 States that scholarly opinion on what qualifies for an empire can be ignored just because Marathas considered themselves as one and has a Chattrapati figurehead, and further said "
I want to sing praises of what Shivaji and others accomplished, as well as the impact they had, but I'll refrain as it might hurt the sentiments of some people here
" - 18:57, 17 October 2024 Misusing own userpage to attack lower caste people and Europeans.
- 20 October 2024 - Does not understand WP:RS. Kept justifying that he was correct with calling IFCN-certified Alt News a "third-class" source.
- 18:18 22 October 2024: Falsely accusing editors of labelling "
Al Qaeda, Maoists, Naxals, Lashkar, and Hamas as freedom fighters
", just because they are in favor of keeping reliably sourced text to support saying "Narla compares the Krishna of the Gita with a "modern-day terrorist", who uses theology to excuse violence." - 18:24, 25 October 2024 Claims that left-wingers get a free pass on Misplaced Pages, while citing opinions of Larry Sanger.
- 19:46, 25 October 2024 Doubles down on those claims ("
same editors target the same types of pages with the same POV, and the pages that have recently been attacked again"
) after being told by Valereee that he was making serious accusations without evidence which supports his claims - 23:17, 25 October 2024 - Does not understand WP:NPA
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I believe this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning DangalOh
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 DangalOh
Statement by (username)
Result concerning DangalOh
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.