Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive301

Clean Copy

Clean Copy is topic banned from Rudolf Steiner and antroposophy, broadly construed--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 3 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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Clean Copy User who is submitting this request for enforcement Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Clean Copy (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:ARBPS WP:ARBCAM Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] 31 January 2022 Whitewashing Rudolf Steiner's pseudoscience ("termed" instead of "are pseudoscientific" or "he was a peddler of rank pseudoscience") [2] and [3] 30 January 2022: removing mention of Rudolf Steiner's pseudoscience. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [4] Additional comments by editor filing complaint I have also reported the edit warring to WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC) I have replied to Clean Copy that a term does not have to be mentioned verbatim in order to fulfill WP:V requirements (the term termed isn't present in any of the cited RS, either). And if he still does not see why Steiner's ideas are rank pseudoscience, maybe one of us is in the wrong place. I mean: he does not have to agree with the mainstream view, just acknowledge the mainstream view for what it is. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) The information that Steiner was a rank pseudoscientist is spread in various Wikipedia articles, but till now never got centralized at Rudolf Steiner. See e.g. [5]. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC) @Clean Copy: I did not edit war against termed or described. I would very much prefer are, but I will follow the consensus. And, yes, one can like or dislike Steinerian architecture, but that's a matter of taste, not an objective judgment. Also, at your 30 January edits, the Dugan reference had 3 (three) pages mentioned for verification. Of course, Google Books only shows one page. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [6] Discussion concerning Clean Copy 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 Clean Copy User:Tgeorgescu's original insertion of the text "He was also a peddler of rank pseudoscience" used a citation that linked to a specific page that said only, "Effects of the preparation have been verified scientifically." This clearly did not support the claim. It did not occur to me that the link he inserted (which was to page 32) was not to the page he meant to cite (page 31). Once the page reference was clarified, and further citations were added, I modified the language from "a peddler of rank pseudoscience," in which "peddler" and "rank" were loaded terms supported by no citation, and a clear violation of WP:EPSTYLE, to "His ideas have been termed pseudoscientific," which is clearly accurate and less strident. I am certainly open to other language that reflects the tone and content of the citations and appropriate to an encyclopedia. There has been no violation of WP:3RR, for example; I just made these two changes. Clean Copytalk 03:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) There have been comments about my reference to ""Anthroposophy's uses of Goethean science "have been verified scientifically."" I want to clarify that User:Tgeorgescu linked specifically to this page in his citation. The page's only text relevant to Steiner's scientific status was this quote. It appeared such a flagrant misuse of a source that I quoted the actual text from the page he had cited. I would never have used such a source myself (I don't feel that popular works are particularly good sources, particularly when the authors of their articles are not recognized authorities in any relevant field). I genuinely had no idea that he had linked to a different page than the one he intended. I also want to point out that a vast range of serious work from verifiable sources is cited in the article; Steiner's work in education, philosophy, social reform, and many other areas is not remotely treated as pseudoscientific. To ignore this is one-sided. I do feel the statement, which I put in once there were more sources than the above, that "His ideas have been termed pseudoscientific" reflects that there is a wide range of opinion here. I also want to note that a topic ban based on a single edit removing a statement that admins agree was flagrantly in violation of the tone of an encyclopedia is a remarkably harsh response. Clean Copytalk 11:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate More a detail than a statement, I noticed Clear Copy recently when assessing the state of some related articles after a notice at FTN. My comment is to share these links in relation to a conflict of interest: 1, 2 (agreed 6-0 by ARBCOM at the time in 2006). —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by Alexbrn For anyone not aware, the Clean Copy account was formerly named Hgilbert, and has a long history of strongly biased pro-Steiner editing.[7] Statement by an IP editor I have posted to WT:A/R and note that Alexbrn's comment that Clean Copy formerly edited as Hgilbert is confirmed. There were adverse findings of fact against Hgilbert in the 2006 ArbCom case ArbCom case Waldorf Education that included a finding of biased editing of the Rudolf Steiner article. Though this was a long time ago, it is relevant background when considering allegedly problematic / biased editing of the same article. It is also another remedy under which action might be considered and Clean Copy is aware of this case as a party to it. ArbCom are presently considering a motion regarding the utility of DS in the Waldorf Education topic, where editors might like to offer their perspectives. Anticipating any concerns: Yes, I have an account that I have stopped using. No, I was not involved in the Waldorf Education ArbCom case. No, I don't recall any interactions with Hgilbert / Clean copy, though I do believe that pseudoscience topics needs to reflect scientific reality. Further, I offer no comment on Clean Copy's edits... I am simply noting that, as Hgilbert, there were specific ArbCom findings in a previous case relating to the same article. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Clean Copy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This edit is an extremely misleading misuse of the source cited. It added a statement that "Anthroposophy's uses of Goethean science "have been verified scientifically."" Although the source is the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Volume 1, that phrase is taken from an extract from the website of the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, which the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience quotes to illustrate what proponents of biodynamic agriculture believe. Nor is the phrase taken from the section on Goethean science but from the section on Biodynamics on the same page. Clean Copy then removed a statement that Steiner's ideas are considered pseudoscience, using this quote to argue that Steiner's work has been scientifically verified, rather than that the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association doesn't think that biodynamic farming is pseudoscience. This does look like tenacious promotion of a fringe theory to me. Hut 8.5 19:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC) I sympathise with Clean Copy's opinion that "peddler of rank pseudoscience", stated in Wikipedia's voice, is overly strident phrasing. It shouldn't be in the article. However, Clean Copy's own misuse of the source, which Hut 8.5 describes, is hair-raising. It's very difficult to believe it was perpetrated in good faith. I recommend a topic ban from, at the least, Rudolf Steiner and anthrosophy, broadly construed. Bishonen | tålk 22:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC). You would think after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education Clean Copy would be much more careful in this topic area. I support a topic ban here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I am in broad agreement with Bishonen's analysis. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

71.114.58.144

Blocked as a standard admin action for 6 months -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:35, 3 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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning 71.114.58.144 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Clayoquot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 71.114.58.144 (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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it January 14 BLP violation Jan 26 BLP violation that was revision-deleted by Drmies Feb 2 BLP violation Additional comments by editor filing complaint I filed a complaint about this user at WP:AIV; it was declined because the user's last warning was "stale". I requested protection for Steven Salaita and Steven Salaita hiring controversy at WP:RFPP; nothing was done because an administrator said there hadn't been enough disruptive activity to justify protection. I filed a complaint about this user at AN/I and the only outcome was that Drmies deleted some of this user's edits. So I am wondering how long this has to go on for before we do something to prevent this user from making further BLP violations. For the record, I do not personally agree with the views of Steven Salaita, but we have BLP standards that should be upheld. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [8] Discussion concerning 71.114.58.144 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 71.114.58.144 Statement by (username) Result concerning 71.114.58.144 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Hard to enforce DS with an ip, so I decided to be creative. The IP address is listed as dynamic, but a look at the contribs says it is remarkably stable (mine at the house hasn't changed in years either, so it happens). I have blocked the IP for 6 months as a standard admin action. I left a template on the IPs page to this effect. If they come back with another IP, we may look at semi-protecting the pages. Leaving this report open in case any admin wants to opine or change my actions, which I'm open to. Otherwise, any admin can just close it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

207.47.175.199

Closing with no action. At the same, let me warn 207.47.175.199 informally that bending rules [9] can lead to getting blocked if there is a pattern of doing so. Having a minority (or majority) opinion nor being an IP editor grants no special privilege or immunity. You might want to back off just a bit, as you are uncomfortably close to that cliff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 11 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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning 207.47.175.199 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Kleinpecan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 207.47.175.199 (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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Special:Diff/1022910385: soapboxing about COVID-19 lockdowns with a reference to  The Epoch Times (RSP entry); no relevance to the GBD Special:Diff/1022931757: "... in this article there is no science, just opinion from people who either are erring on the side of overabundant caution of authoritarian origin, or who are grinding axes in an effort to justify same." Special:Diff/1023681990: "In its place, so-called 'reputable sources' made up a fiction that a few dozen questionable signatures taint[] all 10's of thousands of signatures, which clearly is a biased POV ... The cost benefit for the fear mongering of the CDC, whose story changes as each abundance of caution POV is show[n] bogus on a nearly daily basis, is devastating people's lives." Special:Diff/1024964885: "OK, the CPSO, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, whose job it is to license physicians in Ontario, Canada, has issued a dictatorial decree prohibiting discussion of anything that does not agree with their ruinous POV. ... Perhaps those who risk their careers by disagreeing with your authoritarian POV persuades you of nothing ... I am speaking up and occur a risk of being canceled. I hope for your sake you do not get what your are [sic] wishing for, a dictatorship wherein your neighbor can turn you in for 'counterrevolutionary ideas.'" This comment was removed by Hob Gadling for soapboxing. The IP has restored it and removed some parts but instead twice accused Hob Gadling of censorship. Special:Diff/1025472252: "Moreover, sources like Google and YouTube censor content and demote Covid therapies that do not agree with their biased political goals, so you cannot take any sources as unbiased without investigating policy for those sources. ... Hiding behind biased sources promoting fiction does not establish your POV as either common or more importantly real." Special:Diff/1025486875: "That statement [referring to the CPSO's "dictatorial decree"] is reminiscent of the reaction of the authors on this website: Totalitarianism with no descent [sic] acknowledged." Special:Diff/1069878899: "You should follow the money for the critics of the GBD if you want to see special interests. What I do not see here is any discussion of epidemiology and quarantine ... Failing that, there is no scientific content in this post. ... this post is just axe-grinding." Special:Diff/1069907948: complaint about the article's lack of "discussion of epidemiological models for disease"; no relevance to the GBD Special:Diff/1069926124: "The argument that SARS-CoV-1 has nothing to tell us about SARS-CoV-2 merely because it predates a politically charged discussion steeped in ad hominem bias is farfetched. ... You are badgering me by quoting rules of evidence that are irrelevant [referring to Alexbrn's and Slatersteven's note that the IP is engaging in synthesis]." Special:Diff/1070324389: complaint about Wikipedia's description of The Epoch Times as far-right; no relevance to the GBD Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Special:Diff/1069927988. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Special:Diff/1070719792. Discussion concerning 207.47.175.199 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 207.47.175.199 Statement by (username) Result concerning 207.47.175.199 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Dynamic IP but very stable. Discussions are sometimes heated, but on topic with sources backing the claims. Not editing article, just talk page. A bit on the WP:FORUM side but not overly so, the same as others, and it all applies to the article. Fairly civil, even if a bit snippy sometimes (then, so am I). They aren't trolling, others are engaging them. Total of 7 comments in the last few days, which isn't excessive. Annoying? Probably, but I'm not sure this rises to a level that justifies WP:AE action at this time. Minority opinions are welcomed if the editor is reasonable. I wouldn't recommend any action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch

There are no saints here. Closing without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 12 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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Ypatch User who is submitting this request for enforcement Ali Ahwazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Ypatch (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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#RfC moderation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 15 May 2019 A now-banned user adds a section 17 December 2021 The content is removed after 2.5 years Here I and Vice Regent say that the removal of this old content needs consensus building. In truth, we say the user wasn't banned at the time that he added the content. Ypatch and The Dream Boat (outed himself to be a meatpuppet) say it ought to be removed due to the user. Ypatch keeps repeating that the content is added by a now banned user and hence should be removed. He edit wars against other users over this [10], [11], [12]. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 10 December 2019 Ypatch blocked for edit warring on an IRANPOL article. 27 April 2020 Topic banned from IRANPOL articles broadly construed, for 3 months. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) He knows there were some decisions. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Ypatch ought to create consensus for removing the old content, but instead of that, he is railroading other users by beginning a wrong RFC and I told him this. The user has reverted other users three times while he only commented once in talk about the dispute. AFAIK, because the content has been there since 2019 and the user adding the content had no problems at that time, Ypatch needed to make consensus before removing the section. Instead of that, he says inserting the content needs consensus. He has opened a RFC for insertion of the content while the RFC ought to be for removal of the content. Mr @Vanamonde93:: But the first line Wikipedia:Silence and consensus reads that "Consensus can be presumed to exist until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." That content was there for 2 and a half year. More than one month later after Kazemita entered the content, Stefka (now banned) only changed the title of the section. So the consensus existed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested I informed/notified the mentioned user Here Discussion concerning Ypatch 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 Ypatch I really don't want to get involved in this, but even those in favor of having this content in the article are saying the content needs improvements. Ypatch (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Perhaps I was too trigger tempted with the revert button, but i did not violate 3RR and Ali Ahwazi and Vice regent both reverted a few times too, yet they are reporting me for reverting (Vice regent received a warning in the recent ArbCom case for battleground behavior in this area). I opened the RFC hoping to solve the issue (about content that we ALL agree needs improving). Ypatch (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Vice regent Vanamonde93, I agree that consensus is achieved through discussion, but I don't believe Ypatch's behavior has been constructive. I proposed a compromise version on 15:50, 24 December 2021 and again on 20:47, 27 January 2022. Ypatch didn't respond to either one. On January 27, I gave 4 policy-based reasons: (1) allegations are WP:DUE because they were made by multiple organizations, multiple journalists and covered in 11 secondary reliable newspapers[13], (2) Ypatch's proposed text was a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, (3) that one of the sources in this text was quoted incorrectly, hence a violation of WP:V, and (4) that another source was not WP:RS[14]. Ypatch didn't respond to any of these 4 arguments, but continued to edit war on January 28[15]. In fact, while Ypatch has reverted 3 times, they have made just two comments relating to this content. When you spend more time reverting than discussing, it's not a good sign. You credited Ypatch for starting an RfC, but Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Arbcom found that past RfCs attempted "to railroad preferred changes". Given that neither Ypatch nor Bahar have responded to my Jan 27 policy based objections (even though both visited the article on Jan 29), it does seem like voting is being used as a substitute for discussion. Other examples of Ypatch's recent unconstructive engagement: This discussion: I gave alternative English names of PMOI/MEK in the "Names" section, but was reverted. So I provided 25 RS in support (yes, 25!!) and gave ngram evidence that suggested one of these names may have been the most popular until the 1980s. The evidence was strong enough that it convinced not just Ghazaalch but also an uninvolved user[16]. But Ypatch opposed this[17] in a vague comment, not addressing any of the evidence above. I added a very relevant image, but Ypatch reverted it[18]. Ypatch insinuated a copyright violation[19] but the image's copyright is just fine. Ypatch tried to have the image deleted at Commons, but an administrator there found Ypatch's attempt "politically motivated"[20][21]. After Mario restored the image[22], Ypatch invoked WP:CRP[23]. Another example: on Jan 28, Ypatch claims "You haven't explained what is wrong with my summarisation", yet I gave a detailed explanation right above on Jan 15. This is WP:IDHT. Ypatch's behavior is demoralizing. I spend hours in crafting a thoughtful response (researching, wordsmithing proposals etc), only to be ignored, reverted and stonewalled.VR talk 17:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion It is true that Ypatch shouldn't edit-war, but participation in a single brief edit war that hasn't breached the 3RR isn't sufficient to bring to WP:AE, especially when the filer also participated. It is also true that the text is longstanding; it was created (shortly) before the editor's other account was banned, so WP:BANREVERT doesn't apply, and we don't automatically revert someone's contributions just because they were later banned. But the article is extremely low-traffic, so even though the text has been there for a year it's also reasonable to conclude that it doesn't have a strong consensus behind it - at least not to the point of rushing to AE to defend that extremely low level of implicit consensus. Also, it is absolutely not the case that text is required to be left untouched while discussions or an RFC is ongoing, so Ypatch's reverts are at least not a violation of the specific RFC moderation sanction mentioned. But honestly everyone would benefit from worrying less about conduct at this stage and focusing more on content and the underlying dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Bahar1397 VR and AA edit warred too, but it seems that if one doesn't agree with VR's version proposals then to him that's something that should be brought to AE. That seems like "civil battleground mentality", which apparently he has been warned to stop doing already[24]. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Ypatch This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. When will the lot of you learn that what you should be focusing on is discussing content, and not procedural wikilawyering about what version should exist while an RfC is under way? The content was added by a user subsequently banned. You've not provided any evidence that it had consensus at the time it was inserted; indeed, the page history suggests it didn't. As such, it requires consensus to be placed in the article. Yes, Ypatch is edit-warring, and he should be less trigger-happy with the revert button, but he's not the only one guilty of reverting before discussing, and he did in fact start the RfC, which was the right thing to do. In case anyone reading this decides I'm somehow favorably disposed toward Ypatch, I'll note that I have sanctioned him before for battleground conduct, of which I'm seeing plenty from several different users. I would close this with a warning to all parties about battleground conduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @Ali Ahwazi: You're missing the point, and repeating what I told you not to do. All content in an article requires consensus, and consensus is primarily built by discussion. The content in question has never had consensus reached via discussion, and as such there's no excuse not to discuss it. Under the circumstances, how long it's been in the article cannot change the need for discussion. It's only relevant to the status of the article while discussion takes place, which, as I've said, is a procedural matter, and not what the lot of you should be spending your energies on. We had a whole ARBCOM case about this; editors in the area who were not parties to that case would do well to read it, and not repeat the problematic behaviors identified there (this goes for both of you, and anyone else involved in this dispute). Please go discuss the substance of the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC) @Vice regent: I am seeing sub-par behavior from several parties, none of which quite rises to sanctionable behavior. Everyone involved could afford to engage more substantively with the sources, and to rely less on procedural objections, as I have said. I'm not going to go deeper into the history than the evidence provided here; I've spent what energy I have for it already. If another admin chooses to levy sanctions, I will not stand in the way, but as is par for the course here, the walls of text discourage anyone uninvolved from commenting. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC) @Bahar1397:, what's most concerning about your post is that you've come here to complain about Vice_regent, with no information that hasn't been posted here already, despite your involvement in this dispute being restricted to a single RfC comment, and no other engagement in the topic area in the last six months. Enforcement options exist for when behavioral problems disrupt ordinary consensus-building. I don't see much evidence of you attempting to engage in the substance of this dispute. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Less than ideal situation, like so many. I don't see a need for action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Unless an admin comments to the contrary in the next 24 hours, I'm very likely to close with no action. Assuming another admin doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Iskandar323

Duration of topic ban is hereby reduced to "time served". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved 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 (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from the subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict, imposed here: User_talk:Iskandar323/Archive_1#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Palestine-Israel_articles Administrator imposing the sanction Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Diff notifying the imposing administrator. (NB: They are now inactive and a former administrator.) Statement by Iskandar323 I would like the length of my topic ban to be modified on the basis that the enforcement process was interfered with by Icewhiz socks. While I understand and accept my fault in the matter, I think the length of my TBAN is worth reconsidering in light of the latest round of Icewhiz SPI revelations (those involving Eostrix), which subsequently saw the account that launched the enforcement appeal, 11Fox11, and the two supporting accounts, Geshem Bracha and Free1Soul, blocked as Icewhiz socks. Upon my appeal to Callanecc, the administrator who imposed the TBAN, they agreed that based on these SPI revelations there may be scope for a modification of the ban's length. In their last active edit on Wikipedia, Callanecc noted their willingness to reconsider the length of the ban "as no longer necessary (based on constructive editing) after 3 months from when it was imposed (so towards the end of December)". Unfortunately, Callanecc no longer appears to be active and recently had their administrator "CU" permissions revoked. However, in accordance with Callanecc's suggestion, I would now present as evidence of my constructiveness in the subsequent three months my elevation of an article to GA status [25], two DYK credits [26][27] various new pages [28][29][30] (among others) and a confirmed SPI case [31]. Thank you in advance for reviewing my appeal. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC) @Shrike: I don't see diffs made prior to the arbitration enforcement action in September (when I acknowledged certain issues with my understanding of process and my tone) as particularly pertinent to this appeal, which is based on the issue of sock involvement and my subsequent constructive editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC) @Vanamonde: Hi, I meant I understand my clear violation of the 1RR restrictions in place at the time, which was the reason for both AEs - in both instances because I was fairly rusty on Wikipedia and the stringent and broadly interpreted nature of the rules and discretionary sanctions in conflict areas, and blithely ran afoul of the parts about full/partial reverts, same or different material, etc., even when I thought (quite incorrectly) that I knew what I was doing. But also, in pushing up against what I thought were the limits of the 1RR restrictions, my editing also demonstrated a degree of impatience and impetuousness that was hardly a model of the preferred BRD approach to differences of opinion (even if, as is possible, I was intentionally bated into the whole situation by the socks). In any case, all of this was me 5,000 edits back. I would like to think I am at least a little wiser now, a little more patient and understanding of the need to let edits breath, and hopefully far less likely to allow myself to be drawn into situations that prove to be a waste of time for all involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Callanecc Statement by Shrike Questions to Iskandar323 If someone points to you that you violated the policy do you still think[32],[33] its "drive-by disruption" and failing to assume AGF ? Do you still there are users that are antagonists [34]? Do you think this edit was ok [35] and why? It seems you recently received a warning about falling to assume WP:AGF [36] you have deleted the warning[37] could you please explain what happened? --Shrike (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Iskandar323 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 (uninvolved editor 1) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Result of the appeal by Iskandar323 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Callanecc still has the admin bit, they just haven't been active in a few months. And yes, on their talk page, they did seem very willing to consider modifying the tban after a few months of positive editing. I have not reviewed enough to have an opinion, but wanted to clear that one item up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC) This is tough. Your history over the last few months has had a couple of bumps (as Shrike points out) and the circumstances of the original tban was complicated by socks, but it's only been a few months. Given Callanecc's comments, and a fairly decent (but imperfect) civility record, I'm leaning towards a change is duration to "time served", but I really want more input from other admin, for a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Let me restate my above comment: I'm not going to act unilaterally to lift or deny this ban. I would request another admin look at this. I'm on the fence, so I'm guessing I wouldn't find a fault in whatever they decided because it is a close call, imho. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Yes, I'm fine with that Vanamonde93, and in fact, feel better about it since their last statement. I agree on your solution, and will move out of the way so you can do the paperwork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I'd be amenable to lifting this in principle, but I'm not entirely convinced by the appeal. Iskandar, you say you "understand and accept my fault in the matter", but neither here nor in the previous AE action do I see explicit indication of what that means. I don't expect you to grovel—that's unproductive—but what is going to be different going forward, aside from the absence of Icewhiz socks? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Iskandar, thank you for that. Given the above statement, and the involvement of the Icewhiz socks, I would be willing to shorten the TBAN to time served; i.e., not overturned on the merits, but lifted moving forward. Dennis Brown, I'd like to check that you're okay with this, and if so, I'll likely close this discussion soon; it's been open for a while. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Grandmaster

Grandmaster is indefinitely topic banned from AA2 signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 18 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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Grandmaster User who is submitting this request for enforcement Armatura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Grandmaster (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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 19:49, 16 January 2022 pushes outrageous website EPRESS.AM to prove his point that "even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons" for Agdam. The fact the "article" does not even have an author, that it is copy paste of unknown person's delusionary Facebook post, that it contains passages like "nomadic barbarian-vampires" and "they deserve this, I have f****d the city and the Turks' mother" about Azerbaijanis and that the whole website is a trash can with no editorial oversight or domain registration details, full of extreme profanity like "caught when jerking" or "I'd f***ed your mothers" does not worry Grandmaster. He does not want to hear, and keeps beating the dead horse again and again, and once again in ANI, by saying  he just “quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too.” , then accusing me for “making so much drama over one news link posted at a talk page, and bringing it to this board.” Such an "article" with racial remarks towards Azeris/Turks would not be normally tolerated another time, yet since it supports his “even Armenian media uses Hiroshima” POV, he isn’t bothered. 17:02, 16 January 2022 Grandmaster turns a blind eye on pro-Azeri propaganda; he won't see why Azerbaijani president's aid Hikmet Hajijev's "this is Hiroshima" phrase applied to literally all cities damaged in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, in front of BBC camera, constitutes propaganda; on the contrary, he justifies it by saying it is because every settlement in 7 districts that were under Armenian occupation "looks like Hiroshima... What is propaganda here?"... and "BBC report shows the town of Jabrayil that looks like another, smaller Hiroshima". 13 January 2022Grandmaster uses double standards, putting undue weight on "Armenianness" of the source, giving it undue weight, by downplaying Armenian village head's quote about Azeri president origin despite it was cited by neutral RS", or overplaying it like in Epress.am example above, depending on what better suits POV-pushing. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any En Wiki block log previous 10 blocks in English Wikipedia, mostly in AA topic Ru Wiki block log previous 10 blocks in Russian Wikipedia, again mostly in AA topic 29 May 2010 RU AE case - 6-month ban on Russian Wikipedia for leading the meatpuppetry Anti-Armenian group of a dozen Azerbaijani editors, some of which still support Grandmaster in discussions on English Wikipedia. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Grandmaster has veteran experience of POV-pushing with extensive history of blocks in Armenia-Azerbaijan topic in two Wikipedias. The provided diffs are just a few recent examples to show he has not changed but learned how to avoid bans by WP:CPUSH-ing as shown in diffs above. I think he is there not as much as to build encyclopedia, but to advance official Azerbaijan' positions on Wikipedia, in a nationalist mood, prohibited by WP:ADVOCACY. He is apparently unable contribute neutrally in topics he has ethnic conflict of interest with, hence I believe a topic ban from AA area, broadly construed (including Turkey and Turkic world), for at least 1 year, is required to help to sober him up, while allowing him to edit in topics he does not have conflict of interest with. I was advised by admins Rosguill and Robert McClenon to take the case from ANI to AE, and so I did. UPDATE 25.01.2022 Grandmaster worryingly changed his replies here 00:49, 24 January 2022 01:18, 24 January 2022 01:31, 24 January 2022 15:15, 24 January 2022 16:43, 24 January 2022 10:17, 25 January 2022 18:16, 25 January 2022 When this violation of talk page guidelines was noted by an opponent, he resented till another user notes the violation Worryingly, Grandmaster now glorifies Epressa.am as a reliable example of Armenian media, to prove a point, despite what he refers to is not even an article by a journalist but a text of an unknown person' Facebook rave with an attention seeking FRINGE title “Did we (Armenians) drop hydrogen bomb on Agdam and Zangilan?”. Not sure about 2014 award, but that website is apparently hacked and vandalised, everyone can see the sheer random nonsense posted there: 1 2. --Armatura (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC) UPDATE 29.01.22 Grandmaster, when the source is so obviously poor, it does not merit a discussion at WP:RS/P. WP:QUESTIONABLE sources are unsuitable for citing contentious claims (in article or talk page - does not matter) and minimal WP:COMPETENCE is required to see the obvious. The fact that you do not / choose not to see it after being on Wikipedia over a decade, your continued defence of that source even here, against all the evidence, is a sign of incompetence or inability to remain neutral in editing/discussing I am afraid. And what you call a "witch hunt" was a transfer of ANI discussion to AE, as advised by admins, that's all. --Armatura (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC) UPDATE 02.02.2022 Many thanks for time and effort spent on evaluating this case, Rosguill and Ealdgyth. Are you happy to close it per your concensus? Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified on talk page by standart alert. Discussion concerning Grandmaster 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 Grandmaster This is already 4th report filed on me by Armatura. Such persistence in filing frivolous reports one after another indicates that this user is engaged in WP:Witchhunt. Previously Armatura joined now banned user Steverci to accuse me of various things, but that report was dismissed as retaliatory. [38] Then he filed a 3RR report on me [39], which was dismissed without action, and he did it when I reported a banned IP user, so it appears to be another retaliatory report. After that he filed a report on WP:ANI, asking to ban me: [40] So this is the report # 4, which for the most part repeats the report at WP:ANI. Regarding Agdam, one can see that Armatura started the latest discussion by bringing up a BBC report that has no relevance to the city of Agdam, to support his claim that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" is used as propaganda by Azerbaijan (BBC says nothing like that, btw). But as was demonstrated by myself and other users, the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is used not just by Azerbaijan, but it was coined by British journalist and political analyst Thomas de Waal, and is used by mainstream international media such as Euronews, France24, AP, The independent, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. I quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too. I did not propose to include it into the article. In fact, Armatura's claiming that the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is propaganda after it was demonstrated that it originated outside of Azerbaijan and is used by media all over the world is tendentious editing in itself. Then he accuses me of removing claims of an village head about late president of Azerbaijan allegedly concealing his place of birth for political reasons, but how qualified is a villager to make judgements about the motives of the Soviet leadership? Even if it is reported by a reliable source, it does not make the claims of a man in the street reliable or notable. But I only removed that line once, and when Armatura restored it, I left it at that. There was no edit war, or anything of the kind. I just tried to attract attention to questionability of that claim, per WP:BRD. Regarding my blocks in en:wiki, as you can see, they are from 15 years ago, and incident at Russian wiki is from 12 years ago, and has nothing to do with en:wiki. Per WP:Boomerang, I think the admins need to look at Armatura's own activity. Armatura repeatedly violated WP:AGF and WP:Civil, making personal attacks and incivil comments every time I try to have a polite discussion with him. For example, in his report at WP:ANI, he accuses me of having a "narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys"", which clearly is a bad faith assumption. In this report here, he accuses me of "advancing official Azerbaijan' positions on Wikipedia, in a nationalist mood", with no credible evidence whatsoever, which is again not in line with WP:AGF. How civil is it to write to another editor: do not test the patience of other editors with nonsense, it may be viewed as trolling? Here he told me: Because you simply refuse to understand when I explain anything, in a nihilistic fashion Bad faith assumption like this, when he accused me of not reacting to another user's erroneous closure of RFC, even though Armatura was explained by a Wikipedia admin that he cannot hold against someone not doing something: [41] Another bad faith assumption at the same page: [42] Here he demands from me "repentance", which he would "perhaps accept"? [43] As was noted by an uninvolved user at WP:ANI, Armatura WP:BLUDGEONs the discussion by arguing with my every vote and every comment, [44]. You may wish to check Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement and Talk:Agdam#RfC_for_"Hiroshima_of_Caucasus" to get the full picture of my interactions with this user. Previously, Armatura was placed on interaction ban with another user: [45]. In sum, Armatura has difficulties with keeping it cool when engaging in discussions with other editors, which is why admins may wish to see if editing such a contentious topic as Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is something that he should be allowed to do. His behavior creates nervous and unhealthy atmosphere. Rosguill, please note that I only cited epress.am once, at the talk page of Agdam. I made no further reference to that source. Every other mention was in response to Armatura, who brought it up again at his talk page and ANI. Also, the article was not nationalist, quite the contrary, it was critical of those people who made racist comments about Azerbaijani people and justified destruction of Azerbaijani cities. Armatura takes words out of context, but context is important. The author does not endorse racist attitudes, but protests them. Also, Wikipedia has no censorship, and profanity is not forbidden. Regarding epress.am, it is certainly not a nationalist publication. Some information about them could be found here [46] [47] And here is an interview with its chief editor, who says that his publication is against nationalism, militarism, homophobia and violence. [48] It won Free Media Awards in 2014. [49] If you check English Wikipedia, it is used a lot in Armenia related articles. Grandmaster 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Once again, epress was not proposed to be used as a reference in the article. It was only linked once at the talk page in the discussion, as an example of a term usage, and that news-site is used as a reference in dozens of articles about Armenia in Wikipedia. If it is not acceptable, the issue should be taken to WP:RSN, to designate it as deprecated, and stop its usage in Wikipedia. I don't think that a simple mention at talk is such a big issue as to demand someone to be banned or sanctioned. I changed some of my comments here to save space, as I was advised I need to keep it short. Grandmaster 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni: 1st diff, which should be this, Billion was quoted by France24, a major French news outlet. [50] I used this quote on OSCE Minsk Group, not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him. 2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about Lezgins, and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained. 3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to be presented too, per WP:Balance. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made. Additional comments. 1st diff, Billion does not share Azerbaijani view, other international experts are also skeptical about future of the Minsk Group. 2nd diff, I don't think Cornell is generally a good source here, as he is referring to private conversations with some people. But what he wrote about Talysh is there. 3rd diff, EU parliament was already mentioned. Even if official Azerbaijani position is disputed, it still needs to be reflected, with attribution, according to the rules. Grandmaster 17:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni, you forgot to mention who brought up that source time after time at various places. Certainly not me. Grandmaster 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni, it was actually me who suggested to stop arguing about that source right there, at talk of Agdam: [51] But Armatura kept taking it to various boards, and brought it up even at his own talk page, when I tried to discuss with him a technical issue. Grandmaster 16:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Admins may wish to look into ZaniGiovanni's own reverting activity today. He removed Didier Billion: [52], claiming that he was a genocide denier, even though the article has nothing to do with genocide, and Billion was interviewed by France24, major French news outlet. Normally, if you question general reliability of a source, WP:RSN is where you discuss it, and reach consensus with the community. Then he removed RFE/RL, which is a reliable source, claiming that he sees from photos that the mosques' roof is there: [53], when it clearly is not. If you compare photos #4 and #5 in RFE article, it is obvious that the metal hip roof is gone, plus he engages in WP:OR. Clearly POV edits. Grandmaster 16:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni, it is clear from this picture taken before occupation that the triangular shaped metal roof is gone. Plus, you cannot engage in WP:OR and decide, what was and what was not removed. RFE/RL is a reliable source, and cannot be removed just because you disagree with it. Grandmaster 16:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Rosguill, topic banning an editor for just posting a link to a talk page discussion is too harsh. And I don't think I held up author's "Armenian ethnicity as somehow equivalent to speaking for Armenians or Armenian sources". I just responded to the claim that the source was "ultra-nationalist", and tried to demonstrate that it was not. I edited Wikipedia for many years, and made tens of thousands of useful contributions, created many new articles. I don't think it is a proportional punishment for whatever I did wrong. Grandmaster 19:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Rosguill, I think you do not understand why that argument was made. Armatura argued that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" was used only by Azerbaijani propaganda. But it was demonstrated by many users that it is used by mainstream Western media as well (please see comments at RFC there). I also pointed out that it was used by an Armenian reporter from IWPR, who cannot be engaged in pro-Azerbaijani propaganda. That is the only reason why the nationality of the reporters was mentioned, to demonstrate that they could not be a part of Azerbaijan's propaganda. I also pointed out nationalities of other sources, to show that the term originated and was used beyond Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 20:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Rosguill, it is not about ethnic identity, but rather the fact that the source originates outside of Azerbaijan. I also mentioned nationality of British journalist Thomas de Waal, for example. But I did it just to show that the term used by sources outside of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 20:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Rosguill, regarding epress, it was never used as a reference in the article, not it was proposed to be used. I only linked it once at the talk page discussion. I understand it could be a problem when unreliable pieces are used as references, but it was never my intention. I take the point that it is not a good quality source, and I will never make any mention of such sources anywhere. But a person can a make a mistake occasionally, I think. We are all human, after all. I don't think it is a adequate punishment to ban a log time editor with thousands of contributions for just one link posted at talk page. Grandmaster 20:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni, once again, I did not defend epress, I only demonstrated here that it is not a nationalist source, as it was claimed. Grandmaster 20:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by Dennis Brown (clerking only, no comments on the merits) Grandmaster, you are over the word limit by over 100 words. You need to trim it down a bit if you expect to reply again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Ok, will do. Grandmaster 01:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Is it ok now, or more trimming needed? Grandmaster 01:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC) If you look above, the limit is supposed to be 500 words total, which is often overlooked if you don't push it too far, but just be aware, that's all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Ok, thanks a lot. Grandmaster 13:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by ZaniGiovanni Since the ANI discussion, I was thinking wheter the suggested AE case would be opened or not, as there are other diffs of Grandmaster's POV pushing that weren't discussed. I believe as an involved party with the previous case, I should add my input. Some recent edits by Grandmaster that I believe weren't posted in either of noticeboards: diff 1 - Grandmaster adds Didier Billion as a source which supports Azerbaijani point-of-view. Billion is an Armenian genocide denier, (link). Billion trivializes genocide as "events" [54]. He's essentially a Turkish lobbiest, [55]. This isn’t the first time Grandmaster added an Armenian genocide denier as a source, see diff of him adding Christopher Gunn, another denialist. diff 2 - Huge WP:ALLEGED violation. Grandmaster removed any mention of the government falsifying records and just attributed it to belief. diff 3 - Grandmaster added WP:UNDUE Azerbaijani POV that a group of Armenian prisoners of war from 2020 Karabakh War were apparently a “saboteur group”. Even the Eurasianet source he cited casts a lot of doubt on them being labeled as saboteurs. It reveals one of the “saboteurs” is actually a civilian. And it also quotes an Armenian human rights activist saying they were taken as hostages. Yet another example of Grandmaster only citing what benefits his agenda and giving it a huge undue weight. Notable to add that the European Parliament source in the article states: “whereas credible reports have been made that Armenian service personnel and civilians have also been taken prisoner since the cessation of hostilities on 10 November 2020; whereas the Azerbaijani authorities claim that these hostages and prisoners are terrorists and do not deserve POW status under the Geneva Convention;” “whereas Azerbaijani forces detained these civilians even though there was no evidence that they posed any security threat that could justify their detention under international humanitarian law;” I'm not an admin, I don't know what appropriate measures are against users in such cases. As someone involved in the ANI discussion, I wanted to share the problematic edits of Grandmaster I've noticed recently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC) 1st diff, which should be this, Billion was quoted by France24, a major French news outlet. [17] I used this quote on OSCE Minsk Group, not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him. As I said, this isn't the first time you used "not Armenian genocide" defense when called out on your sources. You said the same thing about Christopher Gunn, another denialist, "This article is not about genocide". I struggle to understand how you don't get the point here, so I'll make an analogy: Do you think if someone is a holocaust denier, calls holocaust "events", says "JEWISH DIASPORA SHOULD LEAVE LIVING IN THE PAST” (he published an article about Armenian diaspora [56]), they can be considered credible on issues related to Jewish people? I don't think so, but maybe you'll defend him again, as it seems like when your view is challenged, you go extra defensive missing the point entirely. And btw, unsurprisingly, Didier Billion takes the Turkish/Azerbaijani point of view regarding Minsk Group, and has articles published about himself and his views in pro-Turkish government paper Daily Sabah [57], denies the Armenian genocide, etc. Do you honestly not see the conflict of interest here? 2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about Lezgins, and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained. 2 sentences hardly counts as a "large unnecessary quote", this was a complete exaggeration by you used to embellish your point. The Lezgins part is there because in the next sentence, author directly makes the comparison to Talyshs, and how Azerbaijani government denies figures for both ethnic groups, "These figures are denied by the Azerbaijani government but in private many Azeris acknowledge the fact that Lezgins – for that matter Talysh or the Tat population of Azerbaijan is far higher than the official figure." (Cornell, Svante E. Small Nations and Great Powers. Routledge (UK), 2001. p.269). You also didn't explain why you attributed Cornell's words to “belief”. 3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to presented too, per WP:Balance. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made. I re-checked the source you cited just to be clear, and have a couple of things to say. Firstly, that Eurasianet article concluded that the POWs even included a civilian among them, so the Azeri position of "sabotage group" is UNDUE and clear propaganda. And interestingly, somehow, you failed to include this information in your edit at all. On top of that, as I already said, the European Parliament source disproves the Azeri version, solidifying that it's UNDUE. Again, you cited only what benefited your agenda ignoring rest of the source, and gave it huge UNDUE weight. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC) On one hand, you still defend Billion and somehow don't see his conflict of interest after all the material I provided. On the other hand, you say "I don't think Cornell is generally a good source here", when in reality, Svante Cornell, being a Swedish scholar, specializing on politics and security issues in Eurasia, South Caucasus, Turkey, and Central Asia, being published by Routledge, one of the most respectable academic publications, is more than a good source here. Regarding the POWs, you missed my point. I think I've explained myself very clearly already, and I know the EU Parliament source was included in the article, I said it myself in the opening statement. What any of this has to do with you citing disproven propaganda and giving it UNDUE weight? I think I've said it all, I'll leave it for admins to judge my points, as this is getting increasingly repetitive and long. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC) It was only linked once at the talk page in the discussion, as an example of a term usage You defended that fringe article multiple times both in talk and ANI. No matter how you want to spin it, there is a limit to your WP:CRUSH and you breached it. You tried to portray that article to somehow be a legitimate part of Armenian news media and "term's usage in Armenia", which it isn't. I already addressed this in ANI, but for the last time, I'll address here. If a website like EPRESS publishes blog style nonsense like these (the following don't even have an author and literally don't make sense) blog1, blog2, it isn't reliable. If EPRESS publishes FRINGE nonsense of self-proclaimed "Ruben Vardazaryan из Фейсбука" (Ruben Vardazaryan from facebook) with the title "Did our people use a hydrogen bomb in Aghdam and Zangelan?", which isn't supported by any academic consensus, it isn't reliable and no way near what you claimed it is (i.e, part of Armenian media and "Hiroshima" term usage in "Armenian media"). Armenpress is a legitimate Armenian media outlet, not some random blog style nobody / facebook self-published article. I don't think that a simple mention at talk is such a big issue as to demand someone to be banned or sanctioned. You didn't just mention it, you breached WP:CRUSH, defended it multiple times in talk, and continued to defend it even in ANI and here. And the EPRESS WP:CRUSH wasn't your only problematic conduct recently, I provided other diffs of your POV push. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC) When you say stuff like this, And btw, even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons. This is an article by an Armenian journalist, titled "Did our people use a hydrogen bomb in Aghdam and Zangelan?", you should expect a reply. When you keep defending that nonsense even after the reply, you should expect your opposition to dispute that. When you keep defending it in ANI too and here, you should also expect the same. How is this so hard to understand? You keep saying "I didn't brought it up" as if you weren't the one defending it over and over when people asked you to stop. I can link all the other diffs but it would be long and I've already shown it in ANI. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC) First of all, that's a diff after Armatura asked you to stop, and he said if you continue presenting that as a "proof" of anything, he would report you. And secondly, you still continued to defend that "publication" even in your linked diff. This is getting ridiculous. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I think this is getting ridiculous and probably needs a close. Regarding Billion, I explained my rationale multiple times here. And regarding the Agdam Mosque article, I removed one repetition which still is cited 2 times in the article (once in lead and once in history section). And the roof part, I actually partially removed your recently added edit of "no roof". It seemed clear from the source that the roof is intact, and I checked other images which show the roof intact, so your edit was misleading. And btw, this report isn't about me or about edits I just did. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Why do you keep changing the premise? You did the same thing in ANI discussion. You claim one thing, then when you're called out, you change the topic to another as if you weren't defending the former relentlessly over and over again. And it isn't just "single mistake", you kept defending that EPRESS nonsense in, A) talk page; B) ANI; and C) even in here. This raises huge WP:CIR issues especially for controversial topic area like AA, and just because you have "thousands of contributions" it doesn't excuse your behavior, also see WP:YANI. I've seen far better editors than anyone from AA including all the ones here, who have still been sanctioned for various reasons. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Grandmaster This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Having only reviewed the main diffs presented by Armatura and immediate context, it's hard to see the repeated invocation of epress.am as representative of Armenian media as anything other than disruptive; the assertion by Armatura that these are ultra-nationalist ravings with no significant editorial oversight or cachet appears correct. I'm less inclined to see the other two diffs as sanctionable, and am unimpressed by their inclusion in this report. I haven't yet read through Grandmaster's response and boomerang case at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Ok, having read through Grandmaster's case against Armatura, setting aside the general merits of epress.am, I'm seeing a lot of IDHT related to the specific epress.am article in question, which very plainly states that it was sourced from Facebook, and am further concerned by Grandmaster's continued attempts even in this AE discussion to hold up a reporter's Armenian ethnicity as somehow equivalent to speaking for Armenians or Armenian sources. That repeated attitude, even in the absence of the other concerns raised in this report, is probably a sign that a topic ban is appropriate. Given that the evidence of Armatura's bad behavior here is limited to "assumptions of bad faith", which, given the concerning behaviors I've already highlighted, aren't really "assumptions", I don't think that a boomerang is warranted here, and I am left disinclined to review the tit-for-tat accusations against ZaniGiovanni. I would, however, very much appreciate additional administrators' input, as the editors involved here have more history than just the set of diffs presented in this case. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Ealdgyth, that depends on whether you're looking for a "Cliff Notes on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" or "Cliff Notes on the Wikipedia battles over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict"; the former is doable, as our articles on the two main periods of conflict, First Nagorno-Karabakh war and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are relatively well-written. signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Grandmaster, I think your response mixes the two incidents I was referring to: the bandying about of the epress.am article drawn from facebook is one; the emphasis of an IWPR reporter's Armenian ethnicity is another. My view is that frankly, these sorts of arguments belie a battleground and opportunist mentality that you should have unlearned by this point. If after 16 years of editing Wikipedia, you're still trying to use these kinds of arguments when discussing A-A, I don't think you should be allowed to edit contentious articles related to this topic. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Grandmaster, nope, I understood that perfectly: your apparently continued insistence that a specific journalist's Armenian identity (which appears to be inferred just from their name?) has any bearing on the situation is problematic in my view. If you had left those comments at just highlighting that IWPR is not in cahoots with the Azerbaijani government, I would have evaluated them differently. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC) This request slipped into the archive without action; I've now restored it, as I'd prefer to have ssomeone else close it, but if this stays open for another week I'm willing to close it myself rather than have it fall into the archive again, given most admins' apparent unwillingnes to touch this topic. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Is there a "Cliff Notes to the A-A conflict" by someone not involved for us admins that don't edit in the topic area? I'm inclined to tban Granmaster but I'm very aware that I know little of the whole conflict and would prefer at least having some clue before going full-on tban... Ealdgyth (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Having just spent a depressing amount of time reading pages that display bad behavior from editors, I can get behind a tban. When a topic area is contentious, the way to deal with it is to step up your editing and behave better, not sink down into the mud further. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323

Maybe a 1RR violation, maybe not, but regardless, Shrike is cautioned against filing reports here that serve as the first rather than last step in the WP:DR process. (Hep'ly ever after.) El_C 01:59, 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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Iskandar323 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Iskandar323 (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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 21:46, 17 February 2022‎ Revert restore of this [58] 05:33, 17 February 2022‎ partial restore of this [59] removal of "modern Israel" and "Parts of Jordan" in both versions. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Topic ban for 12 month Topic ban which was lifted on appeal only a few days ago [60] he was warned that This means the threshold for harsher, and longer duration sanctions is much lower, and if basic policy on editing in these areas is not followed, will likely come without any warning. Please be careful. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint It doesn't matter if it was different "premise" as you claim, you twice removed text that you didn't like . Partial revert is still a revert --Shrike (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown There are not connected but per WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page —' whether involving the same or different material' " If you say that user is allowed to revert different material I will ask to withdraw this request and ask ARCA clarification Shrike (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC) @El_C So if someone else is reverting the user he is no immune to enforcement? the user just returned from topic ban in my opinion he should be carefull and not revert twice in the same article.Also it seems from the user response that he doesn't consider this are revert. So my questions is in similar sutatuin should user revert himself or no? @Vanamonde93 The fact is he removed twice "Jordan" and "Israel" yes it was different edits but he couldn't wait 24h does such edits are ok? In my opinion is attempt to game 1RR restricitons Shrike (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC) @Vanamonde93 In similar cases should user self revert if asked so? Shrike (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC) As per admin clarifications I am sorry for wasting community time and I understand that I should have asked the user first so I ask to withdraw the request but I still think that Iskander should understand what he did is incorrect and he should be more careful per his comments I don't think he is Shrike (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown Probably after this will be closed I will submit arca request because my interpterion is different I can remove two different texts and then restore in the same article each restore is different revert that how I see it Shrike (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC) As far as I understand you do allowed to edit several times a day you just not allowed restore/remove text that was recently added/changed Shrike (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [61] Discussion concerning Iskandar323 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 Iskandar323 I count one revert and one mountain out of a molehill. Shrike has presented a series of edits, none of which remain in place or are being edit warred over, and the most recent of which is under active discussion (started by me) on the talk page as part of a healthy WP:BRD cycle. The second edit Shrike has presented is not clearly a revert. It was a different edit, making a different change and with a different premise, as explained in the edit comments. It has not been labelled as "Tag:Undo" and the edits before it has not been labelled as "Tag:Reverted", so clearly it was not enough of a revert to rile any bots, but, in any case, in the face of opposition from other editors, the matter was promptly dropped and everyone moved on. ... except for Shrike, who has notably not been involved in any of this editing, has not participated in or engaged with the discussion, did not raise any issues with me on my talk page, and appears to be only here for the drive-by attempted elimination of another editor (over edits that for everyone actually involved are dust on the wind). Four other editors were editing the page at the same time, and none of them see the contrived picture that Shrike now presents or have raised any issues on my talk page. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that AE was a recourse of last resort for raising serious complaints about disruptive editing, not raking over non-existent edit conflicts that have already being resolved by the parties involved. At this point I would like to note that Shrike has been fairly relentlessly in pursuing me from a disciplinary standpoint the moment I set foot in the IP area, giving me my ARBPIA warning, raising an AE against me, being the only editor to turn up to object to my TBAN appeal (after just 15 minutes with a long list of grievances combed from my talk archive) and now here, having combed my recent edits. Aside from Icewhiz socks, Shrike is the only editor who has taken up major issue with my editing, despite our interaction outside of these enforcement actions being almost non-existent. I would like in turn to request an interaction ban between myself and Shrike so that this can end. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy A user editing in good faith would leave a note to the user saying they believe there was a 1RR violation and ask them to self-revert. This is a blatant example of attempting to use AE as a weapon and it should result in a boomerang sanction for bad faith usage of this board. nableezy - 19:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Daveout This escalated a bit too quickly imo. I agree with Nableezy's suggested course of action (which should be the default procedure): when an editor is acting in good faith and not too disruptively (which I think is Iskandar323's case), it is best to talk to them directly, and ask them to self-revert before filling an AE complaint. (this happened to me before: I broke 1rr and editors, including nableezy, offered me a chance to self-revert and I appreciated that). - Daveout(talk) 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Iskandar323 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Shrike, I'm struggling to see how these two edits could possibly be related to each other for the purpose of 1RR. They are in different sections of the article. That doesn't mean they are good or bad edits, but for the purpose of 1RR violation, we normally expect the two edits to be (more or less) the same exact content. Can explain how they are connected? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC) But again, for very different information to be considered the same for 1RR, there has to be a clear link. If you revert out a birth date in one edit, and remove superfluous text that was just added, I need to see a link, or have it explained, in how they are related to each other, and not just two independent acts of editing. Otherwise, you would have to redefine 1RR to being one edit per day, not one revert. Show me the link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC) As some others have pointed to, technically, if you remove any text, that could be called a "revert", but that isn't a fair way to look at it for 1RR. That standard would grind editing to a halt. Some 1RR violations are blatantly obvious, some are more nuanced, and sometimes removing text is just cleaning up. If it isn't fairly clear, we aren't going to take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC) While it is true that reverts of different pieces of content can count toward XRR limits, I don't see this violating the spirit of the 1RR rule; in particular I'm struggling to see the second diff as a revert, rather than a normal edit. Furthermore, in an edge case such as this, I would expect a request to self-revert before an AE report; that such a request was not made suggests to me this request is less about curbing disruption and more about nailing a perceived opponent. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC) There's no doubt Iskandar needs to be more careful, but I stand by my reasoning above, and would not consider sanctions in this case. 1RR restrictions are meant to curb edit-warring, not to be used as a bludgeon against opponents. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Yes, a self-revert would have been useful here, even if only to avoid wasting the community's time with requests like this. Please note though that partial reverts of previous text are not always going to be a problem; they are not infrequently the result of talk page discussion, and have at least some consensus behind them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Vanamonde, I haven't looked at the diffs (sorry, writing in haste), but during the time when I was more active here, I would straight up decline sanctioning for a 1RR report that lacked a self-revert request/warning (i.e. the AE report itself would be closed with such a warning). Dennis Brown, my understanding is that 1RR follows the mechanic of 3RR: whether involving the same or different material. But I can understand wanting to omit that to lessen the gotcha/stumble factor somewhat. El_C 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Shrike, it gets a bit murky when trying to connect, as a revert, replacing something with something else as opposed to simply removing that thing. Personally, I wouldn't count it as a revert in this instance, though the argument could be made that it, technically, is. But returning to a self-revert request/warning: I don't think it ought to be limited to a fire-and-forget alert. Rather: Concerned user: you've broken 1RR at SNUH, please self-revert. Discerned user: oh, sorry, will do. Or if they say: I don't think I did, because of X, Y, T, then on it goes until resolution. Orr, if at an impasse, WP:AE. *** And they all lived hep'ly ever after. El_C 18:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)