Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive308
Mr Miles
edit| Mr Miles is topic banned from all subject covered under WP:GENSEX (Gender and sexuality), broadly construed, for an indefinite period of time. This included articles, talk pages, administrative pages, your own talk page, everywhere on the English Wikipedia. Breaches of the restriction will be handled with blocks, up to and including for an indefinite period of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mr Milesedit
In 2020 and 2022, Mr Miles comes to Trans women and engages in disruptive WP:POINT-making about the lead sentence based on his POV that trans women are not real women. Mostly this focuses on changing the language of assigned male at birth to "biologically male".
Other anti-trans edits:
Give that this editor has shown trans-antagonistic editing over multiple years and that they have returned to the same article to make the same disruptive WP:POINTs, I believe a topic ban is warranted. This disruption is not limited to one page, so a partial block on Trans woman would not suffice. Replies:
Discussion concerning Mr MileseditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mr MileseditI merely went to the Talk Page for Trans Women and questioned why the unsourced intro claimed that 'Trans Women are women' (a political slogan), rather than the consensus of reliable sources which is that 'trans women are people assigned male at birth who identify as women'. My understanding is that talk pages are for discussing the relevant article. I was subjected to a barrage of ad hominem by a set of editors gatekeeping a POV. That I made one change to the intro 2 years ago (!!) is hardly evidence of 'disruption'. I also reject the term 'real women' used by the editor of this request for enforcement. And on Michel Foucault - how is this relevant, he wasn't trans? The sources there were of course RS. This request is vexatious
User:Crossroads - I went to the talk page and gave an opinion, how is that 'uncollaborative'? That the editors that have accumulated around this article all share a POV doesn't mean giving a different opinion is disruptive/'trolling'! Isn't that what the talk pages are for? WP:CIV - "Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project" User:Drmies - The definition of 'whitewashing' is replacing a black person (Whitewashing in film) with a white one - Beachy Head Lady was a white woman as the DNA sampling showed. Unless your claim is the Francis Crick Institute doctored its results to 'whitewash' them - if so, I'd like to see a reference for such an extraordinary claim? Mr Miles (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown I didn't change 'long settled text', I made one edit to the intro 2 years ago (and as I pointed out, that intro had been changed radically from earlier more accurate versions) - how could that be considered 'hateful' in the mind of a reasonable person? Mr Miles (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Dronebogus: "transphobia"? An accusation without supporting evidence is considered a ‘personal attack’, for which an editor may be blocked from editing. WP:NPA Mr Miles (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by CrossroadseditI support a topic ban. This behavior is uncollaborative, even troll-like, and a detriment to the editing environment. There are constructive ways to suggest changes, and Talk:Trans woman/Definitions shows there are many possible ways to define the topic, but this behavior is uncivil and unacceptable. Crossroads -talk- 02:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by DroneboguseditBehavior at Talk:Trans woman is definitely obvious Wp:SEALIONing and purely vexatious (making his accusations of vexatiousness hypocritical). On top of this user doesn’t even seem to have a coherent point and swings between frivolous complaints about word definitions to thinly veiled transphobia. Strongly support topic ban at minimum. Dronebogus (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by NewimpartialeditI agree with Crossroads. To be less succinct, MrMiles has done very little with his account, for more than two years, except to push a POV on gender issues. To wit:
So very much POV, without the slightest fig leaf of contributing (or even participating in the discussion of) sources. I don't really care whether the edits in question were motivated by transphobia; they clearly do not contribute to the development of article content, are accompanied by truly epic amounts of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, and have repeatedly provoked disruption on more than one Talk page. I favor a topic ban, without which further disruption appears inevitable. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Mr Milesedit
|
Iskandar323
edit| Not actionable. Fad Ariff is warned that continuing to file unactionable reports can lead to sanctions, including disallowing future AE reports to be filed. AE is not for content disputes or actions that can be handled on the talk page, the user talk page, or other venue. AE is the last resort for Arbitration Enforcement only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Iskandar323edit
Iskandar323 gaslights and misuses policy [1][2] to POV-push seemingly WP:OR / WP:SYNTH content in the article. The sources in the article don’t support: 1) That the logo in the infobox belongs to this group. 2) That the group was "Left-wing". 3) That its colourcode was "red". 4) That its religion was "Islam". 5) That Parviz Yaghoubi was "a veteran member of the MEK since 1968". 6) That the group was "homonymous" with the PMOI. 7) That People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran – Followers of Musa's Way was a "prominent" group (the opposite seems to be the case). See article talk page where I raised many of these points but Iskandar323 has mostly deflected.
Not that I am aware
Discussion concerning Iskandar323editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Iskandar323editA frivolous AE filing about content not discretionary sanctions violations that should boomerang. It is worth noting that Fad Ariff recently raised three AE cases against different editors in 24 hours: [4], [5] and [6] - making clear that they do not appreciate the limited resources available at AE. On the contrary, as I raised at a previous AE case that was ultimately never resolved, Fad Ariff has been guilty of fairly wholesale DS violations, including several breaches of WP:1RR, alongside further evidence of WP:1RR gaming. I would also note Fad Ariff's use of the adversarial language about 'gaslighting' and 'deflection' is all fairly battleground. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by FirefangledfeatherseditEven assuming Fad Ariff is correct about everything in their filing and that all of the parts of Iskandar323's one edit to the article were mistaken, this is still not a matter that needs any sanctions. Iskandar323's clear motivation was to preserve content, including plausibly reliable sources, during an AfD discussion. I haven't looked into Fad Ariff's conduct enough to have an opinion on a boomerang sanction, but I urge a warning, at the least, to ensure that this is their last frivolous filing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Researcher (חוקרת)editIs Iskandar323 an admin? Because the user rights on the account don't show this. Iskandar323 placed a Ds/talk notice consensus required notice on the talk page. If Iskandar323 is not a secret admin, then they are very much in the wrong here. Fad Ariff also gave a reason in each of his edits why he remove material like here and here. Iskandar323 gave no reason other than announcing via edit summary that DS notice consensus required applies. Iskandar323 was supposed to check if the sources said what the text said. Again, is Iskandar323 an administrator? Because only administrators are allowed to make this kind of ruling I think. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
My replies above were to posts moved in this edit, therefore indents are doubled.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning Iskandar323edit
|
TheLastOfTheGiants
edit| Moot. Ironic that I was here, about to warn tgeorgescu regarding his language towards TheLastOfTheGiants on several pages, when TLOTG flips out at ANI, to the level that required RevDel and got himself indef blocked. The warning to tgeorgescu still stands. It isn't enough to be right, you can't cast aspersions around (Copyright page) like that. You need to tone it down a few notches. Closing for a lack of anything else to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TheLastOfTheGiantsedit
For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive244#Cealicuca and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive244#Iovaniorgovan, these are clear and strong precedents. Why use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV inline, while the whole section is clearly attributed to the
The
I stand by my words: "Wrong reading of WP:RS/AC." Anyway, I find your defense unconvincing: you're getting lost in the shifting sands of your own deeds and arguments. And, above all, I still did not hear the reason why you're in a different position than Cealicuca and Iovaniorgovan. The facts: in that article there is continuity turf (i.e. a section), immigrationist turf, admigration turf, and neutral turf. On the continuity turf view there is stuff like But see the rest of their edits: they are pushing a nationalistic POV. There are hardly exceptions from this rule. Maybe I was wrong that they are a Romanian nationalist, possibly they are a Vlach or Aromanian nationalist. Cealicuca also supported their pet theory. Or was that Iovaniorgovan? Hard for me to distinguish between the two, except that they sided with different theories. Anyway, all three of them use WP:WALLS. About "nationalist": through your edits Hungarians always get the short end of the stick. Besides, statements including Your lies are puerile at [9]:
Discussion concerning TheLastOfTheGiantseditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TheLastOfTheGiantseditTo simply the issue, so that is understandable for those who don't know the subject:
Statement by (username)editResult concerning TheLastOfTheGiantsedit
|
Philip Cross
edit| Philip Cross is blocked for three months for violating his British politics TBAN. In addition, under WP:NEWBLPBAN he is topic-banned from living people who are significantly involved in politics, broadly construed (including, but not limited to, candidates, activists, and political journalists or commentators). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Philip Crossedit
I requested the user self-revert the blatant WP:BLPRESTORE violation, the user declined. The Jerusalem Post blogging platform is open to all, here is the application, and WP:BLPSPS is clear that only blogs that are subject to the editorial control of the newspaper may be considered for use. Regardless, there had been no attempt to engage in generating a consensus as is required by WP:BLPRESTORE. Additionally, Philip's editing of this article raises serious concerns that stretch back years. For example, he, in 2020, removed material about the SPLC apologizing to Khalek with the false claim that the material was located elsewhere. Nowhere else was that in the article. Taken as a whole, his editing at this page show a clear attempt to amplify any negative coverage and diminish any positive coverage. But even without that history, these two edits are blatant violations of WP:BLPRESTORE, the second following a DS alert, and a refusal to self-revert. Should result in a BLP ban.
Aquillion I think that misses the point. It simply does not matter if it is actually UNDUE or if it is actually a BLP violation for our purposes. This is not that discussion. What is relevant here is that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus for the reinsertion of material that has been claimed to be, in good faith, a BLP violation. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Must be obtained first. Twice now Philip has re-reverted what have been called BLP violations without so much as a token attempt at gaining consensus. And then refused to self-revert, despite policy demanding consensus for his restoration. There is no affirmative consensus for the reverts, and as such Philip Cross has violated WP:BLP multiple times, unrepentantly at that. An editor that refuses to abide by WP:BLP should be banned from editing BLPs, full stop. He still has not self-reverted the blatant BLP violation. Also, if admins are waiting on PC before doing anything here, I would say that is a waste of time. Philip Cross has simply refused to engage in reports, see for example phis only edit to the ANI report on a past topic ban violation. He made no comment in the ANI thread. Its as if waiting out the report is the strategy, and it should not be allowed to continue. nableezy - 13:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Philip CrosseditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Philip CrosseditI edited the article on Paul Joseph Watson on the basis that his main activities are US based via his association with Alex Jones. I have not edited the brief mentions in the article which relate to domestic British politics. There is "no consensus" about using The Daily Beast as a source. The one edit I have made to the article about Jacek Rostowski here relates to his career in continental Europe. Philip Cross (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by Cullen 328editThat blog post by Petra Marquardt-Bigman is a highly opinionated piece that shows no evidence of editorial control or review or fact checking. It is a diatribe and a screed, not journalism. It is so flagrantly biased that I cannot see how it can possibly used in a biography of a living person. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by AquillioneditOh, good lord, is this the same dispute as the Volunteer Marek request above? Anyway, the answer is similar; the older diff is not the sort of clear-cut BLP violation that would justify sanctions for restoring it once - it's "this person has been described as X" citing a number of sources to reasonably high-quality non-SPS opinion pieces describing them that way. It's probably WP:UNDUE but not something so shocking that you can get people sanctioned simply for restoring it a single time. The newer diff is somewhat more serious - it is definitely inadequately sourced per WP:NEWSBLOG; even if the author is an expert (as Philip Cross has said), that doesn't solve the issue because the subject-matter expert exemption is for WP:SPSes and we cannot use a SPS, even an expert, for BLP-sensitive statements per WP:BLPSPS. (The particular problem is that, as I understand it, The Jerusalem Post's blogs are not subject to their editorial control, as BLPSPS requires.) But adding it once, and failing to realize that a sufficiently low-quality newsblog is effectively a WP:SPS, is an incredibly easy mistake to make - even very experienced editors make the same mistake with WP:FORBESCON, which is similar. Making that mistake once is not sufficient reason to ask for sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesedit
Statement by LittleChongstoeditI agree that Philip Cross has shown a repeated pattern of biased and bad faith edits in various BLPs over many years. I honestly find it very surprising that they're still allowed to edit BLPs at all, but I am relatively new to the Wikipedian community. I disagree with Aquillion that this edit was a mistake, given the long history of similar edits to other journalists and political figures. Statement by Mhawk10editThe J-Post piece is an example of why we have WP:NEWSBLOG, but my reading of that very same guideline distinguishes NEWSBLOGs from WP:SPS at least at first glance (it instructs people to look at the SPS section for personal blogs and group blogs, but does not give that instruction for newsblogs). That does not mean that reverting the source and content back was a good idea (I think basically everyone here agrees about that and that the source was not-so-reliable), nor that we should treat JPost blogs as anything other than SPS, but I don't see it as the sort of bright line BLP violation that's worthy of any block or ban based off how the guideline is written. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Vladimir.copiceditThis is a slightly unrelated observation on this editor's recent editing. I note that Philip Cross is indefinitely banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. In the past few weeks this editor has made edits to the following articles that are in the area of this ban (non-exhaustive example diffs below):
There is nothing wrong with these edits - some of them were needed - but nonetheless they are well within the area of the ban. I have a lot of respect for the work Philip Cross has done on jazz biography and would hate for the project to lose him due to these infringements on his ban (especially in light of last year's block for a topic ban violation). Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning Philip Crossedit
|
Volunteer Marek
edit| There isn't an appetite among AE admins to do anything here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Volunteer Marekedit
Rania Khalek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I think the only AE report I've ever filed before, ironically, was 3 years ago against Huldra. I don't think I've ever taken VM to AE before; I did take him to COIN last year, where there was consensus he had a COI, but that was unrelated to this. FYI, On July 5, the subject posted about this on Twitter, where she has 250k followers. [15] Levivich[block] 02:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer MarekeditStatement by Volunteer MarekeditAside from linking to some edits, Levivich fails to explain exactly what is supposed to be wrong with any of these edits. The text was there going back to at least 2019 although it got bounced around the in the article. When I put it back in the lede there were 7 reliable sources supporting it. I added two more making it 9. Now there's 11 reliable sources supporting the summary (indeed, it's earned an "excessive citations" tag) Couple notes: 1. As mentioned on talk, Levivich never edited the article before. As is well known we've had some very serious disputes before, in particular before WP:ARBCOM. His sudden appearance in a middle of my disagreement with another editor looks very much like WP:STALK and a lame attempt at getting payback/restarting old fights. 2. I've been trying not to make too much fuss about it, but one of the other editors who tried to remove the text from the article, User:Pinkville was canvassed off-wiki to perform that edit on someone else's behalf. As soon as an admin comments here I will send the evidence privately. Since they made only one revert though, personally I'd let it slide with a warning. 3. There's some substantial WP:COI editing on the article by one of the subject's co-workers/employees/co-authors, with a clear attempt at POVing the article. My edit was the first step to try to undo some of that. Since those edits were made under a username which is potentially identifiable to a real person I'll refrain from linking the specific edits here but will send the diffs to any admin who comments here. Anyway, this report by Levivich is just petty and vindictive and about as spurious as they come. They know it too which is why they engage in this pre-emptive "I don't think I've ever taken VM to AE before" (no, but he tried to drag me before ARBCOM and ANI numerous times before and anyone who's been around for any amount of time knows the whole sorry Icewhiz-related story). Honestly, this deserves WP:BOOMERANG on account of the WP:STALKing and WP:BATTLEGROUND by Levivich. Volunteer Marek 02:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Lol. "Disclosure unauthorised" has ... two edits. Anyone want to venture a guess who this is? I'd offer a bet but it's too easy. Volunteer Marek 06:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Note: Levivich just broke the 1RR restriction imposed on the talk page, twice [16] [17] [18]. Since they just filed this report (which counts as notice of DS) and they've been editing in this area for a long time, they're fully aware that the 1RR restriction is in place. Volunteer Marek 18:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC) @Huldra: User:Pinkville was canvassed to revert on that article off-wiki (if they had insisted on it, I would’ve reported them here). Another major contributor who disagreed here has a big ol’ COI (co worker). Those kind of comments/input *should* be ignored (or even sanctioned). That leaves pretty much you and Levivich, with Levivich jumping in at last second, for, you know, “his own reasons”. Volunteer Marek 00:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Pinkville, I’m not sure why you insist on pretending like there’s nothing here. One person asked another person off wiki to “fix” the article for them (I.e. curate the article to their liking), that person then said their partner was an admin on Wiki and could take care of it, at which point you popped up and said you’d take care of it. Through out your involvement with article, even after I alluded to the behind the scenes stuff that you were engaged in, you failed to be upfront or even acknowledge the fact that you were contacted and asked off wiki to edit the article and were doing so, “as an admin”, at the behest of your partner. This is the “basis in reality” that you somehow are sitting here denying exists. I’ve genuinely been trying to be cool about this since your involvement in the article was minor (perhaps because I indicated my awareness of the situation caused you to hold back) but broadly speaking that kind of off-wiki coordination and doing edits on behalf of other users (acting as their WP:MEATPUPPET) is sanction worthy and most certainly not conduct “becoming an administrator”. Under the circumstances I believe the “scale of my accusations” was as mild as possible. I tried to only make you aware that I was aware of what was going on. I *could* have, and in retrospect perhaps *should* have, immediately brought this off wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry/coordination to a notice board and asked for your tools to be removed, which is what often happens in such cases. Volunteer Marek 04:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by NableezyeditRania Khalek is not in WP:ARBEE, it is however in ARBPIA (and ARBBLP). I dont see where he was notified of the ARBPIA sanctions however. His ARBBLP notification was made today and postdates all but the final two diffs. I also dont see where an explicit claim of a BLP violation was made here, just a nebulous claim that it is contentious material. I dont see how this merits AE at all, there are only two diff that postdate any relevant DS alert and neither of those two diffs on their own merit anything. As far as "pro-Putin" bringing it in to ARBEE, it might if that were in reference to say Ukraine, but it isnt, it is in reference to Syria, which makes it a WP:GS/SCW issue, but no, not an ARBEE one. Though VM should stop reverting and open an RFC or a thread at NPOV/N to gauge consensus. But there is nothing that merits AE here. nableezy - 02:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Largely agree with KoA after reading that diff, If you were really concerned about upholding BLP policy, as you claim to be, you'd have been satisfied when I added eight sources backing up a controversial claim about a living person. But no, you're not satisfied with that, because you don't care about BLP, you only care about getting Atsme in trouble, because you don't like Atsme, because she disagrees with you in content disputes. is actually, word for word, what happened here. I dont actually agree with VM's edit, and I think he should self-revert and open an RFC, but that quote could be featured on the old Daily Show skit of a person arguing against themselves. Seems more based on personal vendetta than anything AE worthy here, and that should merit a boomerang. The 1RR violation may be excusable, if and only if a BLP/N thread was opened after they claimed it to be a BLP violation. But they did not, and Levivich is aware of the discretionary sanctions for ARBPIA, the edit-notice is listed, and he should be sanctioned for violating the 1RR (again). nableezy - 20:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBellaeditSo Levivich, you tracked VM to that article, then you made 1 edit (one), quickly followed by see you at AE comment of yours. But what do you have here? Nothing. Looks like it didn't work last time around for you, so you are trying again, don't you? This spurious report deserves a speedy WP:BOOMERANG and I hope you'll get one promptly. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
This should help - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Disclosure unauthorisededit
Statement by Sir JosepheditBased on this AE action brought by VM, I would think this is actionable as well, even if VM calls it petty, etc. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive224#Sir Joseph Statement by KoAeditI'll will admit this request does come across as Levivich out to get VM that I'm getting hints of WP:BOOMERANG, even before VM's responses on more background on the interaction. That's independent of if there are sanctionable issues with VM's actions, but right now, Levivich's tendency to pursue battleground behavior against editors they've been in disputes with seems to be inflaming the subject more noticeably right now. It looks like Levivich has a pretty clear vendetta against VM based on even a quick perusal of their talk page. It's pretty clear this is a multi-editor dispute at the article itself, so for Levivich to come here singling out VM is really looking like they are not heeding their warning back at ANI about this kind of behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#User:Levivich_long-term_tendentious_editing battleground behavior and more at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#Levivich_and_personal_attacks. Given how often they're around AE, ANI, etc. and the history with VM, Levivich's comments about never taking VM to AE are bordering on purposely misleading with that kind of history going on in the background since it gives an appearance of being not quite as involved as they actually are, and don't really seem to take heed of the previous battleground cautions they've been getting. I think what puts this over the top for me is that Levivich is using this interaction to jump into an edit war against VM at the article. I'm also seeing more heat/tendentiousness rather than clearly showing a BLP exception to edit warring. I'd be pretty apt to suggest at least a one-way interaction ban on Levivich towards VM because I would have concerns about gaming/wiki-lawyering from Levivich based on past admin discussions, but if practicality is an issue, making it two-way "no-fault" just to try to settle the topic down might be the best. I don't know the topic dynamics enough to know if that could cause gaming elsewhere, but this interaction at least does seem to be a problem as part of Levivich's wider issues. KoA (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by HuldraeditThough I must say I am disappointed with Volunteer Marek's (VM) behaviour at the Khalek-page, I am not sure this report belongs here at AE. Two editors before me (Pinkville and Burrobert) object to the stuff VM is working so hard to insert in the Khalek article. VM's reaction is to double down and insert it, anyway. And no-one has claimed that no source have called Khalek "pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin", the objection is that this is one side of the story, also (as mentioned on the talk-page) many (most?) of those labelling her that are blogs and opinion-pieces. User:Pinkville wrote on the talk-page 02:05, 6 July 2022 "This article doesn't provide information about Khalek's views, it provides almost exclusively views purported to be hers by people and institutions that are hostile to her and the positions she has actually taken, e.g. her pro-Palestinian stance. To be a fair article, her own views/work should be presented, and any worthwhile criticism of her views/work can be included as appropriate. This is going to take some collective effort, but we're going to make this a reasonable, fair article, which it is not at the moment. Sound good? " I think this was a pretty reasonable summary/reflection; too bad VM chose to ignore it and edit-war instead. And for full disclosure (all "oldtimers" tend to have some common history) I believe this is the first time I have been "on the same side" in a dispute with Levivich. As for VM; at times I have been 100% supportive of him (as with the #$%&!@& User:I...); other times we have disagreed. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by PinkvilleeditI removed a non-NPOV sentence from the article and added it to the Talk Page with the open invitation to any editors to update the article to better conform to NPOV, including reinserting criticism or some version of the sentence in a more appropriate context and once content had been added to provide a neutral summary of Khalek's work and views. Later the same day I left a message [19] on the talk page of an editor (ImprovedWikiImprovment) who had worked on this article two+ years ago and who I thought had approached the subject and the discussion fairly. Not long after, VM left this reply [20] to me on the same user talk page. I was surprised by the tone and scale of VM's accusations against me - none of which have any basis in reality. Accordingly, I left a reminder of WP:Assume Good Faith [21], which was thrown back at me [22]. FYI, as far as I can recall, I had never crossed paths or even heard of VM before this incident. On this page, VM says: "As soon as an admin comments here I will send the evidence privately." Well, I'm an admin and I welcome him to furnish the evidence of my misdeeds. This sort of insinuation and secrecy is distasteful and inappropriate. How did I come to this article? I've been editing WP since 2002 (before 2005 using an anonymous account) and I've mainly been focused on expanding and improving the content. I've worked predominantly in two areas, 19th century photography (particularly in Asia), and various political subjects that I know well and have a particular interest in. Many of the latter have been articles with contentious edit histories - I've been involved in tense discussions over NPOV and related issues numerous times, and in those discussions I've had two goals in mind: to improve the content and render it NPOV and comprehensive, and to try to minimise the possibility of edit wars, painful arguments, and other counterproductive activity. I've made some mistakes, but overall I think I've been pretty successful. Because of my interests I've checked in on this article a few times in the last couple of years, though I don't believe I've made any edits on it. Recently I was made aware of the passage I subsequently removed and placed in the Talk Page with the declared aim of improving the article, making it better conform to NPOV, and reinserting the removed sentence if agreed by other editors. I was taken aback by VM's response to my actions and to VM's dogged intent to repeatedly return the passage that I think at the very least merited discussion before being used in the article. Instead of the project of improving the article being one of collaboration - certainly with disagreement - it risks becoming just another deflating, wasteful, unpleasant consumer of time, energy, and good will. Pinkville (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by AquillioneditThis is a valid content dispute, but everyone involved comes across looking bad. A statement that Statement by François RobereeditCan admins comment on the applicability of WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:OWN in cases like this and the one filed against Philip Cross below? François Robere (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Gitz6666editAfter having written one of the longest tirades against Volunteer Marek (VM) since the times of the Philippics, I won't pretend I'm not biased. When I opened this recent discussion at ANI on VM's behaviour alleging incivility and POV-pushing, I hoped that the outcome would have been a topic ban. WP:NAT and disregard for Wikiquette shouldn't be tolerated in an area as sensitive as Eastern Europe. Later, when I noticed the RfC in Rania Khalek, I understood that the problems were not limited to EE. VM is constitutionally incapable of abiding by the BRD cycle: as soon as they are reverted, they simply need to re-revert, again and again. I then thought that the belligerent spirits of this enthusiastic edit warrior (e.g. [26] [27] [28]) could perhaps be tempered by the 1RR - let's pull a couple of teeth from the old tiger. But yesterday VM started to openly canvass in the AE discussion where I am involved (here above) [29] and now I believe that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Statement by Adoring nannyeditI have interacted with both VM and Gitz at articles related to the Ukraine war and have clashed somewhat with Gitz, but it has been workable. I believe the articles are strengthened by the diversity of views. I would not want to lose either of them in this topic area. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Volunteer Marekedit
|
Ghazaalch
edit| There is a general consensus of AE admins to try to let the RfC build a consensus before we step in --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ghazaalchedit
Discussion concerning GhazaalcheditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GhazaalcheditI won't need to defend myself if the administrators had enough time to go through the discussions in the talk-page, since as I said in a previous Arbitration the main problem with this page is that there is no admin to watch it, so pro-MeK users feel free to do what they like. Here is the summary of the discussion that made Iraniangal777 to bring the case here:
Being reported by a did-nothing-but-reverting-account, I would also like to summarize another discussion in which pro-MeK users are Gaming the system, deliberately using Wikipedia:Consensus required policy to remove a well sourced content, if you let me exceed 500 words limit. Statement by Vice regenteditFyi, I'm an involved party. Iraniangal777 you need to engage constructively with Ghazaalch on the topic of names. As Ghazaalch points out, almost all your edits at the article are reverts. You've made three comments on this issue ([61][62][63]) and none of them gave any substantial reason for your revert. You seem to be using WP:CRP to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and this report comes across an attempt to weaponize WP:AE to resolve a content dispute in your favor.VR talk 04:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by MarioGomeditI think Ghazaalch's interpretation of WP:BLOCKEVASION and WP:BLOCKREVERT is fair. The page in question has been subject to edits by a proxy (TheDreamBoat) who eventually got caught and topic-banned. The initial accusation by Iraniangal777 about tag teaming is interesting, because the behavior by Hogo-2020 [64] and Iraniangal777 [65][66] looks pretty much the same like the tag teaming and gaming the system tactics that the previous cohort of sanctioned users used. And they were effectively proxying edits for a topic-banned user. MarioGom (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Hogo-2020editNobody has yet addressed the diffs by Iranigangal777. Instead this is being deflected to TheDreamBoat (an editor already blocked) or to the OP (Iraniangal777). Yet all that the OP has done is revert Ghazaalch's edit-warring, started a RFC about the disputed content, and reported Ghazaalch with evidence in the form of diffs. What is apparent in that article (and in the diffs provided by the OP) is that Ghazaalch has been persistently edit warring (despite the in-progress RFC about that content or the article's regulations, which I can only guess were put in place to prevent this kind of edit warring). Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by Alex-heditAccusing Iraniangal777 of "proxying" because she objected to Ghazaalch's edits (as a different editor who is now blocked also did) would be like saying Ghazaalch is "proxying" on behalf of blocked socks Expectant of Light [67], Kazemita1 [68], or Saff V. [69] because they tended to WP:POVPUSH that the MEK are "hypocrites" and a "cult" (matching Ghazaalch's additions to that article, which started after these other socks were blocked). Iraniangal777 or Hogo have not done anything wrong here. Alex-h (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Iskandar323edit@Dennis Brown: What I found fairly inappropriate about Iraniangal777's behavior with respect to this specific RFC is the way they removed the content it referred to, and essentially shifted the goalposts of their own RFC after starting it. Since 22 June, this was the version of the relevant section. Iraniangal777 then started the RFC on 27 June, and five minutes later deleted a portion of material in the same section, by this point, part of the material to which the RFC seemingly referred. Ghazaalch has partly been reverting, as I did once, to restore this section to its pre-RFC state, as is customary, pending the outcome of the RFC. In the preceding edit to my revert, Iraniangal777 demonstrates a clear understanding that the material they are deleting is part of the content being "summarized" in the RfC, and yet deletes it all the same, before later excusing it due to the material having being added "recently" (though still five days BEFORE the RFC). Given that the RFC involved "shortening proposals", it is rather pertinent what the material contained in the section was immediately prior to the RFC. Otherwise, only people who scour the edit history for old versions know what is being talked about. I have made a note of this at the top of the RFC, conscious of the confusion that this might otherwise cause, since with part of the material deleted mid-RFC, Iraniangal777's "shortening proposal", for instance, only actually "shortens" anything by about 7 words - but again, only because there are an invisible 69 words already deleted by Iraniangal777. This is a phenomenal way to go about causing absolute confusion, but a bad way to hold a transparent RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by Fad Ariffedit@Dennis Brown: The diffs show that Iraniangal merely reverted to the article’s original version and started a RFC. Aside from the deflection and confusion in this thread, the diffs about Ghazaalch show that he kept edit warring his additions despite lack of consensus, despite the ongoing RFC, and despite warnings showing he was violating CRP. Ghazaalch also used a dishonest edit summary to restore his edits after being reported at ANI. Ghazaalch has also been re-arranging the comments of other editors in that RFC (even after being asked to stop [70] [71] [72] ). Like Alex-h clarified for others above, Ghazaalch added this new content to the article, and then proceeded to constant edit war / make WP:CRP violations. Is all of this going unnoticed? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning Ghazaalchedit
|
Gitz6666
edit| There isn't an appetite among AE admins to do anything here. I am not going to press our new, shiny "send this to arbcom for a case" button that the arbs gave us a bit ago, but it is tempting. No matter if yinz decide to return to AE or go to RfARB, please take point 3 of the evidence section of my guide to arbitration into account. Walls of text are counterproductive. The Eastern Europe topic area is more prone to this than others. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gitz6666edit
Diff #1. While the intention of Gitz could indeed be a replacement and "softening" the text (he removed "The parents of some of these children were killed by Russian military" and assigned all claims exclusively to opinion by Zelensky), he also clearly explained the purpose of his edit [103] in edit summary: No allegation of war crime here - drafting a law, possibly violating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child do not amount to war crimes, or at least no RS say so. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the in-line source used in the diff [104] because it says: "By doing so, the Kremlin violates Articles 7 and 21 of the Convention on the Right of the Child (UN) and Article 49 of the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts." Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. Violating it is a war crime by definition.
Diffs #2. No, that was not about Denisova, since Gitz also removes other content. In the first diff of this series he removes an independent claim by British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward. In 3rd and 4th diffs he removes "reports ... compiled by independent Ukrainian journalists and published by the Ukrainian parliament". My very best wishes (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Diff #7. Based on their response [107], Gitz6666 insists that the killing of elderly patients by Russian forces should be described as a war crime committed by Ukrainian forces. This is a misinterpretation because "The report by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime." [108] (does NOT conclude), hence this content arguably does not belong to the page, but in any case is not a war crime by Ukrainian forces. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I am reporting this because some other contributors suggested that the matter could be considered at WP:AE [110]. Gitz6666 has 2,000+ edits mostly related to war crimes in Ukraine. I think diffs above are enough to establish the pattern, but there are more his recent edits of same nature: [111], [112],[113],[114],[115],[116][117].
Discussion concerning Gitz6666editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gitz6666editWithout entering into details (diff by diff reply to MVBW is in my sandbox), I want to address MVBW's general allegation:
which sounds almost as a compliment, but it's false. I'm not a POV-pusher for the Russian side. I believe that the Russian army is committing hideous war crimes in Ukraine and I'd very much welcome the perpetrators being brought to account before a court of law. Admittedly most of my edits are related to war crimes in Ukraine - I wrote nearly 1/3 of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which means that I've spent dozens of hours documenting war crimes committed by the Russian army. I provided no less than 30 diffs documenting Russian war crimes in this discussion at ANI, which I opened on 22 June, and from 22 June to 15 July I counted at least 17 more edits adding contents and sources about Russian war crimes. A small selection includes [129] (Mariupol theatre), [130] (killing of a 13-year-old girl), [131] (number of killed children in the lead section), [132] (shooting on passing civilian cars), [133] (bodies in the Kyiv region), [134] (lead of 2014 Odessa clashes); many more can be found in my sandbox. I don't edit War crimes in Ukraine for including a pro-Russian POV. I truly believe that building an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and committed to neutrality is an excellent effort in a time of war: it promotes knowledge, understanding, sympathy for the victims and accountability for the perpetrators. Plus, I literally don't give a damn about the Ukrainian/Russian divide, I see only victims and perpetrators. To put it differently: this is not my war. If it were, I wouldn't be editing there. As I'm not a pro-Russian POV-pusher, why is MVBW reporting me here? The reason is that I've constantly opposed the attempt by MVBW and Volunteer Marek (VM) to "weaponise" war crimes allegations, which means using them (and using Wikipedia as well) as tools of warfare, by grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting war crimes so as to achieve a political goal. I've tried to keep the bar of verifiability at the same level as our reliable sources. Wikipedia is as authoritative as its sources, and it's of the utmost importance that we refrain from amplifying questionable contents such as Denisova's allegations on child rape ([135], discussion 1, 2 and 3) and intercepted phone calls circulated by the Ukrainian army ([136], [137] and discussion). Moreover, Wikipedia is committed to neutrality, which means that we cannot sweep allegations of Ukrainian war crimes under the carpet. Each and every time someone publishes contents about Ukrainian war crimes, MVBW and VM immediately revert. For that reason I've been mostly (but not exclusively) arguing in the talk page from what might seem a pro-Russian perspective; had I encountered an equally fierce couple of pro-Russian POV-pushers, I would have argued from an apparent anti-Russian perspective. At the very beginning of this discussion I asked MVBW if they had ever made one edit or one comment mitigating the responsibilities of the Russian army or documenting allegations of Ukrainian war crimes ([138]). MVBW replied in my talk page [139] and the answer was "No": they've never ever made a substantial edit or comment that couldn't be interpreted as anti-Russian POV-pushing. MVBW has made 95 edits to War crimes in Ukraine (4.35% of the total edits) and 219 edits to the talk page (10.66% of the total), and none of them can be quoted to show that they have tried, at least occasionally, to write from a neutral point of view. They are a crystal-clear case of sealioning and nationalist editing. And they are also a crystal-clear case of WP:DISRUPTIVE. MVBW is only at number 41 in terms of authorship and has added a meagre 766 characters to the article (0.3% of the text). The mismatch between number of edits and contribution to the text depends on the fact that almost all of MVBW's edits are reverts and edit warring, as anyone can see [140]. They're not really engaged in building an encyclopedia, they have other stuff to do here. At the beginning I tried to address their constant edit warring in a polite and friendly way [141], then in a harsher and more direct way [142], then I simply gave up and tried to block their disruption by repeatedly reverting them (although I have never violated, as far as I know, the 3RR). Tendentiousness and edit warring are not at all new to MVBW. I understand that until 30 April 2015 they were called User:Biophys, had a nice record at AE (e.g. [143] [144] [145]) and were also part of a group of editors who coordinated off-wiki to approach the articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics with battlefield mentality and edit warring [146]. I'd like AE to throw the most astounding and powerful WP:BOOMERANG against this impenitent and disruptive POV-pusher who has wasted my time and other editors' time for way too long. The same should be done with Volunteer Marek, as the two editors work in tandem and VM has been unashamedly WP:CANVASSing here below [147]. I've done my best at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and I hope that the closure will restore my good standing in the community and compensate me for the stress MVBW and VM subjected me to.
@Seraphimblade My statement (here above) is now 1068 words long and contains 19 diffs and various links. Plus I've created a sandbox (not yet finished) where I intend to reply to MVBW in detail. As I'm new to AE discussions, could you please tell me if this is acceptable? Note that MVBW has so far published over 1000 words of request + additional explanations + additional comments (not counting stricken-through text) and Volunteer Marek has published 839 words. I'd appreciate if I were allowed to significantly exceed the 500 words limit in these circumstances. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by (Alex Bakharev)editThe article is on my Watchlist. As far as I can see it Glitz is a productive user and certainly not a pusher for the pro-Putin point of view. He is trying to weed the article out of questionable facts. Like for example Lyudmyla Denisova, the Ukrainian ombudsmen until 31 May 2022 was dismissed from her position for "making gratuitously detailed and unverified statements about sexual crimes allegedly committed by Russian soldiers" that makes any claims about those "sexual crimes" that are sourced to her to be unreliable even if reported by reliable sources before 31 May. There was a discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Denisova's_declarations_on_child_rape about the matter and the apparent consensus was to remove this information. Similarly some allegations that appear in the fog of war may later be not proven or they can be used by both sides to accuse each other. I think it is important that we keep the balance and only include as fact the information that is proven, mark as "alleged" or "reportedly" the info that is not proven but highly probable and do not include the information that is most probably not true or is misinterpreted. I think Glitz is doing good job trying to achieve those goals. Maybe he is overzealous sometimes. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer MarekeditWhile the Denisova stuff is debatable, I think there are at least two clear cut violations in the above diffs provided by MVBW. First problem is that Gitz6666 is using Denisova as an excuse to remove OTHER sources. Basically if Denisova said it, he’s removing it EVEN IF other, independent sources say the same thing. You can see that in this diff (in #2 above), where he removes text starting with “The existence of credible allegations…” which is cited to CBS news not Denisova. There’s other instances of this kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:GAME editing. 2nd big problem is #7. Somehow “Russians shelled a home for the elderly” gets turned into “Ukrainians used elderly as human shields”. EVEN IF some sources speculate on presence of Ukrainian forces near the elderly home, NONE of them state that Ukrainians used these elderly as “human shields”. That’s original research at best and a gross misrepresentation of sources at worst. I haven’t looked into all the diffs provided above so this is a non-exhaustive summary of potential problems here. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry but what the hey is this: Gitz6666 says/claims If Gitz6666 is going to accuse other editors of hyperbole perhaps they shouldn't engage in it themselves? Volunteer Marek 21:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry Gitz6666 but you're being disingenuous. You quote text from the Mirror which was never used in Wikipedia. Likewise NO ONE ever tried to put into Wikipedia that the mother was "sexually aroused" - but you are pretending that someone did. NO ONE even PROPOSED that such text be added. Certainly not in the discussion you link. But you are pretending that someone did. The actual text that you were trying to remove was much milder and supported by reliable sources (NPR etc). So again, you're trying to pull a switcheroo here - claiming that people want to include one piece of text (which they don't) and using that as a false excuse to try and remove text which says something different. In that light, perhaps it's worthwhile to look at this ANI discussion which dealt with the same kind of problematic approach to editing these articles. Some comments from uninvolved users from that discussion:
This report here shows that you didn't take ANY of these multiple users' comments into consideration. Volunteer Marek 04:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC) User:Gitz6666 - what are you talking about here? Anyway, the escalating personal attacks coming from Gitz6666 in the course of this report clearly show that there is indeed a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here as well as just completely inability to "read the room" (this was already evident in his ANI report, where even after half dozen uninvolved editors told him "no, Gitz6666, the problem is actually with YOUR edits" they still went around insisting that the ANI discussion "supported" him (yes, he does same kind of thing in talk page discussions - claiming non existent consensus). Volunteer Marek 01:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by PaulT2022editI was not involved as an editor, however as a reader I think the article in question would benefit from more rigorous application of WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:RSBREAKING. See also opinions of User:Cinderella157 and User:Masem expressed in the related ANI discussion referenced by VM above. It appears that strongly held beliefs of editors on both sides result in different interpretation of the sources. For example, in the allegation No.9, investigator Ruslan Leviev says in the referenced interview (1:25) that CIT estimates that there's a 70% likelihood that the rocket was launched from the Russian side, and up to 30% chance that it was intercepted as claimed by DPR. This is interpreted as a statement of a proven fact by one editor, and as a 50-50 chance by another. Life experiences and beliefs of editors would inevitably affect interpretation of the sources and it would be unfortunate if content discussions, much needed in this situation, would be constrained by the threat of sanctions from mutual accusations of POV pushing. --PaulT2022 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC), clarified last sentence PaulT2022 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by ElinrubyeditI was still processing the fact that Gitz6666 (talk · contribs) doubled down on his sniggering smear at WP:RSN of Denisova as “not reliable” at (13:36, 8 July 2022), when I realized that he had tripled down on it after his 04:08 July 18 notification of this complaint, which he received quite acrimoniously, btw. Despite saying that he was traveling but would try to find the time to answer he managed to explain kindly to me that Denisova’s statements were “not informative” and “alas, unreliable” (08:45 July 19), adding that she should be ignored for the good of Ukraine: “one finds out the 25 girls held in a basement in Bucha is a fake (if it is a fake) and one starts wondering if the Bucha massacre has ever happened.” (09:51 July 19) This was in answer to my warning to Boynamedsue that such remarks were BLP violations and potentially libelous (09:38 July 18) Denisova was fired for what the government considered cause, but that cause notably did not include assertions that she was “unreliable” — this is inaccurate and derogatory and exactly the sort of impugning of her integrity that BLP is supposed to prevent. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC) (Somewhat later)editI think the ANI thread MVBW and VM linked to above is an excellent example of Gitz’ utter conviction of his correctness; in it I also link to the *previous* RSN thread about Denisova and in addition tell him (19:33, 27 June 2022 and following) that in the lede to an article he had badly misrepresented a source. I wrote it off at the time to the perils of machine translation, but in answeredit
Statement by AdrianHObradorseditI haven't been involved on Eastern Europe articles for a while, but I believe that limiting Gitz6666 from editing there would be a big mistake. It is a very difficult subject to keep with a NPOV right now, yet he has been able to maintain some pages reasonably neutral. Of course, when almost everyone, and even a lot of the press, has an (understandable) bias, trying to keep things NPOV can seem as if the person enforcing it has on its own a bias, and it isn't hard to cherry pick some and try to portrait someone as biased. NPOVing those articles is a hard task, which Gitz6666 has been performing diligently. I want to mention that both VolunteerMarek and MVBW do show a bias on their edits, (MVBW himself has expressed his believe that he probably is not able to edit with a neutral point of view on this subject here), and Volunteer Marek's edits sometimes border the unconstructive. Gitz6666 however helps keep an equilibrium, and I believe it would be for the worst to enforce any kind of sanction against Gitz6666. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by NableezyeditThis has transformed from an arbitration enforcement request to an arbitration case request, mostly because no admin has shown any interest in it before it quintupled in size. Well one did, to say it was too large. I think it has gotten larger since. nableezy - 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by PravegaeditThere was no need to file this report. Apart from edit warring which happened from all sides, everything else looks like a content dispute. I also agree with other editors that Gitz6666 is the best editor in this entire dispute. I recommend closing with no action.❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 05:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by Adoring nannyeditI have interacted with VM, Gitz, and MVBW at articles related to the Ukraine war and have clashed somewhat with Gitz, but it has been workable. I believe the articles are strengthened by the diversity of views. Different users do have different POV, and that's OK! I would not want to lose any of them in this topic area. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by AlaexiseditThese are legitimate disagreements in the interpretation of sources and Wikipedia policies. To take a random diff from the list, reasonable people can disagree whether reports of atrocities made by Ukrainian sources and quoted by major Western newspapers (but not confirmed by independent sources at that time) are WP:DUE. I think that these issues can be resolved through the normal editing process. Alaexis¿question? 09:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by BoudeditI think that Gitz6666 does tend to push in the direction of neutrality rather than due weight in the 2022-Russian-full-scale-invasion related articles (the article Adolf Hitler has due weight, and is not neutral: we describe Hitler as utterly evil, which is overwhelmingly supported by WP:RS). I also feel that Gitz is quite persevering in some editorial debates and can be slow to concede (e.g. a few editorial debates with Elinruby, where I think Elinruby tends to have been right). As Alex Bakharev says above, "maybe [Gitz] is overzealous sometimes". But this is not Russian-POV pushing. While I disagree with some of Gitz's edits and arguments, overall, I think it's clear that Gitz is making a well-intended and constructive contribution to these articles. Boud (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by SamuelRiveditThe article is currently a disaster and Gitz6666 has if anything been too ambivalent about what quality of content actually belongs in a Wikipedia article (and thus obviously not supporting my position of aggressively removing junk). I'm not here to defend anyone because I don't know what meaningful content changes have been made that I'm supposed to defend. Although this inquiry is about Gitz6666, the only way I can meaningfully contribute is to criticize My very best wishes, first for bringing up content disputes that were or are still discussed on the Talk page (such as the UNHCR report he continues to misquote), or that were successfully concluded at RSN (Denisova). In general I am concerned about the way some participants above lead discussions in war-related articles in unproductively POV directions. Of course everyone's accusing each other of pushing propaganda, and the sad thing about propaganda is that, as much as I wish I could say that obvious exaggerations, inaccuracies, and lack of credibility would lessen its effectiveness, they don't. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning Gitz6666edit
|