Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive242
Santamoly
[edit]| Santamoly indefinitely topic banned. AGK [•] 16:51, 21 September 2018 (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 Santamoly[edit]
Background: Crimea is a territory which was annexed in 2014 by Russia. The annexation, as described in this article, is recognized by a small minority of countries and not recognized by a large majority of countries and all international organizations. There is a de-facto consensus that in articles related to all aspects in modern Crimea we mention that it is administered by Russia but is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. I am sure there was a discussion on that, I can not easily find it now, but it is sufficient to state that this has been implemented in all articles in 2014 and still stands. In particular, Crimean Bridge (Crimea) connects Crimea with mainland Russia, and the article mentions that from POV of Russia, it is an internal bridge, whereas most of the international community recognized the bridge as international. In February 2018, administrator Acroterion placed a DS EE notice on Santamoly's talk page adding that "As your editing emphasis at Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 is closely related to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and the related, documented attempts at manipulation of Wikipedia using falsified sources..." On 28 February the user was blocked by Drmies for harassment. On 3 August, Santamoly removed info about Ukraine from the article [2]. I reverted them, citing de-facto consensus. They reverted me [3] saying the text has noting to do with the bridge, and were eventually reverted by another user. They were unhappy and went to the talk page discussion but failed to gain consensus. On 18 August, they went to my talk page and essentially said that Ukrainians are not capable of building bridges. I replied that with this attitude they should not edit articles related to Ukraine. They continued to support their view at talk pages. However, recently they edited the articles again, introducing POV edits [4], [5] and again removing mention of Ukraine [6] saying in the summary that my edits are "ideologically driven". Note that this is factually incorrect. I am here to enforce consensus, and not to introduce POV, and I am accused on a regular basis by pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian, and anti-Ukrainian editors in edits advocating POV opposite to their views. Given the behavior of Santamoly, I believe they are not able to constructively edit articles related to Ukraine and should be, well, topic-banned from editing these articles.
Discussion concerning Santamoly[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Santamoly[edit]Service ceiling of an airplane:[edit]An unlikely topic that seems to concern some editors is the matter of the "service ceiling" of an airplane [[8]]. The incorrect term was used, and many other aeronautical engineering types jumped in on the discussion [[9]], as one can see, and the discussion was EXTENSIVE. It seems that there is a political side to the topic of aircraft performance which, to me as an engineer, seems a bit over the top. I haven't edited this page for months after it appeared there were three active partisans with an agenda lurking nearby. Upon checking, I haven't edited this Talk Page since May 2018; it is now the end of September. One engineering-type editor (not I) remarked,"It appears that consensus among those same (politically-driven editors) is to keep deleting talk page comments presenting reliable data and lock the talk page." It's apparent that the Talk Page comments are being edited and manipulated to someone's outside agenda, and I haven't been there for months simply because it's too difficult to engage in this type of pointless partisan discussion. The point I made on march 25 is,". . . we shouldn't be reluctant to discuss it in a polite and civil manner. The entire point to be made is that what is shown as the Service Ceiling ought likely to be explained as the Practical ceiling." On March 29, I asked,"Can you please sign your comments? It keeps the discussions at a polite and civil level. Thanks!" Shortly after, I suggested,"I feel like we're making progress on this topic. BilCat holds that we can only accept Reliable Sources in this matter, and that manufacturer's certification data is in the realm of "original research". Fair enough. So can we then focus on which sources are acceptable as Reliable Sources? After a brief search, I have found two sources offering detailed technical data on aircraft of the world, published 15 to 20 years ago, long before the Su-25/39 became politicized, and I can offer them to this group for discussion . . ." As you can see, I was looking for some level of consensus, but the partisans didn't want this. Although I have edited thousands of Wikipedia articles over the last 10 years, I don't have the heft to engage in active Wiki-combat with powerful admin-type partisans who are able to block me or ban me from editing. As you can see from the SukhoiSu-25 Talk Page, they continue to aggressively menace other editors, not just myself. Crimean Bridge (Crimea):[edit]I can appreciate that some partisans feel an imperative to interfere with some of the details of articles that touch on their concerns, but the edits I made are simple, technical items concerning engineering topics. The Crimean Bridge (Crimea) article is about a significant engineering achievement. It's not about the political status of the adjacent territories. Those will be sorted out in the fullness of time. In this example, I worded the change of administration of Crimes from "annexation" to "accession" which is the term used in the statutory documents here:[[10]]. What's interesting to me as an editor is that the same active partisan types that appeared in the Sukhoi Su-25 page, objected to this change. Again, I registered a mild complaint, and in turn was threatened with a lifetime ban. A bit aggressive, it appears to me. When I'm totally retired from academia, I may return to organize a bit of sensible discussion on some of these partisan details. But I'm there yet. It's a lot of work responding to emotional remarks such as the complainant's unsourced statement that "it is an internal bridge, whereas most of the international community recognized the bridge as international". Where is the source for such an aggressive statement? The question that stays with me, then, is,"Why this sudden urge to ban me from a couple of fringe, esoteric, topics?" I may persist for a short while in order to see if there's any consensus. I always provide sources for discussion, and request feedback. My edits are always sensible and well-sourced. Further to this question is that, below, a comment by "AGK" says,"Pointed changes made to prolific articles, without context, amount to disruptive editing." I'm not sure what constitutes a "Pointed change to prolific articles" but I always provide sources to support my edits, so my edits can hardly be described as "disruptive". In summary, even though various political partisans may be briefly shocked by a different point of view, I'm not sure what the problem is. This is just normal academic discussion. "AGK" suggests an indefinite topic ban, but what would that look like? Any topic concerning airplanes? Or bridges? There may be 50,000 articles under each topic! And lastly,at the end of this page, there appears to be some remarks in Hebrew, but I'm not sure what this is about and cannot comment. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Santamoly[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Santamoly
[edit]| Declined. No evidence of involvement has been presented. --regentspark (comment) 13:54, 22 September 2018 (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 editors" 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).
Statement by Santamoly[edit]I have been "topic banned" from all topics by an involved administrator. I'm not sure that it's proper for involved admins to be securing permanent topic bans against occasional editors. It was always my understanding that admins should not get involved in consensus-seeking discussions on talk pages, so it's indeed disappointing to find that discussions on Talk Pages should be subject to such draconian censorship by active political admins. The involved admins appear to be focused on any article related to Ukraine, even though I am not directly commenting on Ukraine. The censorship imposed on me is not only "topic" related, but the partisan complainer has actually secured a "broadly interpreted" level of censorship. I've heard of this happening on Wikipedia, and feel in my heart that I should object to this sort of blanket censorship. During the discussions, I emphasised that I was looking for "consensus" which seems to be manipulated by involved admins. In the discussions I note that those in favour of looking for consensus were in the majority, but I was overwhelmed by the three involved admins. The involved admins appear on any Talk Page I was editing. I'm not sure how to proceed with an appeal against "involved admins", but I suppose I could start here. I note that my response to the notice was attacked by one of the involved admins for having too many words. Is this a serious offense in Wikipedia Appeals? Is this the quickest way of defeating an appeal (too many words)? What other errors am I making? Even though I have been a helpful contributor to Wikipedia since the first days, I am new to the topic of Wikipedia political censorship, so I'd like some consideration. The involved admins seem to be very experienced at securing bans against those they disagree with, so some guidance would be appreciated. Most of all, I'd like to clarify if an indefinite topic ban, "broadly interpreted" means a total, permanent ban from editing articles on Wikipedia since it appears that the involved admins (for example, AGK, Ahunt, Acroterion, Ymblanter) appear to be following me from one article to another. Is it likely they will always be on my various Talk Pages, "broadly interpreting" the topic ban? For instance, my specialty is aircraft engineering - does that mean I'm banned from aerodynamics discussions from all east Europe aircraft? Only ONE "east Europe" airplane has appeared in the discussions, and it's not even an "east Europe" airplane, it (Sukhoi Su-25) is a Georgian airplane, made in Georgia SSR. Can this airplane be "broadly interpreted" as being "east European"? I'm particularly concerned that I have been topic-banned, even though I'm not involved in this discussion since early in the year (March 2018). In essence, I was staying out of the topic due to respect for Wikipedia decorum. It seems to me that the active admins are seeking out anyone who was ever involved in a discussion and requesting immediate topic bans. In other words, it looks like unwarranted political censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs)
Statement by AGK[edit]Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Santamoly[edit]I have no opinion on the aircraft, but arguing over whether it's Russian or Georgian certainly would be in the scope of the ban. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Santamoly[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by פֿינצטערניש
[edit]| Declined. The editor appears to be assuming that the ban is because of a bias against certain content but provides no evidence that the admin concerned exhibits these purported biases or is involved in any way. --regentspark (comment) 13:53, 22 September 2018 (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 editors" 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).
Statement by פֿינצטערניש[edit]Since the ban was applied, I tried to bring to the attention of a number of other editors information that was lacking in the article on Dareen Tatour. Much of this came from the Hebrew Wikipedia, was well-sourced, and contradicted many claims in the article. Since then, none of these errors in the article have been corrected, none of this extra information has been applied, and the article continues to assert, contrary to the information I brought to the attention of other editors, that she is merely a self-published author who has only appeared on Facebook and Youtube, rather than having appeared in an English-language anthology of Palestinian writers as well as having published a print book in 2010. What's more, when I tried to bring this new information to the attention of other editors, I was banned from editing even my talk page, as though I were the one who was harming the project. Punitive measures are one thing, but it's ridiculous to leave information out of an encyclopedia for punitive reasons. I am not sure what to conclude from this, other than that the only purpose of this ban is to keep information out of articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Regardless of anything I might have done, the sanction is being used as a form of intellectual dishonesty; otherwise, this new information would have been discussed and added to the article. On this basis, I have to appeal the ban as unjust and contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, and being used expressly to harm the project. Granted, I would be entirely satisfied if people would simply make a less intellectually dishonest article. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Other information that has not been added: statements in favor of Tatour by winners of the Israel Prize, protests across Israel, condemnation from a number of leading Israeli writers, academics, and intellectuals... and further information (which needs further vetting) that a professional translator gave a translation of the work of Tatour and that their testimony was dismissed as "bias," as well as literature professors testifying that Jews had not been so harshly punished for writing much more inciteful things under both Tsarist Russia and British Palestine. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC) If this ban had anything to do with my conduct, it would not be being used to keep information out of the article. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Since no one else seems willing to add relevant information to the article, and everyone else seems to want to ignore relevant information, the ban is obviously not being applied for any reason other than political censorship. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sandstein[edit]As the sanctioning admin, I recommend that this appeal is declined, because the appellant does not address the reasons for the sanction and their own conduct as a result of which the sanction was imposed. Sandstein 13:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by פֿינצטערניש[edit]Result of the appeal by פֿינצטערניש[edit]
|
Appeal against topic ban [added: by Santamoly]
[edit]| Malformed request and a violation of WP:NOTTHEM. Declined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I do believe that the topic ban against me editing anything to do with East Europe is clumsy and over-done. I was only one editor of many who were looking for some sort of consensus in the Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft discussion. This discussion that seems to have excited the involved administrators included the following from another editor:
You can see that I was not alone in trying to sort out the political interference in this highly technical article. It was clearly unfair for the activist admins to single me out for a ban as they have apparently singled out other engineers who have sought to correct the enforced errors in speed calibration. I'm appealing the topic ban because I had apparently stumbled into a long-standing dispute (and a quite reasonable dispute), and was picked off by the political-activist admins because I was an easy target. If the ban is lifted I can promise that I will never stick my nose into this particular political dispute over this airplane's Service Ceiling value, ever again. Hopefully other editors can take the heat on this article instead of just me alone. Santamoly (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Santamoly
[edit]| Appeal declined. User:Santamoly, in addition to the indefinite topic ban on East European topics, broadly construed, is also banned from making further appeals - at WP:AE or anywhere else other than WP:ARCA - relating to that topic ban for one year. Both bans are subject to enforcement with escalating blocks. --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 26 September 2018 (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 editors" 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).
Statement by Santamoly[edit]I would like to appeal against the topic ban imposed as it's clearly overly broad and unjustified. It seems more than a bit extreme since it appears to be "topic ban" but it's actually a permanent total ban. The advice notes under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Talk_about_yourself,_not_others are good advice except they don't mention a permanent total ban portrayed as a "topic ban", so it's a bit of a challenge to figure out how to appeal the ban. I've clearly been unsuccessful so far as my requests have been turned down twice. The advice notes appear to advise that I should amend my offensive behaviour and carry on, but in this inatance I have offended nobody. The offense was a political offense of discussing a verboten topic (a Ukrainian airplane, I believe) against the advice of an activist admin who had been advising other editors also to stay away from the topic. Nobody was offended, and nobody was insulted. Therefore, a total edit ban is a bit extreme (the ban was against editing anything to do with "eastern Europe"). Eastern Europe is half the civilized world. Is it possible to have the "eastern Europe" topic ban mitigated to a "Sukhoi Su-25 ban"? I'd be pleased if someone could actually point out the reason for such an extreme ban. One of the judges said my response to the ban was too long (800 words). This might be a good reason to impose an appeal ban, but a civilization-wide topic ban against me for an editing error on an airplane's performance where I was trying to get an indication of consensus seems unbelievably extreme. There was no bad behaviour that anyone has pointed out, just inadvertantly straying into a political argument that appears to have been going on for some time. Please forgive me for persisting with this appeal, but it genuinely appears to be unfair. I sincerely apologize for exceeding the word count in my first appeal. But I'm genuinely puzzled by the reason given by judge Sandstein: "This is mostly content disputes and as such not actionable. However, the diff of 18 August 2018 leads me to believe that Santamoly should in fact not be editing in this topic area [Sukhoi Su25?] because it appears they are guided by nationalist prejudice." In other words, I had stumbled onto a politically sensitive Talk Page. Am I correct? Or in error? A reasonable defense against me being somewhere that I ought not to be would be a ban from editing anything about Sukhoi airplanes, not "eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". Thanks for hearing me out. Santamoly (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by AGK[edit]When enforcement was first requested, I set out my thinking in some detail. In the evidence concerning Santamoly that was submitted, I found:
By way of a statement, and unless there are specific questions for me, I would simply refer colleagues back to that thinking. AGK [•] 17:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Ymblanter[edit]Just to clarify, for "politically activist admin" who follows their edits Santamoly most likely means me, because it was me who warned him that their edits are not constructive, and who submitted the enforcement request. I obviously reject this aspersion. I am sorry that Santamoly still does not understand what happened and does not see any problems with their editing, and feel that they were a victim of injustice, but this was why I filed the enforcement request in the first place, and unfortunately I do not see that anything changed in their behavior so far.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Santamoly[edit]
Result of the appeal by Santamoly[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sdmarathe
[edit]| Declined per consensus amongst uninvolved administrators.--regentspark (comment) 00:01, 2 October 2018 (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 editors" 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).
Statement by Sdmarathe[edit]I believe, the reasons provided by BU Rob13 for topic banning me are not valid and my discussion with him on his own talk page still did not bring up anything worthy of such a sanction.[14] Below are the 2 incidents that were used for the topic ban.[15]
The principal reason why I sought clarification from BU Rob13 in the first place was because he had himself blocked Mar4d sometime ago along with 3 other editors after they had similarly participated in a thread about NadirAli's site ban,[19] and to me Mar4d's further participation in this thread struck as a breach of the topic ban imposed on him. Mar4d had then denied violating topic ban as well,[20] after which Bu Rob13 had detailed that how it was indeed a topic ban violation.[21] I informed about a new edit by Mar4d on Talk:Regional_power#RfC:_On_quality_of_sources to BU Rob13 and I only sought clarification[22] from him about this apparent violation (without requesting any sanction or block or warning) and BU Rob13 had agreed that
Similarly, I could be topic banned from WP:ARBEURO, because I included the mention and sources about "Ukraine" in my RfC and this RfC can be similarly construed as attempt to "silence or remove" editors topic banned from Eastern Europe or Ukraine under WP:ARBEURO. I was also thinking if one should be seeking clarification about this from WP:ARCA about the scope of a topic ban violation (not limited to this area) since this is more of a general confusion that if commenting on the thread concerning the restricted subject is violation "or" only making specific mention of the restricted subject is a violation. But anyhow, this topic ban in my opinion doesn't seem justifiable given there is a lack of any evidence of any policy violation or any misconduct. If there was a problem, I believe it could be easily handled with a dialogue. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by BU Rob13[edit]This sanction was the result of the same type of behavior that led to a "end of patience" mass topic ban of 10 editors in this discussion. This topic area has seen a pattern of behavior emerge where editors repeatedly try to get each other sanctioned through various abuses of process in order to remove "opponents". I believe this editor is a part of that pattern. This pattern is disruptive, and I will refer to my lengthy responses to the editor's complaints on my talk page for my explanation of why their behavior fits it. Note also that this editor came up in the previous AE discussion, but narrowly escaped a topic ban at the time. Instead, they received an interaction ban with Vanamonde93 for baselessly trying to get them sanctioned at AE. Again, the same type of behavior. ~ Rob13Talk 15:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Ivanvector[edit]I was pinged to Sdmarathe's topic ban inquiry on BU Rob13's talk page by Mar4d, although I'm not otherwise involved since I don't really have an interest in the topic, but I am aware that defining Pakistan as a regional power has been an ongoing debate. Here is a basic timeline:
In short: Sdmarathe's new RfC, whether deliberate or not, is a discussion on whether or not to include Pakistan in the list. Adding a tangent related to the India-Pakistan war does not make the RfC about the India-Pakistan war. I also agree with Bishonen that Sdmarathe's original post on BU Rob13's talk page was not seeking clarification, it was seeking sanction; if Sdmarathe wished to request clarification they would have done so at requests for clarification, and would have asked "is this a violation?", not run to an admin and declared "this is a violation". Restarting an unresolved discussion on a controversial point and then running to an admin to get your primary opponent from the same discussion sanctioned is, to put the best possible spin on it, not ideal behaviour in a collaborative environment. And, given Rob's explanation here, which I endorse, even if I might not have not gone to a topic ban solution without pursuing an AE discussion first, I can find no reason why the sanction should be overturned. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sdmarathe[edit]Result of the appeal by Sdmarathe[edit]
|
PeterTheFourth
[edit]| PeterTheFourth is cautioned to be more careful when making edits concerning living people. No further action is deemed necessary at this time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:25, 5 October 2018 (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 PeterTheFourth[edit]
The issue with Motl is what prompted this filing, but PeterTheFourth is an editor I've been acquainted with for some time. I've provided additional evidence of less stale behavior that's nonetheless representative of what I came to expect from prior years, namely: opaque claims that consensus or sources support something without being willing to substantiate that, misleading edit summaries, double standards on applying policy, and general battleground attitude. An overview of his editing history shows he is exclusively active in pages related to the alt-right and gender politics, mainly whatever is trending on Twitter. This is basically his original mission as a Gamergate SPA exported into a larger sphere. There is a lot of right-wing misinformation, non-RS, and general shenanigans inserted into articles daily so it's good to have sentinels against that sort of thing. That doesn't mean a need for equal and opposite disruption, which is the nature of PeterTheFourth's campaign. Bringing the dispute about Motl on-site when there previously was none here is no isolated mistake. He edits with a battleground mentality whether or not the other side is on the field. It was simply his normal modus operandi accidentally straying across a red line. I have no specific remedies to suggest, but this at least needs the attention of the community.
Notification[28] Discussion concerning PeterTheFourth[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]Man, that Baizuo article was annoying. I should've stepped away earlier, but I got frustrated when editors wouldn't engage with me. I totally deserve a trout for that. I'm not going to pretend I don't have political opinions - if this makes my editing worse, I hope somebody steps in and lets me know. In the case of Luboš Motl, I'm not sure it has negatively influenced my editing. I first heard about him on Twitter very recently, and I checked out his wikipedia page. I was stunned that the dude had an article at all, as it didn't seem like he passed GNG - the most coverage of him appeared to be in the NYT article about a web-based archive which I would disagree satisfies the significant coverage part of GNG. It looks like consensus is against me due to interpretation of the more specific notability guidelines found at WP:PROF, plus some studious editors finding additional sources, like some interviews in Czech (a language I don't speak.) I wasn't blindly following instruction from some nefarious controller when I nominated it for deletion, I was just following my own boneheaded thoughts. @MjolnirPants: I'd love to do the whole angry 'parade of grievances' with Rhoark where we fling diffs about and say mean words, but I'm not feeling it right now. Besides, he hasn't edited in 5 months - I couldn't find diffs even if I wanted to. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]I won't speak to the behavioral complaints directly, but any science nerd with even a passing interest in physics should be well aware of Motl. He's been quite influential in the field, and there are lots of good sources about him. I'm sure I have absolutely no idea why anyone would nom him for deletion claiming there are no sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Masem[edit]Moving myself out of uninvolved to involved, only due to past interactins with PTF on Gamergate and now commenting on behavior
Statement by Pudeo[edit]@Black Kite: hardly ludicrous to call PeterTheFourth a Gamergate SPA when their 13 first edits in Wikipedia were directly on the evidence and workshop pages in the on-going Gamergate ArbCom case. The only other topics edited by PTF, like social justice/alt-right/Jordan B. Peterson, are extensions of the same culture-warring and it's hardly surprising that the Reddit et. al. communities that were into Gamergate follow these topics too. But yes, it's pot calling the kettle black because Rhoark is the same, they both even registered in December 2014 when the controversy was at its peak. Maybe the ArbCom should have blocked editors whose only interested was to participate in the ARBGG drama. And indeed, this is a gender-related topic, with its discretionary sanctions, as the scientist has been nominated for deletion because of his comments on gender diversity in the field of physics based on an off-wiki request, as pointed by Masem. --Pudeo (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning PeterTheFourth[edit]
|
Userwoman
[edit]| Not a violation. Closing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:55, 5 October 2018 (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 Userwoman[edit]
six month topic ban from "editing articles about gender issues".
I haven't filed one of these before, so I have tried to fill everything out correctly. I saw the apparent violation by accident; I hope I am construing everything according to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan and Seraphimblade - my nose won't be at all out of joint if there is no enforcement action. However, the terms of the GamerGate sanctions, "any gender-related dispute or controversy" and of the topic ban "articles on gender issues" seem to me to make the edit a clear breach, even though there is nothing against policy of the edit in itself, if it had been made by an editor who was not topic-banned. If there's a salient factor I've missed, I'd appreciate knowing what it is. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
here.
Discussion concerning Userwoman[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Userwoman[edit]Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]While I see your point, I think this is more of a political edit than a gender one. There would have been edits that violated the sanction, but I don't think this was one of them. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Userwoman[edit]
|
Nableezy
[edit]| No action: No actionable misconduct by Nableezy. Closed without prejudice to a future enforcement request about Debresser (user requesting enforcement). AGK ■ 16:40, 6 October 2018 (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 Nableezy[edit]
Nableezy had never before edited the Birthright Israel article, and came there only after he saw my revert from 10 minutes earlier, after he had at that same minute replied to a comment of mine on Talk:Palestinian right of return. This proves he decided to stalk me and "check" if I had made any other edits or comments he doesn't like. The addition and removal are disruptive because they are major edits (the size of at least a whole paragraph), made whilst willfully ignoring the fact that the discussion on the talkpage showed that there is no consensus for them, with Nableezy simply forcefully imposing what he thinks is the right thing to do. That type of behavior in the sensitive area of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inflammatory, as it causes edit wars, and is generally disruptive and most certainly not in the spirit of community editing. Even though these things are evident, I refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Principles for additional stress in the IP-conflict area.
@Nableezy If I am wrong about the stalking, I apologize. I was definitely under the impression that that is what happened. @Sandstein How is an editor pushing his opinion against apparent lack of consensus a "content issue"[?] and not[?] a behavioral problem? If it were a content issue, it wouldn't be grounds for blocking editors if they edit warred.
Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Nableezy[edit]I had indeed never edited Birthright Israel, but I had it in my watchlist as evidenced by my previously having informed Debresser of a 1RR violation there (here). The quotation marks around "security reasons" appears in the source, and not using the quotations makes Wikipedia accept as fact what the source does not. If anything, this edit by Debresser is disruptive in that it distorts the source claiming it accepts as fact what it does not. As far as the edit being a "disruptive addition", I dont see how thats possible. On that talk page section about this, both editors who had removed the material when only sourced to JVP seem to acknowledge with the additional Times of Israel and Haaretz source that the sourcing is no longer deficient. As far as the Palestinian right of return edit I removed material of dubious relevance and importance, and in the very next edit added the one bit from that section that I thought important (here). I am unsure how that qualifies as disruptive in any way shape or form. Finally, ARBPIA is not a sanction or a remedy. So what exactly am I accused of violating here anyway? nableezy - 17:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]All of the edits highlighted by Debresser are well within the rules and in my opinion are good edits. In the complaint, we see Debresser claiming it is a violation to edit in conformity to the source (by not stating in Wikipedia's voice something that the source does not claim in its own voice). Apparently, Debresser thinks that misrepresenting a source is his right. Debresser also believes he has a right to remove tags he doesn't like whenever he likes, even when there is ongoing discussion. His attitude to tag guidelines is shown by this edit that claims To see what Debresser considers to be a good edit when he is the performer, we can look at this massive revert of his, which all at once
יניב הורון was topic-banned for (amongst other sins) immediately repeating this huge revert when it was undone. I don't see why Debresser deserves better. Zerotalk 09:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nableezy[edit]
|
Augurar
[edit]| Handled by Seraphimblade: Augurar made aware; Augurar warned. AGK ■ 07:15, 8 October 2018 (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 Augurar[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Augurar#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Augurar#3rr_warning_and_MOS_alert
I Pinged him on Brett Kavanaugh talk page and even gave him a heads up on his own talk page and time to self revert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Augurar#1rr_violation_and_Self-revert Discussion concerning Augurar[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Augurar[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Augurar[edit]
|
Mar4d
[edit]| No violation, although the edits skirted fairly close to the line. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:19, 10 October 2018 (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 Mar4d[edit]
I first asked Arbcom on WP:ARCA if editors topic banned from India-Pakistan conflicts should edit Regional power with the purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan as a regional power. Arbcom mainly said that I should instead file AE,[42] There was also some discussion with BU Rob13 on his talk page after ARCA, and he also said that I should use AE for soliciting community opinion. In my humble opinion, I would hope that admins here won't consider this report as request for seeking sanctions, but more about identifying if this is a topic ban violation. I think that this is a topic ban violation, when editors topic banned from India-Pakistan conflicts edit this article by focusing on India or Pakistan since status of India and Pakistan in the context of regional power heavily focuses on conflicts between India and Pakistan. Reliable sources emphasize on conflicts between two countries in this subject when they discuss their "power". Some more factors including "regional power" that falls within the India-Pakistan conflict area are mentioned by this reliable source. Also see [43]. Keeping the above explanations in mind, I believe that these edits probably violate the topic ban:-
While I am sure that Mar4d (or someone else) would dispute this topic ban violation and say that there was no direct of mention of India-Pakistan conflict, I believe that it really changes nothing since these edits still impact the Wikipedia's coverage of India-Pakistan conflict as much as edits from those who are mentioning India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC) RegentsPark: I read your comment here and the discussion on your talk page. You should note that Mar4d's last block was also over a topic ban violation where he had never mentioned India-Pakistan conflict but he was discussing an editor banned from the same subject.[47] On Regional power he is defending status of Pakistan which is tied to India-Pakistan conflict. I believe that activity on Regional power is more clearer when it comes to topic ban violation. He is also replying the comments that are discussing "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971".[48] I don't see how that doesn't violate the topic ban that is "broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Broadly construed). Even if Pakistan is the only thing being discussed, still it doesn't change that the country's structure and balance of regional power is tied to India-Pakistan conflict.[49] GoldenRing is not available for months, maybe Seraphimblade should share his opinion since he also drafted this sanction that included warning for "disruption or testing of the edges of the ban".[50] Orientls (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mar4d[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mar4d[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mar4d[edit]
|
Debresser
[edit]| No action. AGK ■ 18:26, 12 October 2018 (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 Debresser[edit]
Having previously been cautioned regarding civility, and having been topic banned for the exact offense of personilizing disputes and making attacks, and having repeatedly made unfounded AE complaints regarding others supposed incivility, Debresser continues to make outright personal attacks and uncivil claims in forums where they are wholly inappropriate. By Debresser's own standards he should be banned from the topic area as a toxic presence who repeatedly lowers the level of civility by making uncalled for personal attacks on other editors.
Discussion concerning Debresser[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Debresser[edit]
In general, I can't deny that I have a suspicion this was posted in revenge for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy above, and that should definitely backfire to Nableezy. @Nableezy "Debresser was previously warned, indeed topic-banned, for precisely this behavior, for personalizing disputes and battleground behavior, and he has continued unabated since returning." The same can be said about you! And in my report above I did precisely that. The only difference between the two of us is, that I try to make good edits, firmly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, explaining them as I go, while you have stated many times over the last few days, that you couldn't care less about other editors' opinions. And your language reflects your contempt for other editors and the consensus process laying at the basis of this project in general. See the evidence collected by the other editors commenting here. QED. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]In regards to Debresser's assertions on Nableezy's editing practices, please see the following evidence from the last few days with Nableezy's comments:
All this while edit warring in - 15:12, 9 October 2018, 23:36, 3 October 2018, 15:11, 9 October 2018 - content that has been disputed on BLP grounds, with an open RfC, and an interim editor consensus at BLP/n that either rejects inclusion or is no consensus - BLP content sourced to a description of a documentary that Al Jazeera decided not to publish, and segments of which were leaked (causing coverage of the leak and AJ's choice not to publish this).Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Bellezzasolo[edit]Just a short one, but Special:Diff/862197737 by Nableezy comes across as a very unsavoury approach. There's no attempt at compromise, and it comes across as GAMEey. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Coretheapple[edit]I was summoned by RfC bot to the discussion cited above by Icewhiz, and in some years as an editor I have rarely seen such tendentious editing behavior, and not by Debresser. I'm the target of the incivility cited by Icewhiz above. I have no idea who Debresser is and I don't generally edit in this subject area. But I do know that the user who commenced this case is threatening to bring an RfC at Talk:Canary_Mission [54] having failed to "win" on the identical issue in an RfC at Talk:Adam Milstein [55] that's been grinding along for a month, and two noticeboard discussions, both commenced by Nableezy [56][57], that are now winding down without consensus. All three repetitive discussions concern whether to add contentious, disputed material concerning Milstein. Rather than kick the can down the road I strongly recommend a boomerang. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]To me this seems like it shoul be a tit for tat filing and that's something we don't need in this area. Statement by Tritomex[edit]I didnt want to participate in previous discussion regarding the report against Nableezy, but it was clear that many of his comments and reverts went beyond the borders of objectiveness. Unwillingness to reach consensus combined with strong POV and tit for tat attacks could be very problematic in sensitive areas. I also had a lot of disagreements with Debresser, especially few years ago when I was more active here. In overall conclusion I support WP:BOOMERANG in this case.Tritomex (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Debresser[edit]
|
Markbassett
[edit]| No violation. Filer warned for meritless AE requests. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 12 October 2018 (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 Markbassett[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markbassett#1rr_violation_and_Self-revert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markbassett#1rr_violation_and_Self-revert Discussion concerning Markbassett[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Markbassett[edit]Bringing it to this level over placement of the exact same words at spot A vs B seems making a mountain out of a molehill. I think I'll mention I started a TALK for resolving this, and suggest we just let that run a bit in case the concern becomes moot. User:Galobtter posted this article is not subject to 1RR in TALK a 12:57 10 October, and User:ContentEditman repeated the 00:27, 10 October revert on 16:50 10 October, so it is back to the lower position and in TALK. Otherwise I'll point to what I previously put to his TALK page "- Thank you for your mention of the 1RR limit, and I felt I should offer you the same caution, though both of us have only done one revert here so are not actually in violation. Particularly note you have a history of prior reverts of various editors, prior 1RR claims (that may be taken as WP:THREATEN), and incorrectly claimed consensus before (which may be taken as WP:DISRUPT disruptive editing). How about lets just see what others say about where it goes and let them decide. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)" I will also offer from todays article TALK "I'm not aware of a previous TALK similar to this other than the 29 September Worst polling ever sentence of User:Obsidri, from you reverting it back into lead and issues of editing into LEAD without article content, plus side-noted it as having issues of factually incorrect and poor cite, and then question of WEIGHT. I agreed and snipped it out of lead and you then reverted it back in on 30 September, Obsidri removed it again and you then put it down lower. I only noticed it this week as looking misplaced and shifted it up a section without alteration. I'd tend to regard the earlier one as a LEAD or Delete discussion, but can see if you view it as an ongoing where-does-thisgo discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)" I do regret undoing his first 10 October revert, revert of revert was a bit bad of me. I will offer mitigating circumstance that I did initiate TALK after and that I was somewhat provoked by overly aggressive editing plus repeated posturing that his easy undo must be left and claims that his edits have consensus. I will continue the TALK over placement for a bit, but this all seems like a bit of excessive effort for small potatoes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Markbassett[edit]
|
Wickey
[edit]| Indef-blocked for ban evasion via socking; master account Wickey-nl blocked six months. Sandstein 15:35, 14 October 2018 (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 Wickey[edit]
Discussion concerning Wickey[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wickey[edit]This is a bad faith action for which requester should get a firm warning. I am not aware of any misdoing. I found the Noticeboard while looking who is the guy who is hounding me since 15 July 2018, without some clear explanation. As you can see, I have mainly been editing in the area of history, including Zionism. You may check the nature of them. In such an absurd broad interpretation you should also include all articles about Israel, Palestine, Judaism, Islam, Arabs, Arab countries en US and many history articles to censor. User:Wickey-nl is another user, who is not even active. Moreover, I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs.Wickey (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]@AGK: I too have suspicions regarding wicky-nl. I alerted the user to the existence and applicability of the 500/30 restriction to their edits. See diff on their talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Wickey[edit]
|
VanEman
[edit]| Topic banned; 1 year. AGK ■ 14:02, 14 October 2018 (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 VanEman[edit]
I have noticed that this editor is prone to edit warring in other areas as well: June 2016 notification of my report on WP:3RR. In addition I find it especially worrying that he should violate the restriction just five minutes after I wrote him a nice and detailed paragraph about it on his talkpage.
Discussion concerning VanEman[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Govindaharihari[edit]This report is totally meritless, users portraying the Jewish Voice for Peace as pro palestinian are to blame for those edits - our own page doesn't do that. Not long ago, just above here in a recent report Sandstein said, We should consider sanctioning Debresser for trying to use AE to further their position in what are clearly normal content disputes.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]JVP is described in the source supporting the content as Statement by Bellezzasolo[edit]@Govindaharihari: there's clearly an I/P 1RR violation here (re-revert 9 minutes after reversion, not 24 hours). So the report isn't meritless. The whole reason we have that restriction is to prevent edit warring and move content disputes to the talk page. While I personally consider that section to be a bit confusing, which may factor into a final decision, the report of a 1RR violation certainly isn't frivolous. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]@AGK: The reverts 3 minutes apart that you indicate, namely this one at 17:03 and this one at 17:06, are consecutive edits without intervening edits by another user. Therefore they do not count as two separate reverts by our usual rules for counting reverts. Zerotalk 01:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC) As far as I can tell, this revert broke the "original author" rule according to one of the common interpretations of that rule. According to another common interpretation of that rule, VanEman didn't break it because he/she was not the original author (the same text having been in and out before due to other editors). Which interpretation is correct, I have no idea. However, I do have an idea about one thing: the usual penalty for an editor with a clean record who breaks a revert rule for the first time is something like 24 or 48 hours. It seems to me grossly excessive to consider a 1 year ban. Zerotalk 06:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Not clear if Shrike's alleged example of an older 1RR violation really is, since the second version is very different from the first, and finding a word in common doesn't make enough difference. Zerotalk 09:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]I usually try to stay well clear of Israel-Palestine stuff, but Zero0000 is correct. WP:1RR says The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". If we take WP:1RR as meaning just what it says, then the provision at WP:3RR stating A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert applies equally to WP:1RR. As a result, the two reverts three minutes apart count as a one, and do not constitute a technical violation of 1RR. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Galobtter[edit]I agree with Zero and Shock Brigade; those two diffs cited by AGK are not violations because they are consecutive edits. However, the revert 9 minutes later cited by Debresser is a clear violation of "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Shrike[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning VanEman[edit]
|
Muffizainu
[edit]| Topic banned; indefinite. AGK ■ 17:53, 15 October 2018 (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 Muffizainu[edit]
I'm asking that Muffizainu be topic-banned from anything to do with female genital mutilation. On 14 October 2018 he created Khafd, an article about FGM named after an Arabic term for it. The Khafd page had been a redirect to Religious views on female genital mutilation. The new article is a poorly sourced POV fork of Female genital mutilation, a featured article. On 8 March 2018, I warned Muffizainu explicitly against creating a POV fork (diff), after he created Talk:Khafd; see his first version of that talk page.
I alerted Muffizainu to the DS regarding FGM on 7 March 2018 (diff).
A major interest of Muffizainu's on Wikipedia is the Dawoodi Bohra, an Islamic sect living mainly in India that practises FGM. They are thought to practise Type I FGM, which involves cutting/removing the visible part of the clitoris and the clitoral hood. They perform it on girls around the age of 6–9, most of it done by traditioner circumcisers without medical training and using crude tools. There are no authoritative studies on the type and extent of the cutting among the Dawoodi Bohra, only anecdotal reports. See Dawoodi Bohra#Female genital mutilation (permalink). Also see Batha, Emma (5 February 2018). "'Heartwrenching' study shows FGM prevalent among India's Bohra sect". Reuters. Muffizainu insists that the Dawoodi Bohra (and perhaps others) practise Type Ia FGM, which is removal of the clitoral hood only; that it is harmless; and that it should be called "female circumcision", not FGM. The WHO, UNICEF, and UNFPA defined FGM in 1997 as "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons". [80] There are four types, Types I–IV, and several sub-types. It is not known to what extent Type Ia FGM is actually practised, especially outside medical facilities; when non-medical people use crude tools to cut the clitoral hoods of children, there is imprecise cutting. Therefore, much of what purports to be Type Ia is actually Type Ib (cutting/removing the visible part of the clitoris). See WHO (2018): "Type 1: Often referred to as clitoridectomy, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals), and in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris)" (bold added).
The new article (permalink) is problematic in its entirety, so these are just examples:
I see that I'm about 300 words over the limit. I'd like to request permission to leave the extra words, given the complexity. SarahSV (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Muffizainu[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Muffizainu[edit]Firstly, the page clear defines an Arabic term, namely khafd. I have mentioned this in the talk pages as well. In order to define a word, one must turn to Lexicons to show it’s usage throughout history. And that is exactly what i’ve done. This isn’t a medical article, neither does it claim to be, and the term “khafd” was used 100s of years prior to the coining of the term FGM. Wikipedia is full of articles describing Arabic and other language terms, including the male form of circumcision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_(circumcision), hence this article isn’t anything new. Neither does she explain how the article is “poorly sourced” when it has relied on sources such as Britanica and the Encyclopedia of Islam. I have never stated that Dawoodi Bohras practise FGM. Whereas, on the other hand Sarah based her statements on anecdotal non reliable sources. I have also brought to her attention that a case in Australia categorically stated that the practice is not “mutilation”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#NSW_Australia_case
My changes “ as noble but not required" to “noble, sunnah (tradition), or waajib (mandatory)" is also factually correct. I already explained that in the summary, because the text that was being cited did not have the words “noble but not required”, and I inserted the actual words. Is there any harm in being factually correct on Wikipedia? About the 2007 Azhar ruling. I have stated it many times, that that is just 1 ruling. If one were to be fair on Wikipedia, then they must also be able to post the multiple rulings in favour of female circumcision. Why is that not being allowed? In order to be neutral, both sides of the arguments must be presented. Referring to my edits on the khitaan page. I provided reference from Arabic lexicons, that the word “khitaan” is used in Arabic, for both male and female circumcision. But even this was unacceptable to her. Since she wants to rely on the “Encyclopaedia of Islam” article cited by me, the first sentence clearly states that Khitaan or Khafd are referred to as “circumcision”. So why doesn’t she cite that instead? Further, the term “female circumcision” is also used by the Encyclopedia of Britannica, when defining the word “Khafd”. https://www.britannica.com/topic/khafd The question arises as to, if a reputed source like Britanica can define the word, why can’t Wikipedia. It seems that Sarrah is only focused on her POV and is against any other academic dialogue on this subject. I wouldn’t go to the extent of requesting a counter topic ban on Sarrah, however, I would request Wikipedia to monitor her extensive use of force and bullying to shutdown any academic dialogue on the subject.Muffizainu (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC) ADDED: Here's an example of In between fair discussion, sudden inclusion of Topic ban seems giving a threat. When discussion is on Azhar university stand naming particular sect also looks like diverting the issue. All the stands taken by any one of Azhar to be taken care of and let the viewer decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/Archive_16#Azhar_University_Disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_genital_mutilation&diff=806453049&oldid=806279917 Further, there are a few comments from Admins about gender issues and sexuality. The Muslims who practice female circumcision do it because they believe Islam encourages Gender equality, that is why both male and females circumsised. Further, it's not an issue about sexuality, because neither do the original Arabic texts state that it's do do anything with sexuality. If there is an avenue to discuss all this, I would be glad to contribute. However, every time it's even hinted, Sarrah comes in with threats. This isn't a conducive environment for any academic discussion, nor the values of Wikipedia.Muffizainu (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kurtis[edit]I strongly support a topic ban of Muffizainu from any and all pages relating to female genital mutilation, broadly construed. Sourcing issues aside, the absolute last thing we need is an article that gives even the slightest trace of legitimacy to this "procedure". Kurtis (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBG[edit]The sole problem with the report is that it has arrived over here, quite late.This pathetic edit ought be enough for a (POVpushing+CIR) Tban. Incidentally, Sarah, does there exist any active prohibition on using non-English high-quality sources, in the area, shall they exist?∯WBGconverse 13:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Muffizainu[edit]
|