This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Well isn't this ironic.
Violated 1RR at:
2024 Nuseirat rescue operation
Nuseirat refugee camp massacre
KronosAlight also has a history of making incendiary, belligerent, aspersive, and off-topic comments on talk pages.
here.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising and filled out citation data in existing citations, and added new ones.
Editing an existing page, clarifying what the sources cited actually say, is not a revert and there is therefore nothing to answer for here.
You can avoid this problem in future by better complying with NPOV and related Wikipedia rules on editorialisation, bias, and editing wars.
By way of example, in the Al-Sardi school attack article, the complainant initially used the infobox: civilian attack, has repeatedly sought to editorialise it and similar articles, nor did their version include even one mention of the IDF's official statements in which they claimed to have identified at least 9 terrorists killed in the strike. One needn't take them at their word - their claims should be couched as just that, a claim, that cannot be independently verified. But to omit any mention of this? And to seek to revert edits clarifying that the Gaza Health Ministry are Hamas-run (without removing any of their claims) and make requests that articles about strikes be renamed as "massacres", suggests that this is simply a vexatious complaint by a user engaged in a political campaign with Wikipedia's neutrality the victim.
Wikipedia is not a place for you to wage political wars, it's a neutral space for information.
To be honest I wasn’t familiar with the 1RR before this complaint, I don’t usually edit articles about recent events. The policy seems a bit odd to me, just seems to let trolls off the hook, but yeah, I obviously didn’t comply with that rule. I’m happy to own that and ensure going forwards that my edits respect it. KronosAlight ( talk) 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Kronos, going to the talk page. If an editor is routinely engaged in POV pushing and source distortion then that becomes a behavioral issue that can be addressed here, but it doesn't justify violating 1RR - and violating 1RR to address such issues can simply mean that you are sanctioned, rather than the editor engaging in POV pushing and source distortion.
I strongly encourage you to self-revert your violations now. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The 1R here is a slamdunk so no comment on that, the little BM/Kronos tete a tete above looks like a resolution. However I will just note that we are once again dealing with this GHM nonsense just as in the other complaint. I am convinced these edits are simply intended to provoke and kudos to complainant for refusing to be provoked this time. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
"None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising"- which is effectively saying "I reverted your edit, but it doesn't count as a revert because I was reverting something which I think is wrong") are merely supporting evidence of this. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Dylanvt ( talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to the Arab-Israeli conflict's topic-wide general sanction of 1RR and is warned to remain WP:CIVIL within the topic area. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dylanvt
Violated 1RR at:
Discussion concerning DylanvtStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DylanvtThe edits billedmammal linked are not reversions, they are merely edits made to the articles. He even went scrolling back two weeks into my edit history to bring up old and already resolved actions. If you look at my edit history you will see I'm clearly not engaged in edit warring on any of the articles he linked.
Ultimately I think everybody's time would be better served by making actual contributions to Wikipedia, instead of wasting everybody's time with petty punitive arbitration. When BilledMammal brought up the reversions I'd made at Tel al-Sultan massacre, e.g., it contributed nothing to the project and instead resulted in me being forced to move the article back to the wrong title in the middle of a move discussion, creating havoc in the talk page for everyone involved, when instead we could have just moved on and continued to do useful things for the project. Dylanvt ( talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by IvanvectorPosting up here because I suppose I'm involved - I initially restored the edit which Dylanvt is now accused of edit-warring over at Genocide of Indigenous peoples. I don't think any admin did advise them to self-revert; if BilledMammal is referring to my comments on the edit war I said that I was ignoring it and had started an RFC instead but I didn't tell anyone to do anything; the page was then full-protected by PhilKnight. In looking for that warning I went to Dylanvt's talk page and reviewed this warning and discussion, which was regarding the edits listed above on Tel al-Sultan massacre, in which BilledMammal and ScottishFinnishRadish demanded that Dylanvt self-revert a page move which was a 1RR violation. It is accurate to say that Dylanvt refused, but that also grossly oversimplifies the situation: Dylanvt had good reason to refuse, as there was an ongoing discussion about the move and at least one other editor ( Vanilla Wizard) objected to reverting because of the ongoing discussion. As Dylanvt tried to explain, a separate move review had directed that the article be kept at that title pending the result of the ongoing discussion, and had Dylanvt reverted their move someone else would just have to move it back per WP:TITLECHANGES. Eventually, after more IDHT and bullying from BM and SFR, Dylanvt did revert their move, which as predicted created a technical mess which had to be reverted again by a different administrator, who cited the exact rationale Dylanvt had been trying to explain the whole time. It was all a bureaucratic waste of everyone's time because two experienced editors care more about enforcing one particular rule because "it's teh rulez" rather than use some discretion and common sense (we have WP:IAR for a reason). I see that trend repeating in the report here. BilledMammal has gone out of their way to classify these edits as "reverts" when, as Dylanvt also has tried to explain, they are edits in the course of constructing a rapidly developing article being edited by many editors at the same time, and happen to have changed information added by someone else previously. By that overly-broad definition, nearly every edit to these articles since their creation is a revert; of course they are not, this is just the normal editorial process. The 1RR rule is meant to limit disruption; these edits were decidedly not disruptive. The rule is certainly not meant to be a "gotcha!" rule whereby any two edits that look superficially similar can be used to eject an editor from a topic, nor is it meant to be used as a tool for harassment as seems to be happening here. The edit war on Genocide of Indigenous peoples was actually a revert war (in that case Dylanvt was intentionally undoing a previous edit, as was I) but that situation was dealt with. We can waste more time bureaucratically arguing over whether or not the highlighted edits to the other pages are reverts to the extent that the policy is violated (they aren't) or we could skip all that and simply acknowledge that no disruption has occurred. In fact the situation would be greatly improved overall if BilledMammal were sanctioned against anything to do with 1RR enforcement in this topic. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SelfstudierI know content is not the thing here but this nonsense with the GHM needs to be resolved once for all. Afaik, across various discussions at articles and at noticeboards, it has been resolved and the consensus is that the GHM is reliable and editors that persist in adding "Hamas run" in front of that are only intending to provoke/cast doubt on that assessment, attribution to GHM is all that is needed, nothing more. So on the behavioral front, while in general it would be better to ignore the provocation and start a talk page discussion, I do sympathize with removing the unnecessary. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Dylanvt
|
By consensus of administrators at AE, KronosAlight is warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning KronosAlight
Well isn't this ironic. Violated 1RR at: 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation
Nuseirat refugee camp massacre
KronosAlight also has a history of making incendiary, belligerent, aspersive, and off-topic comments on talk pages.
here. Discussion concerning KronosAlightStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KronosAlightNone of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising and filled out citation data in existing citations, and added new ones. Editing an existing page, clarifying what the sources cited actually say, is not a revert and there is therefore nothing to answer for here. You can avoid this problem in future by better complying with NPOV and related Wikipedia rules on editorialisation, bias, and editing wars. By way of example, in the Al-Sardi school attack article, the complainant initially used the infobox: civilian attack, has repeatedly sought to editorialise it and similar articles, nor did their version include even one mention of the IDF's official statements in which they claimed to have identified at least 9 terrorists killed in the strike. One needn't take them at their word - their claims should be couched as just that, a claim, that cannot be independently verified. But to omit any mention of this? And to seek to revert edits clarifying that the Gaza Health Ministry are Hamas-run (without removing any of their claims) and make requests that articles about strikes be renamed as "massacres", suggests that this is simply a vexatious complaint by a user engaged in a political campaign with Wikipedia's neutrality the victim. Wikipedia is not a place for you to wage political wars, it's a neutral space for information. To be honest I wasn’t familiar with the 1RR before this complaint, I don’t usually edit articles about recent events. The policy seems a bit odd to me, just seems to let trolls off the hook, but yeah, I obviously didn’t comply with that rule. I’m happy to own that and ensure going forwards that my edits respect it. KronosAlight ( talk) 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammalKronos, going to the talk page. If an editor is routinely engaged in POV pushing and source distortion then that becomes a behavioral issue that can be addressed here, but it doesn't justify violating 1RR - and violating 1RR to address such issues can simply mean that you are sanctioned, rather than the editor engaging in POV pushing and source distortion. I strongly encourage you to self-revert your violations now. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SelfstudierThe 1R here is a slamdunk so no comment on that, the little BM/Kronos tete a tete above looks like a resolution. However I will just note that we are once again dealing with this GHM nonsense just as in the other complaint. I am convinced these edits are simply intended to provoke and kudos to complainant for refusing to be provoked this time. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning KronosAlight
|
Ltbdl is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics and gender related disputes, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ltbdl
Discussion concerning ltbdlStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ltbdli am aware of this, and have nothing to say. ltb d l ( talk) 08:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by FortunateSonsThis sort of conduct in a heated and contentious area is highly unproductive and should be appropriately sanctioned. FortunateSons ( talk) 08:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by SpringeeI'm concerned that this was an out of the blue uncivil action. If we had been debating or had a long interaction history and they made this claim, well that could just be frustration or opinion built up over time. However, when an account that per the interaction analyzer, I've never interacted with, starts throwing out comments like that, it makes me wonder why they needed a clean start and if granting it was appropriate. Certainly the replies here suggest they don't see an issue with the actions. I think some sort of action should be taken (warning, block, etc) so if this uncivil behavior continues other editors can see the behavior is part of a pattern. Springee ( talk) 11:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by Red-tailed hawkBecause I participated in the RfC where the comments were made, I'm going to write here rather than in the section for uninvolved admins below. This is an extremely clear case of a personal attack directed at an editor, and the behavior that taunts the personally attacked editor is... bizarre. I agree with SFR that this is unacceptable, but I'd only recommend a TBAN if there is some broader issue than this one incident, and I'm just not seeing those diffs here. If this is merely a personal attack/casting aspersions against Springee, perhaps a one-way I-ban or a block would be better than a TBAN. (If there were an apology, an acknowledgement that what they did was grossly out of line with WP:CIVIL, and they struck the personal attacks, I might even just recommend a logged warning for civility in the two topic areas. But I just don't see any remorse, nor evidence proffered that the allegations made by respondent against Springee are in any way substantiated, so I do think that something more restrictive is warranted.) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning ltbdl
|
Riposte97 is warned to abide by the general bold-revert-discuss restriction that is present on Hunter Biden, per the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Riposte97
Editor has reverted to re-include material at Hunter Biden in violation of active arbitration remedies and then refused to self-revert when advised of their transgression.
TarnishedPath
talk
14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Riposte97Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Riposte97Good morning, I maintain that my revert restored consensus. As pointed out above, the sentence in question was inserted on 10 June UTC. A little over three days passed, before the submitter removed it. In that time, the page was edited dozens of times, and the lead extensively discussed on the talk page. I believed, and still do, that the circumstances illustrate consensus for the sentence. If reasonable minds differ, I’d submit the easiest thing to do would be to raise the substance of any objection on the article talk page, rather than go straight to ANI. Please note I am subject to the disadvantages of editing on mobile until I get home from work this evening. Thanks.
Statement by SPECIFICO@
Riposte97: To help advance this to a conclusion, could you please elaborate on your statement, Thanks for your reply, Riposte. While that is good practice, it is not why you were reported here. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) @ Riposte97: stated that they had read and understood the policy. They then repeated their misstatement of the violation under review here. We'd all hope that a warning and Riposte's best efforts to adhere to CT would suffice. But so far, there's no sign that has begun, even with a careful reading of the matter on the table. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by ElinrubyI would like to point out the editor's behaviour at Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites where, based on an extremely unreliable source, the editor insisted on inserting into the lead a misleading statement that no human remains had been found in archaeological excavations at schools. ( See RSN thread) He then rewrote large sections of the article over the protests of other editors: after being reverted by @
Ivanvector: Elinruby ( talk) 09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC) @ Graham87 and DanielRigal: may also wish to comment based on an ANI thread linked at the user's talk page: [17] Elinruby ( talk) 09:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) @ Riposte97: I think this is highly relevant. The modus operandi of making changes while claiming consensus and adherence to policy is identical. And yes, indeed, I was blocked for a week in a series of events that began with removing the very claim Ivanvector describes above as "your repeated attempts to force in an inappropriately-sourced and provably false narrative". I have have own my thoughts on that block, but more to the point, you then removed a whole lot of reliably sourced information that you described as inaccurate and poorly sourced. This is a pattern, and by the way, it was nothing of the kind. As for canvassing: these administrators may be interested in commenting. There was an ANI case. This is relevant. I will answer any questions admins may have but have no intention of responding further to this user. I note that my talk page diffs of other users protesting are broken; I am working on re-finding them right now and they should work shortly. TL;DR this is not someone encountering wikipedia governance for the first time who just needs a little guidance. Elinruby ( talk) 10:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Riposte97
|
Konanen is indefinitely topic banned from Reiki, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Konanen
User Konanen is civilly pushing a point of view, promoting false neutrality, and editing tendentiously on the alternative medicine topic Reiki. Konanen opened the NPOVN discussion linked above, in parallel to a discussion already occurring on the article's talk page, with a request to remove the term "quackery" because they personally found it offensive, and to omit "pseudoscience" because of the term being redundant due to its occurrence in a linked article. Several editors objected, and there was some discussion which led to copyediting some repetitive occurrences of "pseudoscience" and improving the attribution of "quackery", but no consensus is evident for either term's removal. The discussion basically concluded on 30 May, other than one editor who on 5 June added their own biased tally of votes supporting their position and began removing all instances describing the practice as pseudoscience from the article, as well as a large criticism section; the other editor was topic-banned in a different thread here. In the course of reverting the topic-banned user's disruptive edits, user Valjean restored an earlier revision and inadvertently removed the {{ npov}} banner on 13 June. Konanen demanded that the banner be restored, referring to the false consensus and subsequent disruptive editing of the topic-banned user as evidence of ongoing discussion. When Valjean and Tgeorgescu responded essentially that two editors do not a consensus make, Konanen started the ANI thread reporting both users for personal attacks. At ANI, several users both involved and not observed that Konanen is pushing the same POV as the topic-banned user, and expressed frustration over Konanen's insistence on displaying the neutrality banner. Several editors commented that the NPOVN discussion was concluded (e.g. [19], [20]), that the tag should be removed ( [21], [22]), and that Konanen should drop the issue (e.g. [23], [24], [25], [26]), with many already suggesting a topic ban. Valjean did restore the banner some time later in an effort to move on. Another editor then invited Konanen to identify the issue in a new talk page section. Konanen insisted that they didn't need to provide an explanation for the banner, and implied that the banner should remain until they were satisfied with the NPOVN discussion's outcome. I attempted to explain that cleanup tags are not meant to be used in this way and, referring to the opinion of ANI that the discussion was concluded, removed the banner again, suggesting that they should re-add it themselves only if they had another issue to discuss. Konanen still refuses to accept this, and this morning demanded that I self-revert or cite policy supporting the removal, which is blatant wikilawyering, and posted a new tally of votes at NPOVN which serves no purpose other than to tendentiously relitigate a discussion result they do not agree with. I therefore propose that they be banned from the topic. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning KonanenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KonanenInteresting to find myself here when all I have done is to advocate for discussion and transparency (by way of a POV tag) about said discussion pertaining to a matter of NPOV. First of all, I object to the submitter’s falsehoods re I reject the accusation of tendentious editing. Precisely because I have an opinion on the subject matter, and because I do not think I could do a better job than previous editors in fixing the perceived POV issues, have I not dared edit the article in question except for adding the POV tag. If talking about the content of an article, and taking the matter to NPOV/N for wider input is considered tendentious editing, then I apologise ― I was not aware that its definition had such a wide scope. Valjean restored an early version, citing accidental removal (
[27]), but they were terse and bordered on personal attacks when I asked them to restore, hence the decision to take the matter to ANI, instead of edit warring over the issue ( The discussion on NPOV/N began on the 29th of May ( [28]), so alleging that discussion concluded on the 30th of May is disingenuous when there has been some activity since ( [29] [30] [31]). I am partially to blame for the lull in activity between the 6th and 13th of June, but that should not stand in the way of the discussion’s legitimacy, considering that it has continued just fine without my input ( [32] [33]) which is further proof that the matter was not laid to rest, and there was no consensus reached that article is NPOV, wherefore there were no grounds for the removal of the POV tag (which Valjean had agreed to reinstate yesterday during the ANI procedure, but above submitter saw fit to remove again, even though the matter had not concluded on NPOV/N nor on the article’s talk page, see diffs below). All that being said, since yesterday, there has been further opining about the article’s NPOV on its talk page as well as the noticeboard following Valjean’s substantial changes to the lead and my creating a summary of the discussion so far for a better overview ( [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]). In my humble opinion, we have come to a good arrangement as to the lead. I am not interested in keeping the POV tag for the tag’s sake, and I think a good discussion has given way to an acceptable compromise less than an hour ago ( [39]). I consider the matter satisfactorily discussed and remedied, and see no need for the POV tag to be restored at this time. Cheers, – Konanen ( talk) 17:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by berchanhimezI believe that I may be the other user referred to by Ivanvector. I opened the talkpage section for the tag to give Konanen a chance (and any other editors, for that matter) to actually clearly state what NPOV issue was so prevalent in the article to merit a tag on the whole article. This way other editors could begin the process of improving any issues. Konanen replied that they Their behavior in the discussions leaves a lot to be desired - and whether they are well-intentioned or not, they've displayed their inability to constructively contribute to articles about pseudoscientific "medical treatments" on Wikipedia. I do not believe that a topic ban from all of medicine is merited necessarily, but a topic ban wider than reiki for sure. They started the discussion at NPOVN based on them finding the term pseudoscience "objectionable", and it is clear that early on they were on a crusade to legitimize reiki as scientifically sound and trusted. That alone should be enough evidence that they cannot contribute constructively to alternative medicine topics on Wikipedia, since they have admitted since the start that their personal objection is more important than the sources and discussion. A topic ban from alternative medicine need not be permanent, but the editor (who is still relatively new) should display their ability to have constructive and cooperative dialogue about article content before they should be allowed into the broader area again after this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 01:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Konanen
|
Rp2006 blocked indefinitely for repeated TBAN violations. As per standard, the first year of the block is an AE sanction, converting thereafter to a normal admin action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Rp2006
Facilitated communication has a
Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism tag on the talk page and the first source is
Skeptical Inquirer, and many other sources in the article are related to skepticism. There was also a minor BLPvio in the lead, linking
a former NFL player as the
Discussion concerning Rp2006Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rp2006Statement by (username)Result concerning Rp2006
|
IP p-blocked from article space for 1 year as an ordinary admin action. A potentially related IP was referred to SPI. -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 195.225.189.243
Notified at 16:23, April 10, 2024
As well as the main IP which is used on a regular basis, they have also used 84.66.90.166 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 84.69.68.199 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 84.69.113.221 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (and possibly some others I forgot to keep track of), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/195.225.189.243/Archive. Despite the two blocks and countless warnings across their various IP addresses, they carry on making unsourced changes.
Discussion concerning 195.225.189.243Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 195.225.189.243Statement by (username)Result concerning 195.225.189.243
|