Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive311

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement
Arbitration enforcement archives:

Daveout

edit

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Daveout

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Daveout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 17:07, 27 September 2022 "you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith"
  2. 17:26, 27 September 2022 restoring the above when removed as a personal attack, saying "will not be censored this time. this was not a gratuitous, it's a statement of fact that everyone can see for themselves."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 16:37, 8 September 2022 warned for personal attacks in the topic area
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I really would rather not reporting this here, but this is a blatant personal attack, and then restored when removed. I think Daveout is the type of editor we need more of, and I say that as somebody who sees him as clearly being on a "pro-Israel" side of things, but he is reasonable and open to discussion and willing to compromise. But on topics that rile him up he goes wayyyy too far, and this is one such example.

re I can't tell a user that he is lying when he is patently lying??? WTF???, no, no you can not. Even if he were and that were an established fact. You can report him for disruptive or tendentious editing, but no you cannot say you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith. You could probably call some statement a lie if you could prove it, but no, you may not call another editor a pov-pushing liar. nableezy - 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as the pov-pushing bit, one should note that Daveout edited to insert two highly POV pieces, and only those links, the mirror image of what he claims is POV-pushing by others. Nobody said he is a liar or not editing in good faith or a pov-pusher. nableezy - 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, like I said, I dont even want to be here reporting you. But you just said your edit was a WP:POINT violation. If you think something is wrong then say it is wrong and then raise the issue at the appropriate noticeboard if discussion proves to be unfruitful. Do I agree with Selfstudier's addition to the EL page? I dont really have a problem with them. Do I think an external links section should only have links in support of one POV? Obviously not. The solution there is to add other appropriate links though. But heres the important part. You cant just insult somebody like that. You cant double down on it. I understand this topic can be emotional for some editors. But if you get so emotional about it that you are incapable of participating like an encyclopedia editor then you should recognize that and walk away. I think you are, usually, a good editor. I think you edit in good faith. But that doesnt excuse that kind of attack, and then to double down on it? I would gladly withdraw this report if you self-revert your re-insertion and commit to not personalizing disputes and not violating WP:NPA and WP:POINT. nableezy - 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daveout hasnt restored the offending remark since I again removed it, and that being the case I'd ask this just be closed with a warning on personalizing disputes and making personal attacks. nableezy - 23:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified nableezy - 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion concerning Daveout

edit

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Daveout

edit

(1) - (diff) I removed an external link and wrote the following summary: "rv, i think this should be discussed first. along with the other links"

(2) - (diff) To which Selfstudier replied "...the latest revert is free of any rationale, none was specified in the edit summary, just an unwarranted demand for discussion."

(3) - What is that if not a lie??? I can't tell a user that he is lying when he is patently lying??? WTF???

(4) - This is the *unwarranted* discussion that their referring to. The discussion, a good faith attempt to build consensus, was triggered by the fact that 3 external links were added to the Israel and apartheid article, all of them basically affirmed that there is an apartheid in Israel (which is a controversial matter and should be dealt with neutrality). The external links are as follow: "Inside Israeli Apartheid", The apartheid reports, DECONSTRUCTING ISRAEL'S APARTHEID AGAINST PALESTINIANS.

(5) - So look at the links and tell me that the discussion about neutrality is *unwarranted*, it's another L-I-E. There's no other name for it.

Nableezy I was trying to make a point about one-sided external links. (and by the way, the pro-Israel ones were promptly removed under neutrality concerns, oh the irony). I'll admit that maybe the way I did it wasn't so obvious. Anyway, as I later explained on talk I'm perfectly happy with no 'external links' section. Or it could have a balanced version. Making clear that I didn't want a section with pro-Israel links only.
Hypothetically speaking, if you consider that pov-pushing "less than neutral", do you agree that Selfstudier acted in a pov-pushing "less than neutral" manner? –Daveout(talk) 19:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: It was a comment on my perception of Ideological bias on Wikipedia, based on my own experience, I didn't mean to attack anyone. (do you have mind reading capabilities or are you failing to assume good faith?). I was indeed thinking about an event that I experienced, where I saw admins ignoring rules in order to vilify an allegedly conservative "free-speech" website. (I can provide diffs but I really don't want to get into that). And by the way I'm a Bernie suporter. –Daveout(talk) 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daveout, as I said below, this was an "attack on our editors in general". I did not say that it was a personal attack on any specific user. But I am not violating WP:AGF by pointing out that "Cannot say bad things about Dems in wikipedia, unfortunately. Everything bad about their politicians is just conspiracy around here" is an uncivil remark. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will never take back or apologize for saying that Wikipedia is biased in favor of establishment Democrats. This is a well known fact, a constructive criticism, not incivility, nor "a direct attack on editors in general". (I say this as a progressive Bernie supporter.) (Wanna permaban me for saying that? Fine. Just do it. It will just prove my point.)
  • I have a hard time being fake polite, and sometimes, I notice, people take my words harder than I intended. but I can try from now on, as a compromise, to force myself to sound softer even during disputes. For example, instead of saying "Selfstudier, You're a liar!", I can push my hardest to say things like "Selfstudier, sweetie, we're talking about this exact issue on talk, as I mentioned in the summary. I didn't explicitly wrote WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:POV in there because I thought you were already well aware of those. But you clearly weren't, despite having over a decade of experience. It's thus obviously my fault for being so... cryptic. I'm really sorry. >.< " –Daveout(talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: You forgot to say that, as I made clear, I restored positive and uncontroversial edits only. In many instances, including votes, I acted in ways that would let Yaniv displeased since I'm less pro-Israel than him, and I have the receipts. But since you're so committed at reverting every Yaniv edit, you might be interested in restoring this edit describing Sara Netanyahu as a cow, since it was corrected by Yaniv. (along with other edits that introduced crass errors in articles, some carelessly reintroduced by yourself) –Daveout(talk) 17:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
("Collapsing. Sorry for bringing it up here. Please note but ignore it, admins.")

Statement by GizzyCatBella

edit

collapsing (ignore it please)

Result concerning Daveout

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Daveout, a couple of things: 1. Please sign + timestamp any and all comments. 2. Attributing a possible error to a lie fails to exhibit good faith on your part. Also, even if you were able to somehow prove that it was a lie (singular), that does not mean that they are a liar (habitual). 3. Maybe tone down the the excessive bold (have mercy on our eyes) and other heated exclamations. Those do the opposite of of advancing your position, because they serve as distraction, one which does not come across as representing the dispassionate discourse expected for this topic area (and doubly so here, at WP:AE, where one's related conduct is placed under scrutiny). Thank you. El_C 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear personal attack and I don't see anything here which could possibly justify it. It seems to me that these editors just have different perspectives on this revert: Selfstudier pointed out that the edit summary doesn't contain a rationale for removing that specific link (which is true), and Daveout felt that a previous post on the talk page justified the removal. Neither is a wildly unreasonable perspective to have and certainly not justification for insulting people. Given the prior warning, and the fact that Daveout's comments here double down on the original comment, I think some sort of sanction or at least a stern logged warning would be appropriate. Hut 8.5 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also have this newly made edit with incivility and an attack on our editors in general in the American politics arena. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it does not appear that this editor is improving their behavior much if at all, I would not be opposed to a topic ban, or more than one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. This is a two for one deal? We have WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE and WP:INCIVIL behavior in American politics and Palestine-Israel. Doubling down on such behavior above? I think ArbCom wants us to tend away from indefinite TBANS, so one each for American politics and Israel-Palestine would be nice, but they were not DS alerted for American politics. So six months TBAN for Israel Palestine. However, I see a trend that makes me believe a site ban may become necessary. The general WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is the opposite of what is required in a collaborative work environment. As the behavior escalated, I think a warning will not be effective. If anyone wants a limited duration site-wide block from editing, that would be my second choice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time-limited sanctions are counter productive for anything other than petty vandalism or edit warring. I'm not up to date regarding Arbcom's latest effort to hamstring discretionary sanctions, but if there is any time that an indef topic ban was required, this is it. If that's now not permitted, I don't see why there would be less than a one-year tban. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kheo17

edit

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Kheo17

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Kheo17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBAA2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  2. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  3. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  4. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  5. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  6. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  7. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  8. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  9. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  10. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kheo17 continued to use the source Qərbi Azərbaycanın türk mənşəli toponimləri ("Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan") after being warned of it's unreliability. The "Western Azerbaijan" in the title is actually referring to Armenia, and is an Azerbaijani irredentism source that is explaining how the names of every Armenian city and town are actually of Turkic/Azerbaijani origin. The book's author, Ibrahim Bayramov, co-wrote another book about how all of Armenia is Azerbaijan's rightful territory.

I explained to Kheo17 on his talk page why this source is unreliable, but he continued to restore it on several Armenian town articles regardless. I'm shocked that an editor who has been editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles for over a decade would not understand why a source claiming all of Armenia belongs to Azerbaijan is not acceptable. --Dallavid (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill My apologies, I had misread that sample example amid the multiple other examples close to each other, and mistakenly read it as "Previously given a discretionary sanction alert for conduct in the area of conflict" because the "Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict..." and "Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict..." examples were close to it. --Dallavid (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[2]

Discussion concerning Kheo17

edit

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Kheo17

edit

The accusation by Dallavid is baseless. An irredentist title does not make the information in the publication automatically biased or unreliable. The paper uses tens of reliable references from Armenian, Azerbaijani, Russian and European sources. For every statistical information, it provides a reference right after the statement. Using the same logic, all the reliable sources with "Western Armenia" in the title should be removed from Wikipedia?

Unlike Dallavid argues, the source does not try to claim any territory or prove that every Armenian settlement was only inhabited by Azerbaijanis. It is just a research paper on the Turkic origin of some of the settlement names in current Armenia at certain period in time.

Second of all, I expanded articles and created content using two sources: Korkotyan (1932) - an Armenian author and Bayramov (2002) - an Azerbaijani author. The demographic data from 1831 to 1931 was only sourced from Kokotyan (1932). However, Dallavid kept reverting all of my content independent of what source I used. It seems Dallavid is more dissatisfied with what my sources say, rather than their reliability. Thank you--KHE'O (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Abrvagl)

edit

This appears to be a content dispute case that almost escalated into an edit warring when both users demonstrated a lack of ability to handle the matter wisely. User Dallavid made the correct decision by initiating the conversation on the user Kheo17's talk page. However, I feel that the discussion, which began with a DS notice and was written in a demanding tone was not a good start and generated a hostile perception. Then user Dallavid did not wait for the reply and reverted 23 edits of the user Kheo17 on the 23 articles within 8 minutes of initiating a conversation, which I think also fosters a battlefield environment rather than fostering healthy discussion. Furthermore, I reviewed the all of the 23 reverts, and it looks that user Dallavid has never contributed to any of those articles, which, in my opinion, may make other user feel hounded.

On the other hand, instead of attempting to reinstate some of his edits, user Kheo17 could have attempted to comprehend Dallavid's concerns, continued the discussion in order to achieve an agreement, and maybe taken the source to the RSN or to some of the dispute resolution boards. I am not an administrator, and I believe administrators will know more than I, but I see nothing but two people arguing about the content, who need to learn to manage things wisely in order to maintain healthy atmosphere. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 15:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kheo17

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Dallavid, I'm afraid you've misread or misrepresented my interaction with Kheo17: I gave them a standard DS alert, not a sanction. If you're making a report here, you should understand the difference between those things. I don't see any record of a logged sanction against Kheo17 at WP:AELOG. I would suggest that you strike this element of your report accordingly. I have not otherwise investigated this report. signed, Rosguill talk 15:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhafiz-e-Pakistan

edit

Clean Copy

edit

Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center

edit

Grandmaster

edit

Kheo17

edit

Aman.kumar.goel

edit

Bookku

edit

Dallavid

edit

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Dallavid

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBAA2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  2. 20 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  3. 19 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  4. 17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  5. 17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 24 March 2021 - Blocked from a user page for Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy.
  2. 19 September 2022 - Blocked for 72 hours from the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article for edit warring.


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above 15 October 2022
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On September 14, 2022, Dallavid made this contentious edit to the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article, after which they started a talk page discussion on Talk:September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes#Undue weight. They also made a similar edit to the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis article. Dallavid's edit on the September 2022 clashes article was reverted by another user (Viewsridge) who also replied at the discussion Dallavid had opened. On September 15, while the discussion was still going on the talk page, Dallavid restored their own edit. This time, I undid their edit and requested that they first reach a consensus within the edit summary. I also commented on the discussion to further explain my objection to the edit. Another user then restored Dallavid's edit, but the user Sandstein reverted it with this edit summary: No opinion on the merits, but this version of the lead is confusing and a stylistic catastrophe; see MOS:LEAD. On September 19, Dallavid restored their edit once more. I asked Dallavid to go back and reach a decision first in accordance with WP:ONUS. On the same day, Dallavid again restored their edit after another user had undone it. On September 20, I restored stable version of the lead and asked the involved editors to reach consensus. Dallavid stopped reinstating their edit for about a month after that. A number of editors improved the lead during that time. On October 17, however, Dallavid abruptly reinstated their edit once more, citing the edit summary no additional discussion in the talk page about the lead's undue weight. as justification. They also reinstated same edit on the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis. article

Dallavid most likely did not even check edits made to the lead during their absence and simply copy-pasted their edit, because by reinstating their edit, Dallavid also reverted a number of edits from other users without any explanation. For example, their edit also reverted this edit, which was made based on a consensus between several editors.

Dallavid appear to have engaged in edit warring behavior, which continued even after they was blocked and warned for it. This could also be a case of tendentious editing, because Dallavid is not only pushing their POV and not dropping the stick after being opposed by a number of editors, but they continue to do so even after being told that their edit doesn't comply with Wikipedia's MOS. The version of lead Dallavid proposed, which contains things like The Azerbaijani Defence Ministry and Turkish media falsely claimed..., ...which was disproven by multiple third-party sources, delivers no new information, but was written in a tendentious way rather than in encyclopedic and neutral tone.


Since I made the report, Dallavid has continued their tendentious editing and edit warring:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Done

Discussion concerning Dallavid

edit

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Dallavid

edit

How is my September 14th edit "contentious"? It was reliably sourced and, as Abrvagl admits, I opened a talk page discussion right afterward to further elaborate and so anyone that wanted to dispute them could discuss it. Abrvagl is incorrect in saying that I reverted Viewsridge, who had claimed there was an issue with my sources in his edit summary but never elaborated what that was, and his removal of my edit also broke several reference tags. Viewsridge was instead reverted by User:Blaylockjam10.[25] Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users,[26][27][28] and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted.[29] When I restored the edits on September 19th, that had been two days after User:Knižnik (himself being reverted by Viewsridge) made a talk page post agreeing[30] that the "both sides accused each other" wording was very undue, given that multiple third-party politicians and organizations confirmed Azerbaijan was the aggressor. These false balance points were further agreed on by User:XTheBedrockX.[31] That is why I restored a version making it clear that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia; there was a clear talk page consensus to do so. But I didn't restore the exact same header, as I had taken care to reword it in order to address Sandstein's stylistic concerns. The user who reverted me was Viewsridge again[32], who bizarrely claimed "Changes opposed by multiple users and discussed against inclusion in the talk page" even though the False balance discussion showed the opposite was true; multiple users opposed the changes Viewsridge was making and he never even replied to them on the talk page. Abrvagl's September 20th edit was not the stable version, and it is very odd for him to have said "lets achieve consensus version at talk fist", because there had already been a talk page consensus established by Knižnik, XTheBedrockX, and myself. Abrvagl and Viewsridge continued to revert other users and asking them to "achieve consensus" while at the same time not participating in the talk page consensus they were reverting. Abrvagl was then reverted by Blaylockjam10 again[33], and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.[34]

As both the Undue weight and False balance discussions show, Abrvagl and Viewsridge never responded to any of the other users explaining to them why the "both sides" wording is undue after September 16th and 17th, respectively, but they both continued to revert other users well after those dates who were simply including what the talk page consensus decided on.

This is clearly just a content dispute, mostly from over a month ago. It's a shame that Abrvagl's first thought was to make an enforcement request instead of joining the talk page discussion he neglected to reply to for over a month. If he had bothered to read the talk page, he would know that the version he claims I proposed was actually a consensus established by multiple other users. --Dallavid (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed parts of my statement with invisible HTML Comments to meet the 500 word limit. I would like to be given permission to included those parts as well so that I can fully defend myself against the large amount of false accusations Abrvagl made. --Dallavid (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanezi Astghik

edit

Dallavid had only made changes that the talk page consensus had already decided on. It is actually Abrvagl who has engaged in edit warring behavior, both with me and with other users on this article. --Vanezi (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olympian

edit

@User:Vanezi Astghik If you took the time to read the evidence listed by Abrvagl, you'll find that in fact, Dallavid didn't adhere to talk page consensus at all. – Olympian loquere 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blaylockjam10

edit

The main thing I remember about this is reverting edits that removed text and references that supported that text. It seemed like those edits were done to remove text and references that made Azerbaijan look bad. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XTheBedrockX

edit

I definitely agreed with Dallavid that it was likely WP:UNDUE to state that both sides blamed each other without mentioning that a number of third party sources also claimed that Azerbaijan was encroaching into Armenia. The non-regional perspectives were important, and also, I think, notable enough to mention in the lead. In any case, though, I don't thank an arbitration request was necessary to resolve this. Contentious reverting without consensus is certainly uncalled for - but questions and debates about WP:NPOV and consensus-building are also a normal part of Wikipedia. I believe Dallavid was acting in WP:GOODFAITH, and I simply don't agree that Dallavid was being anywhere close to disruptive enough to warrant this. User:XTheBedrockX (talk)

Statement by (username)

edit

Result concerning Dallavid

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Dallavid

edit

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Dallavid

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBAA2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  2. 20 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  3. 19 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  4. 17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  5. 17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 24 March 2021 - Blocked from a user page for Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy.
  2. 19 September 2022 - Blocked for 72 hours from the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article for edit warring.


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above 15 October 2022
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On September 14, 2022, Dallavid made this contentious edit to the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article, after which they started a talk page discussion on Talk:September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes#Undue weight. They also made a similar edit to the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis article. Dallavid's edit on the September 2022 clashes article was reverted by another user (Viewsridge) who also replied at the discussion Dallavid had opened. On September 15, while the discussion was still going on the talk page, Dallavid restored their own edit. This time, I undid their edit and requested that they first reach a consensus within the edit summary. I also commented on the discussion to further explain my objection to the edit. Another user then restored Dallavid's edit, but the user Sandstein reverted it with this edit summary: No opinion on the merits, but this version of the lead is confusing and a stylistic catastrophe; see MOS:LEAD. On September 19, Dallavid restored their edit once more. I asked Dallavid to go back and reach a decision first in accordance with WP:ONUS. On the same day, Dallavid again restored their edit after another user had undone it. On September 20, I restored stable version of the lead and asked the involved editors to reach consensus. Dallavid stopped reinstating their edit for about a month after that. A number of editors improved the lead during that time. On October 17, however, Dallavid abruptly reinstated their edit once more, citing the edit summary no additional discussion in the talk page about the lead's undue weight. as justification. They also reinstated same edit on the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis. article

Dallavid most likely did not even check edits made to the lead during their absence and simply copy-pasted their edit, because by reinstating their edit, Dallavid also reverted a number of edits from other users without any explanation. For example, their edit also reverted this edit, which was made based on a consensus between several editors.

Dallavid appear to have engaged in edit warring behavior, which continued even after they was blocked and warned for it. This could also be a case of tendentious editing, because Dallavid is not only pushing their POV and not dropping the stick after being opposed by a number of editors, but they continue to do so even after being told that their edit doesn't comply with Wikipedia's MOS. The version of lead Dallavid proposed, which contains things like The Azerbaijani Defence Ministry and Turkish media falsely claimed..., ...which was disproven by multiple third-party sources, delivers no new information, but was written in a tendentious way rather than in encyclopedic and neutral tone.


Since I made the report, Dallavid has continued their tendentious editing and edit warring:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Done

Discussion concerning Dallavid

edit

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Dallavid

edit

How is my September 14th edit "contentious"? It was reliably sourced and, as Abrvagl admits, I opened a talk page discussion right afterward to further elaborate and so anyone that wanted to dispute them could discuss it. Abrvagl is incorrect in saying that I reverted Viewsridge, who had claimed there was an issue with my sources in his edit summary but never elaborated what that was, and his removal of my edit also broke several reference tags. Viewsridge was instead reverted by User:Blaylockjam10.[35] Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users,[36][37][38] and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted.[39] When I restored the edits on September 19th, that had been two days after User:Knižnik (himself being reverted by Viewsridge) made a talk page post agreeing[40] that the "both sides accused each other" wording was very undue, given that multiple third-party politicians and organizations confirmed Azerbaijan was the aggressor. These false balance points were further agreed on by User:XTheBedrockX.[41] That is why I restored a version making it clear that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia; there was a clear talk page consensus to do so. But I didn't restore the exact same header, as I had taken care to reword it in order to address Sandstein's stylistic concerns. The user who reverted me was Viewsridge again[42], who bizarrely claimed "Changes opposed by multiple users and discussed against inclusion in the talk page" even though the False balance discussion showed the opposite was true; multiple users opposed the changes Viewsridge was making and he never even replied to them on the talk page. Abrvagl's September 20th edit was not the stable version, and it is very odd for him to have said "lets achieve consensus version at talk fist", because there had already been a talk page consensus established by Knižnik, XTheBedrockX, and myself. Abrvagl and Viewsridge continued to revert other users and asking them to "achieve consensus" while at the same time not participating in the talk page consensus they were reverting. Abrvagl was then reverted by Blaylockjam10 again[43], and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.[44]

As both the Undue weight and False balance discussions show, Abrvagl and Viewsridge never responded to any of the other users explaining to them why the "both sides" wording is undue after September 16th and 17th, respectively, but they both continued to revert other users well after those dates who were simply including what the talk page consensus decided on.

This is clearly just a content dispute, mostly from over a month ago. It's a shame that Abrvagl's first thought was to make an enforcement request instead of joining the talk page discussion he neglected to reply to for over a month. If he had bothered to read the talk page, he would know that the version he claims I proposed was actually a consensus established by multiple other users. --Dallavid (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed parts of my statement with invisible HTML Comments to meet the 500 word limit. I would like to be given permission to included those parts as well so that I can fully defend myself against the large amount of false accusations Abrvagl made. --Dallavid (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanezi Astghik

edit

Dallavid had only made changes that the talk page consensus had already decided on. It is actually Abrvagl who has engaged in edit warring behavior, both with me and with other users on this article. --Vanezi (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olympian

edit

@User:Vanezi Astghik If you took the time to read the evidence listed by Abrvagl, you'll find that in fact, Dallavid didn't adhere to talk page consensus at all. – Olympian loquere 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blaylockjam10

edit

The main thing I remember about this is reverting edits that removed text and references that supported that text. It seemed like those edits were done to remove text and references that made Azerbaijan look bad. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XTheBedrockX

edit

I definitely agreed with Dallavid that it was likely WP:UNDUE to state that both sides blamed each other without mentioning that a number of third party sources also claimed that Azerbaijan was encroaching into Armenia. The non-regional perspectives were important, and also, I think, notable enough to mention in the lead. In any case, though, I don't thank an arbitration request was necessary to resolve this. Contentious reverting without consensus is certainly uncalled for - but questions and debates about WP:NPOV and consensus-building are also a normal part of Wikipedia. I believe Dallavid was acting in WP:GOODFAITH, and I simply don't agree that Dallavid was being anywhere close to disruptive enough to warrant this. User:XTheBedrockX (talk)

Statement by (username)

edit

Result concerning Dallavid

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Hari147

edit

TheCurrencyGuy

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive311&oldid=1121410088"