Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:47, 18 February 2022

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Grandmaster

Grandmaster is indefinitely topic banned from AA2 _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Grandmaster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Armatura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

19:49, 16 January 2022 pushes outrageous website EPRESS.AM to prove his point that "even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons" for Agdam. The fact the "article" does not even have an author, that it is copy paste of unknown person's delusionary Facebook post, that it contains passages like "nomadic barbarian-vampires" and "they deserve this, I have f****d the city and the Turks' mother" about Azerbaijanis and that the whole website is a trash can with no editorial oversight or domain registration details, full of extreme profanity like "caught when jerking" or "I'd f***ed your mothers" does not worry Grandmaster. He does not want to hear, and keeps beating the dead horse again and again, and once again in ANI, by saying he just “quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too.” , then accusing me for “making so much drama over one news link posted at a talk page, and bringing it to this board.” Such an "article" with racial remarks towards Azeris/Turks would not be normally tolerated another time, yet since it supports his “even Armenian media uses Hiroshima” POV, he isn’t bothered.
17:02, 16 January 2022 Grandmaster turns a blind eye on pro-Azeri propaganda; he won't see why Azerbaijani president's aid Hikmet Hajijev's "this is Hiroshima" phrase applied to literally all cities damaged in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, in front of BBC camera, constitutes propaganda; on the contrary, he justifies it by saying it is because every settlement in 7 districts that were under Armenian occupation "looks like Hiroshima... What is propaganda here?"... and "BBC report shows the town of Jabrayil that looks like another, smaller Hiroshima".
13 January 2022Grandmaster uses double standards, putting undue weight on "Armenianness" of the source, giving it undue weight, by downplaying Armenian village head's quote about Azeri president origin despite it was cited by neutral RS", or overplaying it like in Epress.am example above, depending on what better suits POV-pushing.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

En Wiki block log previous 10 blocks in English Wikipedia, mostly in AA topic
Ru Wiki block log previous 10 blocks in Russian Wikipedia, again mostly in AA topic
29 May 2010 RU AE case - 6-month ban on Russian Wikipedia for leading the meatpuppetry Anti-Armenian group of a dozen Azerbaijani editors, some of which still support Grandmaster in discussions on English Wikipedia.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Grandmaster has veteran experience of POV-pushing with extensive history of blocks in Armenia-Azerbaijan topic in two Wikipedias. The provided diffs are just a few recent examples to show he has not changed but learned how to avoid bans by WP:CPUSH-ing as shown in diffs above. I think he is there not as much as to build encyclopedia, but to advance official Azerbaijan' positions on Wikipedia, in a nationalist mood, prohibited by WP:ADVOCACY. He is apparently unable contribute neutrally in topics he has ethnic conflict of interest with, hence I believe a topic ban from AA area, broadly construed (including Turkey and Turkic world), for at least 1 year, is required to help to sober him up, while allowing him to edit in topics he does not have conflict of interest with. I was advised by admins Rosguill and Robert McClenon to take the case from ANI to AE, and so I did.

UPDATE 25.01.2022 Grandmaster worryingly changed his replies here

When this violation of talk page guidelines was noted by an opponent, he resented till another user notes the violation

Worryingly, Grandmaster now glorifies Epressa.am as a reliable example of Armenian media, to prove a point, despite what he refers to is not even an article by a journalist but a text of an unknown person' Facebook rave with an attention seeking FRINGE title “Did we (Armenians) drop hydrogen bomb on Agdam and Zangilan?”. Not sure about 2014 award, but that website is apparently hacked and vandalised, everyone can see the sheer random nonsense posted there: 1 2. --Armatura (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 29.01.22 Grandmaster, when the source is so obviously poor, it does not merit a discussion at WP:RS/P. WP:QUESTIONABLE sources are unsuitable for citing contentious claims (in article or talk page - does not matter) and minimal WP:COMPETENCE is required to see the obvious. The fact that you do not / choose not to see it after being on Wikipedia over a decade, your continued defence of that source even here, against all the evidence, is a sign of incompetence or inability to remain neutral in editing/discussing I am afraid. And what you call a "witch hunt" was a transfer of ANI discussion to AE, as advised by admins, that's all. --Armatura (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 02.02.2022 Many thanks for time and effort spent on evaluating this case, Rosguill and Ealdgyth. Are you happy to close it per your concensus? Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified on talk page by standart alert.

Discussion concerning Grandmaster

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

Statement by Grandmaster

This is already 4th report filed on me by Armatura. Such persistence in filing frivolous reports one after another indicates that this user is engaged in WP:Witchhunt. Previously Armatura joined now banned user Steverci to accuse me of various things, but that report was dismissed as retaliatory. [1] Then he filed a 3RR report on me [2], which was dismissed without action, and he did it when I reported a banned IP user, so it appears to be another retaliatory report. After that he filed a report on WP:ANI, asking to ban me: [3] So this is the report # 4, which for the most part repeats the report at WP:ANI.

Regarding Agdam, one can see that Armatura started the latest discussion by bringing up a BBC report that has no relevance to the city of Agdam, to support his claim that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" is used as propaganda by Azerbaijan (BBC says nothing like that, btw). But as was demonstrated by myself and other users, the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is used not just by Azerbaijan, but it was coined by British journalist and political analyst Thomas de Waal, and is used by mainstream international media such as Euronews, France24, AP, The independent, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. I quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too. I did not propose to include it into the article. In fact, Armatura's claiming that the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is propaganda after it was demonstrated that it originated outside of Azerbaijan and is used by media all over the world is tendentious editing in itself.

Then he accuses me of removing claims of an village head about late president of Azerbaijan allegedly concealing his place of birth for political reasons, but how qualified is a villager to make judgements about the motives of the Soviet leadership? Even if it is reported by a reliable source, it does not make the claims of a man in the street reliable or notable. But I only removed that line once, and when Armatura restored it, I left it at that. There was no edit war, or anything of the kind. I just tried to attract attention to questionability of that claim, per WP:BRD.

Regarding my blocks in en:wiki, as you can see, they are from 15 years ago, and incident at Russian wiki is from 12 years ago, and has nothing to do with en:wiki.

Per WP:Boomerang, I think the admins need to look at Armatura's own activity. Armatura repeatedly violated WP:AGF and WP:Civil, making personal attacks and incivil comments every time I try to have a polite discussion with him. For example, in his report at WP:ANI, he accuses me of having a "narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys"", which clearly is a bad faith assumption. In this report here, he accuses me of "advancing official Azerbaijan' positions on Wikipedia, in a nationalist mood", with no credible evidence whatsoever, which is again not in line with WP:AGF. How civil is it to write to another editor: do not test the patience of other editors with nonsense, it may be viewed as trolling? Here he told me: Because you simply refuse to understand when I explain anything, in a nihilistic fashion Bad faith assumption like this, when he accused me of not reacting to another user's erroneous closure of RFC, even though Armatura was explained by a Wikipedia admin that he cannot hold against someone not doing something: [4] Another bad faith assumption at the same page: [5] Here he demands from me "repentance", which he would "perhaps accept"? [6] As was noted by an uninvolved user at WP:ANI, Armatura WP:BLUDGEONs the discussion by arguing with my every vote and every comment, [7]. You may wish to check Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement and Talk:Agdam#RfC_for_"Hiroshima_of_Caucasus" to get the full picture of my interactions with this user.

Previously, Armatura was placed on interaction ban with another user: [8].

In sum, Armatura has difficulties with keeping it cool when engaging in discussions with other editors, which is why admins may wish to see if editing such a contentious topic as Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is something that he should be allowed to do. His behavior creates nervous and unhealthy atmosphere.

Rosguill, please note that I only cited epress.am once, at the talk page of Agdam. I made no further reference to that source. Every other mention was in response to Armatura, who brought it up again at his talk page and ANI. Also, the article was not nationalist, quite the contrary, it was critical of those people who made racist comments about Azerbaijani people and justified destruction of Azerbaijani cities. Armatura takes words out of context, but context is important. The author does not endorse racist attitudes, but protests them. Also, Wikipedia has no censorship, and profanity is not forbidden.

Regarding epress.am, it is certainly not a nationalist publication. Some information about them could be found here [9] [10] And here is an interview with its chief editor, who says that his publication is against nationalism, militarism, homophobia and violence. [11] It won Free Media Awards in 2014. [12] If you check English Wikipedia, it is used a lot in Armenia related articles. Grandmaster 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, epress was not proposed to be used as a reference in the article. It was only linked once at the talk page in the discussion, as an example of a term usage, and that news-site is used as a reference in dozens of articles about Armenia in Wikipedia. If it is not acceptable, the issue should be taken to WP:RSN, to designate it as deprecated, and stop its usage in Wikipedia. I don't think that a simple mention at talk is such a big issue as to demand someone to be banned or sanctioned. I changed some of my comments here to save space, as I was advised I need to keep it short. Grandmaster 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni:

1st diff, which should be this, Billion was quoted by France24, a major French news outlet. [13] I used this quote on OSCE Minsk Group, not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him.
2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about Lezgins, and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained.
3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to be presented too, per WP:Balance. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made.

Additional comments.

1st diff, Billion does not share Azerbaijani view, other international experts are also skeptical about future of the Minsk Group.
2nd diff, I don't think Cornell is generally a good source here, as he is referring to private conversations with some people. But what he wrote about Talysh is there.
3rd diff, EU parliament was already mentioned. Even if official Azerbaijani position is disputed, it still needs to be reflected, with attribution, according to the rules.

Grandmaster 17:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, you forgot to mention who brought up that source time after time at various places. Certainly not me. Grandmaster 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, it was actually me who suggested to stop arguing about that source right there, at talk of Agdam: [14] But Armatura kept taking it to various boards, and brought it up even at his own talk page, when I tried to discuss with him a technical issue. Grandmaster 16:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins may wish to look into ZaniGiovanni's own reverting activity today. He removed Didier Billion: [15], claiming that he was a genocide denier, even though the article has nothing to do with genocide, and Billion was interviewed by France24, major French news outlet. Normally, if you question general reliability of a source, WP:RSN is where you discuss it, and reach consensus with the community. Then he removed RFE/RL, which is a reliable source, claiming that he sees from photos that the mosques' roof is there: [16], when it clearly is not. If you compare photos #4 and #5 in RFE article, it is obvious that the metal hip roof is gone, plus he engages in WP:OR. Clearly POV edits. Grandmaster 16:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, it is clear from this picture taken before occupation that the triangular shaped metal roof is gone. Plus, you cannot engage in WP:OR and decide, what was and what was not removed. RFE/RL is a reliable source, and cannot be removed just because you disagree with it. Grandmaster 16:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, topic banning an editor for just posting a link to a talk page discussion is too harsh. And I don't think I held up author's "Armenian ethnicity as somehow equivalent to speaking for Armenians or Armenian sources". I just responded to the claim that the source was "ultra-nationalist", and tried to demonstrate that it was not. I edited Wikipedia for many years, and made tens of thousands of useful contributions, created many new articles. I don't think it is a proportional punishment for whatever I did wrong. Grandmaster 19:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, I think you do not understand why that argument was made. Armatura argued that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" was used only by Azerbaijani propaganda. But it was demonstrated by many users that it is used by mainstream Western media as well (please see comments at RFC there). I also pointed out that it was used by an Armenian reporter from IWPR, who cannot be engaged in pro-Azerbaijani propaganda. That is the only reason why the nationality of the reporters was mentioned, to demonstrate that they could not be a part of Azerbaijan's propaganda. I also pointed out nationalities of other sources, to show that the term originated and was used beyond Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 20:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, it is not about ethnic identity, but rather the fact that the source originates outside of Azerbaijan. I also mentioned nationality of British journalist Thomas de Waal, for example. But I did it just to show that the term used by sources outside of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 20:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, regarding epress, it was never used as a reference in the article, not it was proposed to be used. I only linked it once at the talk page discussion. I understand it could be a problem when unreliable pieces are used as references, but it was never my intention. I take the point that it is not a good quality source, and I will never make any mention of such sources anywhere. But a person can a make a mistake occasionally, I think. We are all human, after all. I don't think it is a adequate punishment to ban a log time editor with thousands of contributions for just one link posted at talk page. Grandmaster 20:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, once again, I did not defend epress, I only demonstrated here that it is not a nationalist source, as it was claimed. Grandmaster 20:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

(clerking only, no comments on the merits)
Grandmaster, you are over the word limit by over 100 words. You need to trim it down a bit if you expect to reply again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Grandmaster 01:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok now, or more trimming needed? Grandmaster 01:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above, the limit is supposed to be 500 words total, which is often overlooked if you don't push it too far, but just be aware, that's all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a lot. Grandmaster 13:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZaniGiovanni

Since the ANI discussion, I was thinking wheter the suggested AE case would be opened or not, as there are other diffs of Grandmaster's POV pushing that weren't discussed. I believe as an involved party with the previous case, I should add my input. Some recent edits by Grandmaster that I believe weren't posted in either of noticeboards:

diff 1 - Grandmaster adds Didier Billion as a source which supports Azerbaijani point-of-view. Billion is an Armenian genocide denier, (link). Billion trivializes genocide as "events" [17]. He's essentially a Turkish lobbiest, [18]. This isn’t the first time Grandmaster added an Armenian genocide denier as a source, see diff of him adding Christopher Gunn, another denialist.
diff 2 - Huge WP:ALLEGED violation. Grandmaster removed any mention of the government falsifying records and just attributed it to belief.
diff 3 - Grandmaster added WP:UNDUE Azerbaijani POV that a group of Armenian prisoners of war from 2020 Karabakh War were apparently a “saboteur group”. Even the Eurasianet source he cited casts a lot of doubt on them being labeled as saboteurs. It reveals one of the “saboteurs” is actually a civilian. And it also quotes an Armenian human rights activist saying they were taken as hostages. Yet another example of Grandmaster only citing what benefits his agenda and giving it a huge undue weight. Notable to add that the European Parliament source in the article states:
- “whereas credible reports have been made that Armenian service personnel and civilians have also been taken prisoner since the cessation of hostilities on 10 November 2020; whereas the Azerbaijani authorities claim that these hostages and prisoners are terrorists and do not deserve POW status under the Geneva Convention;”
- “whereas Azerbaijani forces detained these civilians even though there was no evidence that they posed any security threat that could justify their detention under international humanitarian law;”

I'm not an admin, I don't know what appropriate measures are against users in such cases. As someone involved in the ANI discussion, I wanted to share the problematic edits of Grandmaster I've noticed recently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1st diff, which should be this, Billion was quoted by France24, a major French news outlet. [17] I used this quote on OSCE Minsk Group, not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him.

As I said, this isn't the first time you used "not Armenian genocide" defense when called out on your sources. You said the same thing about Christopher Gunn, another denialist, "This article is not about genocide". I struggle to understand how you don't get the point here, so I'll make an analogy: Do you think if someone is a holocaust denier, calls holocaust "events", says "JEWISH DIASPORA SHOULD LEAVE LIVING IN THE PAST” (he published an article about Armenian diaspora [19]), they can be considered credible on issues related to Jewish people?

I don't think so, but maybe you'll defend him again, as it seems like when your view is challenged, you go extra defensive missing the point entirely. And btw, unsurprisingly, Didier Billion takes the Turkish/Azerbaijani point of view regarding Minsk Group, and has articles published about himself and his views in pro-Turkish government paper Daily Sabah [20], denies the Armenian genocide, etc. Do you honestly not see the conflict of interest here?

2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about Lezgins, and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained.

2 sentences hardly counts as a "large unnecessary quote", this was a complete exaggeration by you used to embellish your point. The Lezgins part is there because in the next sentence, author directly makes the comparison to Talyshs, and how Azerbaijani government denies figures for both ethnic groups, "These figures are denied by the Azerbaijani government but in private many Azeris acknowledge the fact that Lezgins – for that matter Talysh or the Tat population of Azerbaijan is far higher than the official figure." (Cornell, Svante E. Small Nations and Great Powers. Routledge (UK), 2001. p.269). You also didn't explain why you attributed Cornell's words to “belief”.

3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to presented too, per WP:Balance. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made.

I re-checked the source you cited just to be clear, and have a couple of things to say. Firstly, that Eurasianet article concluded that the POWs even included a civilian among them, so the Azeri position of "sabotage group" is UNDUE and clear propaganda. And interestingly, somehow, you failed to include this information in your edit at all. On top of that, as I already said, the European Parliament source disproves the Azeri version, solidifying that it's UNDUE. Again, you cited only what benefited your agenda ignoring rest of the source, and gave it huge UNDUE weight. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, you still defend Billion and somehow don't see his conflict of interest after all the material I provided. On the other hand, you say "I don't think Cornell is generally a good source here", when in reality, Svante Cornell, being a Swedish scholar, specializing on politics and security issues in Eurasia, South Caucasus, Turkey, and Central Asia, being published by Routledge, one of the most respectable academic publications, is more than a good source here.

Regarding the POWs, you missed my point. I think I've explained myself very clearly already, and I know the EU Parliament source was included in the article, I said it myself in the opening statement. What any of this has to do with you citing disproven propaganda and giving it UNDUE weight? I think I've said it all, I'll leave it for admins to judge my points, as this is getting increasingly repetitive and long. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was only linked once at the talk page in the discussion, as an example of a term usage

You defended that fringe article multiple times both in talk and ANI. No matter how you want to spin it, there is a limit to your WP:CRUSH and you breached it. You tried to portray that article to somehow be a legitimate part of Armenian news media and "term's usage in Armenia", which it isn't. I already addressed this in ANI, but for the last time, I'll address here.

If a website like EPRESS publishes blog style nonsense like these (the following don't even have an author and literally don't make sense) blog1, blog2, it isn't reliable. If EPRESS publishes FRINGE nonsense of self-proclaimed "Ruben Vardazaryan из Фейсбука" (Ruben Vardazaryan from facebook) with the title "Did our people use a hydrogen bomb in Aghdam and Zangelan?", which isn't supported by any academic consensus, it isn't reliable and no way near what you claimed it is (i.e, part of Armenian media and "Hiroshima" term usage in "Armenian media"). Armenpress is a legitimate Armenian media outlet, not some random blog style nobody / facebook self-published article.

I don't think that a simple mention at talk is such a big issue as to demand someone to be banned or sanctioned.

You didn't just mention it, you breached WP:CRUSH, defended it multiple times in talk, and continued to defend it even in ANI and here. And the EPRESS WP:CRUSH wasn't your only problematic conduct recently, I provided other diffs of your POV push. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say stuff like this, And btw, even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons. This is an article by an Armenian journalist, titled "Did our people use a hydrogen bomb in Aghdam and Zangelan?", you should expect a reply. When you keep defending that nonsense even after the reply, you should expect your opposition to dispute that. When you keep defending it in ANI too and here, you should also expect the same. How is this so hard to understand? You keep saying "I didn't brought it up" as if you weren't the one defending it over and over when people asked you to stop. I can link all the other diffs but it would be long and I've already shown it in ANI. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that's a diff after Armatura asked you to stop, and he said if you continue presenting that as a "proof" of anything, he would report you. And secondly, you still continued to defend that "publication" even in your linked diff. This is getting ridiculous. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is getting ridiculous and probably needs a close. Regarding Billion, I explained my rationale multiple times here. And regarding the Agdam Mosque article, I removed one repetition which still is cited 2 times in the article (once in lead and once in history section). And the roof part, I actually partially removed your recently added edit of "no roof". It seemed clear from the source that the roof is intact, and I checked other images which show the roof intact, so your edit was misleading. And btw, this report isn't about me or about edits I just did. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing the premise? You did the same thing in ANI discussion. You claim one thing, then when you're called out, you change the topic to another as if you weren't defending the former relentlessly over and over again.

And it isn't just "single mistake", you kept defending that EPRESS nonsense in, A) talk page; B) ANI; and C) even in here. This raises huge WP:CIR issues especially for controversial topic area like AA, and just because you have "thousands of contributions" it doesn't excuse your behavior, also see WP:YANI. I've seen far better editors than anyone from AA including all the ones here, who have still been sanctioned for various reasons. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Grandmaster

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

Having only reviewed the main diffs presented by Armatura and immediate context, it's hard to see the repeated invocation of epress.am as representative of Armenian media as anything other than disruptive; the assertion by Armatura that these are ultra-nationalist ravings with no significant editorial oversight or cachet appears correct. I'm less inclined to see the other two diffs as sanctionable, and am unimpressed by their inclusion in this report. I haven't yet read through Grandmaster's response and boomerang case at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, having read through Grandmaster's case against Armatura, setting aside the general merits of epress.am, I'm seeing a lot of IDHT related to the specific epress.am article in question, which very plainly states that it was sourced from Facebook, and am further concerned by Grandmaster's continued attempts even in this AE discussion to hold up a reporter's Armenian ethnicity as somehow equivalent to speaking for Armenians or Armenian sources. That repeated attitude, even in the absence of the other concerns raised in this report, is probably a sign that a topic ban is appropriate. Given that the evidence of Armatura's bad behavior here is limited to "assumptions of bad faith", which, given the concerning behaviors I've already highlighted, aren't really "assumptions", I don't think that a boomerang is warranted here, and I am left disinclined to review the tit-for-tat accusations against ZaniGiovanni. I would, however, very much appreciate additional administrators' input, as the editors involved here have more history than just the set of diffs presented in this case. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, that depends on whether you're looking for a "Cliff Notes on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" or "Cliff Notes on the Wikipedia battles over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict"; the former is doable, as our articles on the two main periods of conflict, First Nagorno-Karabakh war and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are relatively well-written. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, I think your response mixes the two incidents I was referring to: the bandying about of the epress.am article drawn from facebook is one; the emphasis of an IWPR reporter's Armenian ethnicity is another. My view is that frankly, these sorts of arguments belie a battleground and opportunist mentality that you should have unlearned by this point. If after 16 years of editing Wikipedia, you're still trying to use these kinds of arguments when discussing A-A, I don't think you should be allowed to edit contentious articles related to this topic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, nope, I understood that perfectly: your apparently continued insistence that a specific journalist's Armenian identity (which appears to be inferred just from their name?) has any bearing on the situation is problematic in my view. If you had left those comments at just highlighting that IWPR is not in cahoots with the Azerbaijani government, I would have evaluated them differently. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This request slipped into the archive without action; I've now restored it, as I'd prefer to have ssomeone else close it, but if this stays open for another week I'm willing to close it myself rather than have it fall into the archive again, given most admins' apparent unwillingnes to touch this topic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a "Cliff Notes to the A-A conflict" by someone not involved for us admins that don't edit in the topic area? I'm inclined to tban Granmaster but I'm very aware that I know little of the whole conflict and would prefer at least having some clue before going full-on tban... Ealdgyth (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Having just spent a depressing amount of time reading pages that display bad behavior from editors, I can get behind a tban. When a topic area is contentious, the way to deal with it is to step up your editing and behave better, not sink down into the mud further. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch

There are no saints here. Closing without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Ypatch

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ali Ahwazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ypatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#RfC moderation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

15 May 2019 A now-banned user adds a section
17 December 2021 The content is removed after 2.5 years
Here I and Vice Regent say that the removal of this old content needs consensus building. In truth, we say the user wasn't banned at the time that he added the content. Ypatch and The Dream Boat (outed himself to be a meatpuppet) say it ought to be removed due to the user. Ypatch keeps repeating that the content is added by a now banned user and hence should be removed. He edit wars against other users over this [21], [22], [23].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

10 December 2019 Ypatch blocked for edit warring on an IRANPOL article.
27 April 2020 Topic banned from IRANPOL articles broadly construed, for 3 months.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

He knows there were some decisions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ypatch ought to create consensus for removing the old content, but instead of that, he is railroading other users by beginning a wrong RFC and I told him this. The user has reverted other users three times while he only commented once in talk about the dispute. AFAIK, because the content has been there since 2019 and the user adding the content had no problems at that time, Ypatch needed to make consensus before removing the section. Instead of that, he says inserting the content needs consensus. He has opened a RFC for insertion of the content while the RFC ought to be for removal of the content.

Mr @Vanamonde93:: But the first line Wikipedia:Silence and consensus reads that "Consensus can be presumed to exist until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." That content was there for 2 and a half year. More than one month later after Kazemita entered the content, Stefka (now banned) only changed the title of the section. So the consensus existed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I informed/notified the mentioned user Here

Discussion concerning Ypatch

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

Statement by Ypatch

I really don't want to get involved in this, but even those in favor of having this content in the article are saying the content needs improvements. Ypatch (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too trigger tempted with the revert button, but i did not violate 3RR and Ali Ahwazi and Vice regent both reverted a few times too, yet they are reporting me for reverting (Vice regent received a warning in the recent ArbCom case for battleground behavior in this area). I opened the RFC hoping to solve the issue (about content that we ALL agree needs improving). Ypatch (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice regent

Vanamonde93, I agree that consensus is achieved through discussion, but I don't believe Ypatch's behavior has been constructive.

I proposed a compromise version on 15:50, 24 December 2021 and again on 20:47, 27 January 2022. Ypatch didn't respond to either one.
On January 27, I gave 4 policy-based reasons: (1) allegations are WP:DUE because they were made by multiple organizations, multiple journalists and covered in 11 secondary reliable newspapers[24], (2) Ypatch's proposed text was a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, (3) that one of the sources in this text was quoted incorrectly, hence a violation of WP:V, and (4) that another source was not WP:RS [25]. Ypatch didn't respond to any of these 4 arguments, but continued to edit war on January 28[26].
In fact, while Ypatch has reverted 3 times, they have made just two comments relating to this content. When you spend more time reverting than discussing, it's not a good sign.
You credited Ypatch for starting an RfC, but Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Arbcom found that past RfCs attempted "to railroad preferred changes". Given that neither Ypatch nor Bahar have responded to my Jan 27 policy based objections (even though both visited the article on Jan 29), it does seem like voting is being used as a substitute for discussion.

Other examples of Ypatch's recent unconstructive engagement:

This discussion: I gave alternative English names of PMOI/MEK in the "Names" section, but was reverted. So I provided 25 RS in support (yes, 25!!) and gave ngram evidence that suggested one of these names may have been the most popular until the 1980s. The evidence was strong enough that it convinced not just Ghazaalch but also an uninvolved user[27]. But Ypatch opposed this[28] in a vague comment, not addressing any of the evidence above.
I added a very relevant image, but Ypatch reverted it[29]. Ypatch insinuated a copyright violation[30] but the image's copyright is just fine. Ypatch tried to have the image deleted at Commons, but an administrator there found Ypatch's attempt "politically motivated"[31][32]. After Mario restored the image[33], Ypatch invoked WP:CRP [34].
Another example: on Jan 28, Ypatch claims "You haven't explained what is wrong with my summarisation", yet I gave a detailed explanation right above on Jan 15. This is WP:IDHT.

Ypatch's behavior is demoralizing. I spend hours in crafting a thoughtful response (researching, wordsmithing proposals etc), only to be ignored, reverted and stonewalled.VR _talk 17:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

It is true that Ypatch shouldn't edit-war, but participation in a single brief edit war that hasn't breached the 3RR isn't sufficient to bring to WP:AE, especially when the filer also participated. It is also true that the text is longstanding; it was created (shortly) before the editor's other account was banned, so WP:BANREVERT doesn't apply, and we don't automatically revert someone's contributions just because they were later banned. But the article is extremely low-traffic, so even though the text has been there for a year it's also reasonable to conclude that it doesn't have a strong consensus behind it - at least not to the point of rushing to AE to defend that extremely low level of implicit consensus. Also, it is absolutely not the case that text is required to be left untouched while discussions or an RFC is ongoing, so Ypatch's reverts are at least not a violation of the specific RFC moderation sanction mentioned. But honestly everyone would benefit from worrying less about conduct at this stage and focusing more on content and the underlying dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bahar1397

VR and AA edit warred too, but it seems that if one doesn't agree with VR's version proposals then to him that's something that should be brought to AE. That seems like "civil battleground mentality", which apparently he has been warned to stop doing already[35]. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ypatch

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

When will the lot of you learn that what you should be focusing on is discussing content, and not procedural wikilawyering about what version should exist while an RfC is under way? The content was added by a user subsequently banned. You've not provided any evidence that it had consensus at the time it was inserted; indeed, the page history suggests it didn't. As such, it requires consensus to be placed in the article. Yes, Ypatch is edit-warring, and he should be less trigger-happy with the revert button, but he's not the only one guilty of reverting before discussing, and he did in fact start the RfC, which was the right thing to do. In case anyone reading this decides I'm somehow favorably disposed toward Ypatch, I'll note that I have sanctioned him before for battleground conduct, of which I'm seeing plenty from several different users. I would close this with a warning to all parties about battleground conduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ali Ahwazi: You're missing the point, and repeating what I told you not to do. All content in an article requires consensus, and consensus is primarily built by discussion. The content in question has never had consensus reached via discussion, and as such there's no excuse not to discuss it. Under the circumstances, how long it's been in the article cannot change the need for discussion. It's only relevant to the status of the article while discussion takes place, which, as I've said, is a procedural matter, and not what the lot of you should be spending your energies on. We had a whole ARBCOM case about this; editors in the area who were not parties to that case would do well to read it, and not repeat the problematic behaviors identified there (this goes for both of you, and anyone else involved in this dispute). Please go discuss the substance of the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I am seeing sub-par behavior from several parties, none of which quite rises to sanctionable behavior. Everyone involved could afford to engage more substantively with the sources, and to rely less on procedural objections, as I have said. I'm not going to go deeper into the history than the evidence provided here; I've spent what energy I have for it already. If another admin chooses to levy sanctions, I will not stand in the way, but as is par for the course here, the walls of text discourage anyone uninvolved from commenting. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahar1397:, what's most concerning about your post is that you've come here to complain about Vice_regent, with no information that hasn't been posted here already, despite your involvement in this dispute being restricted to a single RfC comment, and no other engagement in the topic area in the last six months. Enforcement options exist for when behavioral problems disrupt ordinary consensus-building. I don't see much evidence of you attempting to engage in the substance of this dispute. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Less than ideal situation, like so many. I don't see a need for action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless an admin comments to the contrary in the next 24 hours, I'm very likely to close with no action. Assuming another admin doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Iskandar323

Duration of topic ban is hereby reduced to "time served". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict, imposed here:

User_talk:Iskandar323/Archive_1#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Palestine-Israel_articles

Administrator imposing the sanction: Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Diff notifying the imposing administrator. (NB: They are now inactive ~~and a former administrator~~.)

Statement by Iskandar323

I would like the length of my topic ban to be modified on the basis that the enforcement process was interfered with by Icewhiz socks. While I understand and accept my fault in the matter, I think the length of my TBAN is worth reconsidering in light of the latest round of Icewhiz SPI revelations (those involving Eostrix), which subsequently saw the account that launched the enforcement appeal, 11Fox11, and the two supporting accounts, Geshem Bracha and Free1Soul, blocked as Icewhiz socks. Upon my appeal to Callanecc, the administrator who imposed the TBAN, they agreed that based on these SPI revelations there may be scope for a modification of the ban's length. In their last active edit on Wikipedia, Callanecc noted their willingness to reconsider the length of the ban "as no longer necessary (based on constructive editing) after 3 months from when it was imposed (so towards the end of December)". Unfortunately, Callanecc no longer appears to be active and recently had their ~~administrator~~ "CU" permissions revoked. However, in accordance with Callanecc's suggestion, I would now present as evidence of my constructiveness in the subsequent three months my elevation of an article to GA status [36], two DYK credits [37][38] various new pages [39][40][41] (among others) and a confirmed SPI case [42]. Thank you in advance for reviewing my appeal. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: I don't see diffs made prior to the arbitration enforcement action in September (when I acknowledged certain issues with my understanding of process and my tone) as particularly pertinent to this appeal, which is based on the issue of sock involvement and my subsequent constructive editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde: Hi, I meant I understand my clear violation of the 1RR restrictions in place at the time, which was the reason for both AEs - in both instances because I was fairly rusty on Wikipedia and the stringent and broadly interpreted nature of the rules and discretionary sanctions in conflict areas, and blithely ran afoul of the parts about full/partial reverts, same or different material, etc., even when I thought (quite incorrectly) that I knew what I was doing. But also, in pushing up against what I thought were the limits of the 1RR restrictions, my editing also demonstrated a degree of impatience and impetuousness that was hardly a model of the preferred BRD approach to differences of opinion (even if, as is possible, I was intentionally bated into the whole situation by the socks). In any case, all of this was me 5,000 edits back. I would like to think I am at least a little wiser now, a little more patient and understanding of the need to let edits breath, and hopefully far less likely to allow myself to be drawn into situations that prove to be a waste of time for all involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

Statement by Shrike

Questions to Iskandar323

If someone points to you that you violated the policy do you still think[43],[44] its "drive-by disruption" and failing to assume AGF ?
Do you still there are users that are antagonists [45]?
Do you think this edit was ok [46] and why?
It seems you recently received a warning about falling to assume WP:AGF [47] you have deleted the warning[48] could you please explain what happened? --Shrike (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Iskandar323

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Iskandar323

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

Callanecc still has the admin bit, they just haven't been active in a few months. And yes, on their talk page, they did seem very willing to consider modifying the tban after a few months of positive editing. I have not reviewed enough to have an opinion, but wanted to clear that one item up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is tough. Your history over the last few months has had a couple of bumps (as Shrike points out) and the circumstances of the original tban was complicated by socks, but it's only been a few months. Given Callanecc's comments, and a fairly decent (but imperfect) civility record, I'm leaning towards a change is duration to "time served", but I really want more input from other admin, for a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me restate my above comment: I'm not going to act unilaterally to lift or deny this ban. I would request another admin look at this. I'm on the fence, so I'm guessing I wouldn't find a fault in whatever they decided because it is a close call, imho. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm fine with that Vanamonde93, and in fact, feel better about it since their last statement. I agree on your solution, and will move out of the way so you can do the paperwork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be amenable to lifting this in principle, but I'm not entirely convinced by the appeal. Iskandar, you say you "understand and accept my fault in the matter", but neither here nor in the previous AE action do I see explicit indication of what that means. I don't expect you to grovel—that's unproductive—but what is going to be different going forward, aside from the absence of Icewhiz socks? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar, thank you for that. Given the above statement, and the involvement of the Icewhiz socks, I would be willing to shorten the TBAN to time served; i.e., not overturned on the merits, but lifted moving forward. Dennis Brown, I'd like to check that you're okay with this, and if so, I'll likely close this discussion soon; it's been open for a while. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

207.47.175.199

Closing with no action. At the same, let me warn 207.47.175.199 informally that bending rules [49] can lead to getting blocked if there is a pattern of doing so. Having a minority (or majority) opinion nor being an IP editor grants no special privilege or immunity. You might want to back off just a bit, as you are uncomfortably close to that cliff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning 207.47.175.199

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kleinpecan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

207.47.175.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Special:Diff/1022910385: soapboxing about COVID-19 lockdowns with a reference to The Epoch Times (RSP entry); no relevance to the GBD
Special:Diff/1022931757: "... in this article there is no science, just opinion from people who either are erring on the side of overabundant caution of authoritarian origin, or who are grinding axes in an effort to justify same."
Special:Diff/1023681990: "In its place, so-called 'reputable sources' made up a fiction that a few dozen questionable signatures taint[] all 10's of thousands of signatures, which clearly is a biased POV ... The cost benefit for the fear mongering of the CDC, whose story changes as each abundance of caution POV is show[n] bogus on a nearly daily basis, is devastating people's lives."
Special:Diff/1024964885: "OK, the CPSO, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, whose job it is to license physicians in Ontario, Canada, has issued a dictatorial decree prohibiting discussion of anything that does not agree with their ruinous POV. ... Perhaps those who risk their careers by disagreeing with your authoritarian POV persuades you of nothing ... I am speaking up and occur a risk of being canceled. I hope for your sake you do not get what your are [sic] wishing for, a dictatorship wherein your neighbor can turn you in for 'counterrevolutionary ideas.'" This comment was removed by Hob Gadling for soapboxing. The IP has restored it and removed some parts but instead twice accused Hob Gadling of censorship.
Special:Diff/1025472252: "Moreover, sources like Google and YouTube censor content and demote Covid therapies that do not agree with their biased political goals, so you cannot take any sources as unbiased without investigating policy for those sources. ... Hiding behind biased sources promoting fiction does not establish your POV as either common or more importantly real."
Special:Diff/1025486875: "That statement [referring to the CPSO's "dictatorial decree"] is reminiscent of the reaction of the authors on this website: Totalitarianism with no descent [sic] acknowledged."
Special:Diff/1069878899: "You should follow the money for the critics of the GBD if you want to see special interests. What I do not see here is any discussion of epidemiology and quarantine ... Failing that, there is no scientific content in this post. ... this post is just axe-grinding."
Special:Diff/1069907948: complaint about the article's lack of "discussion of epidemiological models for disease"; no relevance to the GBD
Special:Diff/1069926124: "The argument that SARS-CoV-1 has nothing to tell us about SARS-CoV-2 merely because it predates a politically charged discussion steeped in ad hominem bias is farfetched. ... You are badgering me by quoting rules of evidence that are irrelevant [referring to Alexbrn's and Slatersteven's note that the IP is engaging in synthesis]."
Special:Diff/1070324389: complaint about Wikipedia's description of The Epoch Times as far-right; no relevance to the GBD

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: None.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Special:Diff/1069927988.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1070719792.

Discussion concerning 207.47.175.199

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

Statement by 207.47.175.199

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 207.47.175.199

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

Dynamic IP but very stable. Discussions are sometimes heated, but on topic with sources backing the claims. Not editing article, just talk page. A bit on the WP:FORUM side but not overly so, the same as others, and it all applies to the article. Fairly civil, even if a bit snippy sometimes (then, so am I). They aren't trolling, others are engaging them. Total of 7 comments in the last few days, which isn't excessive. Annoying? Probably, but I'm not sure this rises to a level that justifies WP:AE action at this time. Minority opinions are welcomed if the editor is reasonable. I wouldn't recommend any action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac

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 Mzajac

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mzajac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

8 February 2022 Quote: "After the main article was renamed Kyiv, a reactionary group of editors voted to use the spelling “Kiev,” “in historical articles.” " (to be fair, after protests they crossed out the word "reactionary".
11 February Quote: Ymblanter, I don’t think you have the moral authority to threaten me publicly... (as a response to a suggestion that AE might be in order).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive277#Mzajac Topic ban from everything related to Kiev/Kyiv for a year

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): previously topic-banned.

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mzajac was topic-banned from everything related to Kiev/Kyiv in December 2020 after the AE discussion, where I demonstrated that they lack an ability to edit the topic area productively and were not capable of accepting the community consensus that the city in the historical context must be referred to as Kiev and not as Kiev. They probably were the only topic-banned administrator during this period, though I am not 100% sure. In December 2021, the topic ban expired, and not later than in February 2022 they resumed the same behavior - pushing their POV that the city must be referred to as Kiev in all contexts, replying to all opposition until people stop responding, and ignoring all arguments that do not support their views. I recommend to read Talk:Kievan Rus'#Kyivan or Kievan Rus' and Talk:History of Kyiv#Consistent spelling of the title term in the text, these two discussions are not long and give a good impression of their style. In addition, in the second discussion it looks like that they do not think they have done anything wrong but they apparently believe I have some kind a personal vendetta against them and consider a suggestion I may ask for AE sanctions about them as "public threats". I know that nobody wants to deal with Eastern European topics, and certainly nobody wants to deal with an admin, but I see now the same pattern which in 2020 made this already toxic area completely unbearable, and I think some action is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is ok, this can be closed and then we can wait this one seriously escalates. I personally try to avoid these discussions anyway, I took all these pages off my watchlist a long time ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN and WP:ANI are absolutely hopeless. I will not even consider bringing the matter there. If repeated behavior of a user which was already sanctioned for this very behavior is not actionable here then it is not actionable at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: previously sanctioned

Discussion concerning Mzajac

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 Mzajac

Re: User:Paul Siebert, composing a reply to this enforcement request will take more of my time and attention than individual article edits in spare moments. I hope you can appreciated that this is serious and not something I can just rattle off. —Michael Z. 04:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

First, to save space, I just provide a link to this my post [50]. I don't think calling other users "reactionary" should be considered a serious violation. However, I propose to take a look at that from different perspective.

First, that statement was made not by an average user, but by an admin.
Second, this admin demonstrates poor familiarity with our policy: the articles about historical topics can (and usually should) use historical names, especially when they are more frequently found in a special literature.
Third, this admin seems to be active: he made several edits [51], [52], [53], but he haven't bothered to respond on this page. Does it means this user believes admins are "more equal" than other users?

In connection to that, I am wondering how can all of that be consistent with admin's status?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, if you have no time to respond, it seems polite to leave at least a short message where you explain when exactly you are going to post a full response.

In general, I don't find any serious problems with your behaviour as a user: according to my (internal) classification, your behaviour meets criteria of a relatively moderate POV-pusher, which is hardly sanctionable per DS (majority of us are, to some degree, POV-pushers). However, the problem is that you are an admin, and your behaviour is expected to meet higher standards. Being an admin, you are not supposed to demonstrate partisan mentality (divide users on "reactionary" and "others" based on their opinion on some quite innocent subject), demonstrate poor knowledge of our policy (historical names convention), and show respect to your peers (respond promptly at AE).

Again, I see not much problem with you as a user (in that sense, this request may be seen as frivolous), but I am not sure your behaviour is consistent with your admin's status. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mzajac

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

"Reactionary" was not a good choice of words, a bit of aspersion but it was struck as soon as somone complained. Some heat is expected in any debate, but I didn't see anything worse than this single word. Ymblanter, you are obviously on the other side of the table from Mzajac on several points, and I'm wondering if that is clouding your judgement. This is based on reading just the material you have linked. I'm not sure about his claim of you using personal attacks against him previously, then at ANI (I remember an ANI discussion, perhaps Mzajac can link it). As it stands, with the given evidence, there is zero chance I would recommend action at AE. I'm wondering why it is even here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure WP:AE is a good place for one admin to drag another admin to "calm the waters", however. Normally, WP:AN is the place to go, so a larger audience can be had. Frivolously filing at WP:AE, to me, is a problem in and of itself. An admin would expected to know this isn't actionable, just as an admin should know not to stir the pot with aggressive tone and actions. Neither action is sanctionable, both are disappointing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, although the discussion from Mzajac didn't use any overtly nasty words beyond "reactionary" - the tone of the discussion was quite battlegroundy and very definitely toeing the line. I certainly wouldn't find the discussion to be aimed at trying to find consensus, I found it very much of someone coming in to try to right some wrong and feeling like they needed to do battle. Your milage may vary, but I can certainly see with the past history that Ymlanter was better to come here to see if outside voices could calm the waters, rather than endure the undertones of battleground on the talk pages. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are getting close to the time where we need to walk over to ArbCom to have a serious discussion about Mzajac's continued access to the admin bit. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the two discussions Ymblanter linked. I don't love Mzajac's tone, but I don't see anything sanction-worthy, especially given that they struck the worst comment. If there's more evidence of misconduct, I would like to see it. I do disagree with Dennis Brown above: AE is a far superior venue to bring this sort of fraught political dispute; an ANI discussion would rapidly turn into a wall of text detering participation from anyone uninvolved. Guerillero, I recognize the oddity of an admin with a recent TBAN, but do you know of any other reason why ARBCOM needs to get involved here? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's coming out of this smelling of roses. I find the request quite trivial. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL

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 Venkat TL

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

10 February 2022: Falsification of source which does not mention a "bulli bai" case.
The above was soon followed by the creation of Neo-Nazism in India [54] by this editor which is itself disruptive since the user had been already told that there exists no Neo-Nazism in India at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 2#Category:Neo-Nazism in India, but this editor appears to be on a crusade to prove some imaginary establishment of Neo-Nazism in India. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India is itself full of WP:BLUDGEONING by this editor and ultimately this editor is a WP:1AMer in this whole scenario.
12 February: Puts an irrelevant image to make the connection of Nazism and India.
12 February: Restores his WP:SYNTH with a misleading edit summary.
12 February: In place of continuing the content dispute, he went ahead to seek protection by providing false reasoning as later also observed by admin Deepfriedokra.[55]
12 February: Tells an opposing editor that: "page is currently being vandalized by an IP from Gujarat. The state with most Neo Nazi activities in India. You might want to look at the pre-vandalized version before drawing your conclusions." This message reeks of WP:BATTLE and ignorance of WP:NOTVAND.
12 February: Removes maintenance tags without resolving the issue in the hand.
13 February: Adds {{notavote}} despite participation by legitimate editors.
13 February: "Why dont you guys stop pinging me and start emailing the historians and scholars who have written these scholarly references (linked in the article) about the rise of Neo-Nazism in India." The poor social skills and assumption of good faith required to communicate fellow editors are also visible.

I got to read about this all after the notification made by this editor on a familiar noticeboard. With so much disruption in an entire day, I think this editor is unfit to contribute to this contentious topic area.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [56]

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@RegentsPark: There would be content dispute if Venkat TL was not alone with his imagination that a Neo-Nazi movement exists in India but he is fighting tooth to nail to reject anything contrary and has been misrepresenting sources. I believe a narrow topic ban is warranted given the lack of accountability and continuation of battleground mentality as seen from Venkat TL's own response here. He has gone through a recent WP:ANEW report cited below and a recent ANI report from 11 February. It is already clear that this editor is not willing to improve but continue with WP:DE and this has been made clear by Venkat TL through his own response here as he doubles down with his false claims such as "request for page protection was to prevent this disruption" when no disruption by another editor happened and personally attacks me by saying "some random butthurt guy on a mobile" even after being notified of NPA. @Stifle: you should reconsider. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [57]

Discussion concerning Venkat TL

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 Venkat TL

TLDR: A list of minor stuff and content disputes have been grossly misrepresented and editorialized by User:Abhishek0831996 in his report to make them appear as though they are 'chronic, intractable problems'. The attempt is to paint a sinister picture. All this because, I believe User:Abhishek0831996 did not like the article I created.

Full response: User:Abhishek0831996 has published this list of diffs on a mobile, I think it is not easy to do this on a mobile, so credits to Abhishek0831996 for his dedication, time and efforts. I have never come across this user Abhishek0831996. So this report by him came as a surprise and looks very odd to me. Before bringing this to the admin page, Abhishek0831996 never discussed his concerns with me on my user talk page, where I could have explained and resolved every concerns he had about me and my intentions. Straightaway bringing this to the Admin Arbitration page for admin action, makes me suspect that, Abhishek0831996's intention here is not to resolve the situation or find a solution but the intention is to snipe me, using gross misrepresentation of the actual facts. Why? I have no idea, but my guess would be probably because he did not like the article I had created. Whatever the case may be, here is my side of the story.

This is not source falsification, both Reuters and CNN had covered the hijab row, so both supported the content that I had added in the diff. The content was copied from the Wikipedia Hijab Row article along with the source. While Reuters ref only covered the Hijab row. CNN covered both Hijab and the Bully bai case. In this diff [1] I only copied the Reuters reference and forgot to also include CNN reference. I realized this 2 hours later and promptly included the CNN ref. CNN article has a section titled "Muslim women further targeted" that covered the Bulli bai online fake auction case. This is not source falsification, as content was reliably sourced. A case of missing ref, may be. This is a trumped up charge suggesting nefarious intentions, when there is none.
- Abhishek0831996 is presenting his claim that there is no neo-nazism in India as a fact, but it is widely documented by Scholars and journalists, Refs: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] (more refs in Article Neo-Nazism in India and AfD page)
- I am not on any crusade whatsoever.
- Remaining links added by Abhishek0831996 are regarding complicated content disputes of controversial political topics, where OP is grossly misrepresenting the situation.
- Everything in the AfD article is reliably sourced. I have kept my replies limited to :
reaching towards a consensus

understanding what improvements may be needed in the article so that the article survives after the AfD

and disengaging in case I get an idea that the AfD contributor is not going to change his opinion.
The swastika usage image was copied from Swastika#Hinduism and included in the article Neo-Nazism in India next to the section named "Neo-Nazism in India#Nazi ideology and imagery" which discussed both Nazi Swastika and Swastika#Hinduism. In the article I had provided both wiki links for the benefit of the reader. So the pic as a pictorial representation of the text, is relevant, and the OP is again misrepresenting my intentions.
This IP user from Gujarat had removed the content saying "source does not mention 'roots". I took his objection into account, and updated the content. While restoring the content, instead of blanket revert I copy edited and dropped the word "root". I added copy edit in the edit summary. This is not misleading and again the OP is misrepresenting and suggesting nefarious intentions.
The article was on AfD and this Guajarat IP was removing reliably sourced content breaking the flow of the article and making the article look awkward, badly written with out of place content. My request for page protection was to prevent this disruption of the article and allow the AfD contributors to judge the article on what it was and not the version butchered by the Gujarat IP. I had expanded my page protection request in a few mins of posting. Abhishek0831996 has (intentionally?) skipped this second diff where I had updated my request with more information. My page protection request after my second edit had said "Temporary protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing, Edit warring and removal of sourced content by IP while the article is being discussed at AfD.". The admin noted this in note at AfD. There was no false reasoning, but OP is misrepresenting the situation and suggesting nefarious intentions.
The Gujarat IP among other things had removed the prose section that had discussed the use of Swastikas. Reading User:Timtrent's reply it appeared to me as though, he did not check the page history and was unaware of the ongoing butchering of the article by the Gujarat IP. Since User:Timtrent had made inaccurate observations regarding the state of the article and the swastika image, so my note was to let him know that he should also review the un-butchered version from the page history. There is no nefarious intention in my message. Op is misrepresenting what happened.
Based on the tags and the objection by the Gujarat IP, I agreed to drop and not restore some of the removed content, the rest of the article did not merit the tag and the article was anyway on AfD for discussion. This sort of tagging of an article on AfD was unnecessary.
The note is self explanatory.
RKT7789 and पदाति were claiming that since there is no anti-semitism in India hence there is no Neo-Nazism in India. This is fallacious belief, not in line with what the reliable sources and scholars/historians have published. I had explained using Neo-Nazism definition, that it includes Islamophobia also. The two did not agree to the scholarly definition, and sensing this, I disengaged with the note that I had presented what scholars had said. As I understood that further discussion is not going to sway them I wrote "Do not ping me again." There is no way I can explain all this this on the AfD page, moreover it would be off topic, since we were discussing the notability and not the definition of Neo-nazism. Even though I had clearly asked not to ping me, RKT7789 pinged me again. The linked diff is my reply to RKT7789, where I said that instead of pinging me (when there is nothing for me to add), they should take up their cause with the scholars, who have written stuff that is contrary to what RKT7789 believed. OP Abhishek0831996 seems to have taken an offence that I had disengaged from the AfD. If I continue the discussion, Abhishek0831996 claims it is WP:BLUDGEON, if I disengage from the discussion, Abhishek0831996 claims poor social skills. Basically Abhishek0831996 is accusing me of discussing too much and also NOT discussing, in the same AfD thread. Damned if I do, damned if I dont.

I conclude saying I have acted in good faith with best intentions and contributed constructively. I will be happy to elaborate more if any further clarification is needed from me. Please ping me when you ask the question. Venkat TL (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: When I had written [8] I meant it in a humorous way, obviously I did not expect anyone would start sending emails to historians after a debate with a random guy on Wikipedia. My point, I was trying to get across was that I could not get them to agree to the definition given by the historians, so convincing them was above my pay grade and they should find someone else (better than me) to debate this and leave me alone. I was not expecting that some random butthurt guy on a mobile will take the joke seriously, and then use it as a diff to file an arbitration case.
I have pruned the statement, since I have to clarify the intentions as well as discuss the alleged content dispute, further pruning is not feasible. I cannot omit relevant facts to reach the 500 word limit. So I request the admins to bear with me.
I believe there should be some cost and consequences for filing such false arbitration case and wasting everyone's time. Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp That EW case was closed as no action. Interestingly, CapnJackSp was also edit warring there, that too to restore a blatant Copyright violation, that CapnJackSp had introduced into the article. [67] [68] 4 reverts by me in that case were WP:NOT3RR for removing the Copyright violation, that CapnJackSp was adding into the article. I did not report CapnJackSp because I am not into the habit of filling false or immature cases. Venkat TL (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OP, Cambridge Dictionary defines butthurt as offended and upset.

Now read my full sentence once again.

"I was not expecting that some random offended and upset guy on a mobile will take the joke seriously, and then use it as a diff to file an arbitration case." Venkat TL (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The desperation in this guy's comment speaks volumes. Such pleadings are only seen in unblock requests, but here being done to achieve the opposite. User:Abhishek0831996 through his second comment has confirmed [69] my suspicion, that this Arbitration case is an exercise in making a mountain of a molehill to snipe me due to the content dispute. Venkat TL (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade informal warning for what exactly? cracking a joke? Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CapnJackSp

@RegentsPark and Stifle: But see how Venkat TL has failed to justify the misrepresentation of source as evidenced on diff no.1.[70] He claims that the CNN source supported his statement when it didn't. See the discussion at Talk:Bulli Bai case#February 2022.

I would also mention that just 4 days ago Venkat TL was reported on edit warring noticeboard, where he was asked to stop with personal attacks[71] and the report evidenced that he was undoubtedly edit warring. The diffs cited on this report came after this yet another recent episode of disruption. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by username

Result concerning Venkat TL

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

As far as I can see, this is largely a content issue (the article created by Venkat TL) that has some components of aggressiveness (on the deletion page) but nothing that isn't outside the norms of passionate editing. Perhaps a gentle reminder (of the sort below) to Venkat TL, but this isn't at the level of AE action. I suggest just closing this. @Venkat TL: you need to dial the passion down a bit on the deletion page (asking people to email historians and scholars, seriously!). You should consider pruning your statement above (it is way over the 500 word limit). --RegentsPark (comment) 20:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996: I still don't see this as an AE issue. Some amount of sniping is always a possibility and should come to AE only if there is sufficient disruption or egregious POV pushing going on. From what I can see, Venkat TL is aggressively defending their article but there is no evidence that they will behave disruptively if the AfD closes as delete or merge. I'd just drop this if I were you. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conduct does not appear to me to rise to a level requiring action. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above that the behavior is not ideal but also not to a sanctionable level at this point. Unless another uninvolved admin disagrees within the next day or so, I would close this with no action or perhaps an informal warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323

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

Request concerning Iskandar323

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

21:46, 17 February 2022‎ Revert restore of this [72]
05:33, 17 February 2022‎ partial restore of this [73] removal of "modern Israel" and "Parts of Jordan" in both versions.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic ban for 12 month Topic ban which was lifted on appeal only a few days ago [74] he was warned that This means the threshold for harsher, and longer duration sanctions is much lower, and if basic policy on editing in these areas is not followed, will likely come without any warning. Please be careful.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: It doesn't matter if it was different "premise" as you claim, you twice removed text that you didn't like . Partial revert is still a revert --Shrike (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]; @Dennis Brown There are not connected but per WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page —' whether involving the same or different material' " If you say that user is allowed to revert different material I will ask to withdraw this request and ask ARCA clarification Shrike (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]

Discussion concerning Iskandar323

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

Statement by Iskandar323

I count one revert and one mountain out of a molehill. Shrike has presented a series of edits, none of which remain in place or are being edit warred over, and the most recent of which is under active discussion (started by me) on the talk page as part of a healthy WP:BRD cycle. The second edit Shrike has presented is not clearly a revert. It was a different edit, making a different change and with a different premise, as explained in the edit comments. It has not been labelled as "Tag:Undo" and the edits before it has not been labelled as "Tag:Reverted", so clearly it was not enough of a revert to rile any bots, but, in any case, in the face of opposition from other editors, the matter was promptly dropped and everyone moved on.

... except for Shrike, who has notably not been involved in any of this editing, has not participated in or engaged with the discussion, did not raise any issues with me on my talk page, and appears to be only here for the drive-by attempted elimination of another editor (over edits that for everyone actually involved are dust on the wind). Four other editors were editing the page at the same time, and none of them see the contrived picture that Shrike now presents or have raised any issues on my talk page. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that AE was a recourse of last resort for raising serious complaints about disruptive editing, not raking over non-existent edit conflicts that have already being resolved by the parties involved.

At this point I would like to note that Shrike has been fairly relentlessly in pursuing me from a disciplinary standpoint the moment I set foot in the IP area, giving me my ARBPIA warning, raising an AE against me, being the only editor to turn up to object to my TBAN appeal (after just 15 minutes with a long list of grievances combed from my talk archive) and now here, having combed my recent edits. Aside from Icewhiz socks, Shrike is the only editor who has taken up major issue with my editing, despite our interaction outside of these enforcement actions being almost non-existent. I would like in turn to request an interaction ban between myself and Shrike so that this can end. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Iskandar323

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

Shrike, I'm struggling to see how these two edits could possibly be related to each other for the purpose of 1RR. They are in different sections of the article. That doesn't mean they are good or bad edits, but for the purpose of 1RR violation, we normally expect the two edits to be (more or less) the same exact content. Can explain how they are connected? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemantha

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 Hemantha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hemantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

15:16, 15 February 2022 In his first edit to the page, deletes content claiming it to be WP:OR
15:35, 15 February 2022, 16:26, 15 February 2022; More of the same
17:05, 15 February 2022 More complaints about "unsourced" claims, and when an editor reworded it, tags them with silly tags (04:18, 16 February 2022)
06:56, 17 February 2022 Yet more claims of WP:OR the next day

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user created his account in 2013 but started any serioous editing in only November 2021. He came to the page on 2022 Karnataka hijab row on 15 February, roughly a week after it was created, and started contesting bits of existing content, claiming it to be WP:OR. In all cases, the sources do support the content in some form, even though they might be open to interpretation. Wholesale deletion would be uncalled for.

For this little bit of contribution to the main page, he made some 32 posts on the talk page between 15 February and 17 February (and apparently 8 more posts today). As an example of how this discussion goes, we can look at the discussion concerning diff 4 above, where it is apparent that content was supported by the cited source from the beginning, but the editor is not satisfied despite being shown several quotes from the source for support. Rise in student numbers is a commonplace phenomenon worldwide, and is in no way central to this dispute. No good faith editor should be arguing such details. (By the way, a later paragraph in the #Background section gives statistics for the rise in numbers, along with a comprehensive source.)

He has argued about the spelling of a Kannada word, despite the fact that spellings stated were as in the cited sources.

After having argued till yesteray that negotiations happened in December, today he started supporting the idea that ban was decided in January. If the ban happened only in January, what was being negotiated in December? It wouldn't make sense.

He has even edit-warred over where a reflist-talk box should go on the talk page! And there was discussion on it on my user talk as well.

Ever since he came on the scene, all new writing of content has stopped, despite new developments taking place practically everyday. We are having to spend all our time arguing with him.

His overall profile shows a similar trend, with low contributions (37%) to the main space. His top edited page in the mainspace shows only deletions, no new content. His other editing is similar as well.

Despite being clever and quite capable, this editor is showing only tendencies of WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Hemantha

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 Hemantha

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hemantha

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ==Grandmaster==
+{{hat|[[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] is indefinitely topic banned from AA2 <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 15:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)}}
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
@@ Line 172: / Line 173: @@
 * Is there a "Cliff Notes to the A-A conflict" by someone not involved for us admins that don't edit in the topic area? I'm inclined to tban Granmaster but I'm very aware that I know little of the whole conflict and would prefer at least having some clue before going full-on tban... [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 19:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 ** Having just spent a depressing amount of time reading pages that display bad behavior from editors, I can get behind a tban. When a topic area is contentious, the way to deal with it is to step up your editing and behave better, not sink down into the mud further. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 20:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 ==Ypatch==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards