Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:37, 6 March 2018

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	332	333	334

Al-Andalusi

In addition to the standard WP:ARBPIA restrictions, Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article for six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 4 March 2018 (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 Al-Andalusi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Al-Andalusi (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/Palestine-Israel articles

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

Revision as of 07:43, 25 February 2018 revert 1 in Middle East Monitor. Much of the revert is of this Revision as of 12:56, 30 January 2018 edit by an extended confirm user.
Latest revision as of 08:07, 25 February 2018 revert 2 in Middle East Monitor of content added by an extended confirmed user [1].
Revision as of 16:14, 23 February 2018 Addition of category "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" to Middle East Monitor, indicating ARBPIA awareness.
Revision as of 07:51, 25 February 2018 revert1 of Middle East Eye - removal of some 45% of the article's contents. Much of this content by reverted back into the article in Revision as of 11:59, 23 January 2018 by an extended confirmed user (and then some).
Latest revision as of 08:06, 25 February 2018 revert2 of Middle East Eye, of content added in Revision as of 08:03, 25 February 2018.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2017 6 Month Topic Ban for personal attacks and 1RR.
Revision as of 09:57, 9 June 2017 1 week block for not following topic ban

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2017 6 month topic ban by GoldenRing following AE. Revision as of 09:57, 9 June 2017 1 week block by Sandstein for violating topic ban.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Revision as of 03:24, 9 June 2017 and appeal (copy-pasted over to AE) Revision as of 14:46, 9 June 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As may be seen here Al-Andalusi talk page I requested Al-Andalusi self revert [2]. This was replied to with a Nope, I did not. [3]. user:EdJohnston also [4] said this appeared to be a 1RR violation, and urged Al-Andalusi to self-revert. Following a discussion on why this was or was not a revert Al-Andalusi concluded by [5] Like I said, any change to an article can be framed as a "revert" if one wants to push a certain narrative. Here, you are referencing an edit made a month ago, which tells me how ridiculous this revert claim is. I can go back to some of your edits and demonstrate the same, and claim you've been reverting and violating 1RR on articles. As an editor, it's not expected of me to review an article's history and check each and every edit made to an article, before I can make a change to it, and hope that I'm not "reverting" and violating 1RR.. Some 10 hours later - we're here.

While it may be possible to cast a wider net here, the unwillingness to self-revert on a 1RR warning appears to be straightforward, and Al-Andalusi's final talk-page comment is troubling.

Willingness to self-revert - I filed this report after my reading of a long user talk page discussion ended with a stmt indicating clear unwillingness, in my eyes, to self revert or account for edits being reverts - and a day after the inital talk page exchange.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ARBPIA relevance: revert2 in Middle East Monitor and Middle East Eye are clearly both ARBPIA releated as it is directly involves Hamas. Revert1 to Middle East Monitor also involves Hamas, and the organization itself covers Israel-Palestine as its main focus arguably making any edit to it ARBPIA related. It could perhaps be argued that revert1 in Middle East Eye is not ARBPIA (there are merits either way), however as revert2 is clearly ARBPIA and the limitation is per page per ARBCOM decision - Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. and not on a per edit basis - this would appear to be a violation regardless due to ARBPIAness of revert2.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the attack on Capitals00 below - I did not canvass or contact him. He had however filed the previous AE report against Al-Andalusi on Acid throwing (a non-ARBPIA article in general, but ARBPIA related in the Gaza/West Bank section covering usage of this by Islamists against so called collaboraters) which led to the previous topic ban. I would assume he has AE watched.Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: - most of the content in the 3 successive edits by Al-Andalusi between 05:04 and 07:43 - combined diff are reverts of 12:56, 30 January 2018 by User:Zakawer who is in good standing. The grandson bit has been there for a while - however most of the other content removed is quite recent (not that technically this should be an issue - WP:3RR (modified by WP:1RR from 3 to 1, but retaining the definition of revert) does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.). In any event - this is for the most part quite recent material - and as this is not an often edited article - Zakawer was the last major edit prior to Al-Andalusi editing the page - making this very close in terms of diffs.Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: @NeilN: - I had not intended to bring this up vis-a-vis previous requests, however I shall since it has been brought up here. @Shrike: asked them to self-revert [6], as did I [7] this revert violated the original author clause in regards to edits 30 minutes previously - which was not done. I also asked TP request self-revert on original authorship and revert which was not done - they cited BLPCRIME - however this is a PUBLICFIGURE, and this is not relevant (besides other problems here). Excluding the 1RR vios in this report - there were 4 previous requests (1 Shrike, 3 myself), of which 2 were not done (both involved the "original author provision", however they were clear violations of it). I did not report these at the time due to a combination of WP:AGF (e.g. on the first example he wasn't editing for 3 days - so I AGFed he may have been away) and since I do not report everything. What made me report this one - was the talk page reply to the request which treated "reverts" as "narrative", and labelled the request as "ridiculous".Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: The proposed remedy would not resolve the "original author" clause addition to ARBPIA (it would be good on straight 1rr) - a problem above as well as in requests by Al-Andalusi, e.g. this mistaken request (as I was not the original author) for a self revert on my TP Revision as of 04:24, 28 February 2018 - half of which was a category written in Farsi (which Al-Andalusi reverted back in, and requested a self revert on).Icewhiz (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Latest revision as of 07:36, 26 February 2018

Discussion concerning Al-Andalusi

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 Al-Andalusi

There is an ongoing discussion regarding this on my talk page involving Icewhiz and 2 admins (EdJohnston and Dennis Brown) here. I have pinged EdJohnston and have not heard back either from him or Dennis Brown, so I assumed this is a non-issue. Had EdJohnston or Dennis Brown replied back and confirmed the alleged violation, I would have gladly self-reverted, as I did in the past.

Meanwhile, I continue to disagree with Icewhiz's description of events where he digs up edits that are at least one-month old (Jan 30, Jan 23) and I'm not even aware of, and then conveniently re-interprets some of my changes as being "reverts" of them. What he refers to as "revert 1" would not be called "reverts" on a normal day. Also, notice the use of dramatic sentences like "removal of some 45% of the article's contents". If the content is bad, then it should be removed, doesn't matter how large it is. I think everyone will agree with me on this. In this edit, user Zero0000 (talk · contribs) removed the same exact content from Middle East Monitor on Feb 11 on the same grounds as my removal of it from Middle East Eye. Someone had copy pasted the content to the 2 articles. Icewhiz, who clearly spent considerable time studying the editing history of both articles to construct his narrative, would not have missed this change.

One important point: The history of editing on both articles shows that none of the editors treated the article as falling under 1RR. Icewhiz is misleading when he counts edits related to the Muslim Brotherhood as being ARBPIA-related. The Muslim Brotherhood does not even have a 1RR tag. Icewhiz does not explain why he treats Middle East Eye as a 1RR article in his report, and further, why he lists my edits at Middle East Eye before his arrival to the article as being ARBPIA related (point #4 on his list). I fail to see the connection. In the same list, for the other article, he counts my edit here as ARBPIA-related, even though the mention of Hamas is tangential and clearly not the intent of my edit.

I ask that the admins not look at this case literally, as this is the angle that Icewhiz wants to focus on. Instead, ask if it is appropriate for a news organizations to be labelled as the "Muslim Brotherhood" based on sources critical of the news organization? Icewhiz restored the problematic Category:Muslim Brotherhood, knowing fully the problems that comes with it (he recently removed Category:Propaganda in Israel from Public diplomacy of Israel arguing that it is "POVish..."). Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Originally posted in Capitals00's section; moved by User:Black Kite. I don't know you, and I don't know who you think you are to demand a topic ban or a block. Admins: it should be noted that the above user was never involved in the Arab-Israeli space, so for him to show up here uninvited is a sign of either Wikipedia:Sock puppetry or WP:Canvassing. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added - Feb 28:

Per Wikipedia:Reverting (emphasis in the original):

Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

I was not involved in the article around the time the first edit was made by Zakawer, a month ago.
I was not aware that I was actually undoing someone else's edits as part of my changes. As far I was concerned at the time of my editing, I was doing routing editing. So far, NO evidence has been presented that shows that I was aware of this fact at the time (directly or indirectly).
The fact that the admins are split on this indicates that (a) there is no clear definition of reverting, and what properly distinguishes reversions from edits in general, and (2) there is no clear definition of "recent" here. A month old, 6-months old? a year old? I think any admin worth a damn knows what a revert is, and "revert 1" is not one of them.
That said, this is gaming the system of the worst degree. In fact, the originator of the report spells it out here for you guys: the definition of revert does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions. I have no doubt in my mind, and this is already made clear from the report, that Icewhiz would not have found it an issue to cite a year old edit (if it was available) to support his claims that I partially reverted it.
I've had a look around at a few pages, and if that's the rule, then almost every editor is violating the rule many times. I don't really understand the thinking behind this at all. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:, you claim that my intent was clear. What was my intent? Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Sir, your ignorance is showing. You use the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas interchangeably and I think it's time to clarify a few things. (1) Hamas no longer claims that it is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and made that official in their new charter declared in May 2017. (2) the main Muslim Brotherhood is not even a 1RR article to begin with. Of the troubling edit that you are using against me, 95% of it revolved around the Brotherhood, not Hamas. The mention of "Hamas" in the "See also" section is quite tangential and I think you will agree with it. I kindly ask that you re-consider your position in light of the above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: That's not a response. Sorry. Your claim that my intent was to "remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas" is demonstrably false. Look at the Middle East Monitor#Criticism section, and you'll find that I left sourced "pro-Hamas" accusations there. Not to mention, Muslim Brotherhood != Hamas. The diffs speak for themselves indeed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian:. I don't have a problem with self-reverting in this case. This is the very first thing I stated in my statement. I was just waiting for a clear confirmation that my first edit indeed counts as a revert. That said, it is clear that NeilN and GR have made up their minds from day 1, and further discussion would be futile. Their one-sidedness is glaringly apparent. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

I had resumed watching editing of Al-Andalusi since he came off from a topic ban in December. I could see continued POV editing[8][9][10] that led the topic ban before, but this time I had decided not to report Al-Andalusi myself. Unfortunately, it didn't helped Al-Andalusi.

I must say that Icewhiz has made best efforts to mentor Al-Andalusi about his violations,[11][12] however Al-Andalusi is not willing to improve. Continued POV editing[13][14] is concerning. Either a topic ban or a block is warranted. Capitals00 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is deceptive of Al-Andalusi to claim that he doesn't know me because he can't really forget these two ARE complaints: [15][16] that I had filed, yet he claims that this is a "sign of either Wikipedia:Sock puppetry or WP:Canvassing", this alone shows that Al-Andalusi treats Wikipedia to be his WP:BATTLEGROUND. Capitals00 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I have his talk page on watchlist as well, I did interacted him before filing a complaint here,[17] obviously when I said you have "made best efforts to mentor" to mentor him, I was referring to your discussions made on his talk page that I read since last December. Capitals00 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of above WP:IDHT from Al-Andalusi[18] I believe that indef topic ban is the solution. He already had a 6 month topic ban back in June 2017, which he had violated and was blocked for a week. Even after all that there has been a lack of improvement. Capitals00 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I interjected into the discussion only to explain how contacting an admin wasn't "canvassing", and never reviewed the merits of the claim in depth. A cursory glance did show the claims were not so cut and dry; They need to be looked at closer than just the diffs provided. This is the busy time of year for me, so I didn't have time to look further, so I will just stay on this side of the admin line, this time. EdJohnston probably has more information on the merits, and I would welcome his input down below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I don't know if this is 1RR or not, but my general view is that in this area, the rules are so convoluted that nobody knows how they work (including the people who write them). My own practice is to self-revert when asked, whether or not I think the request is right.

This practice saves time and tedious wikilawyering in which one may or may not prevail. You can always make the edit a day later. Why take the risk?

Let's put aside the wording and look at the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy. Let's forget the edit made a month earlier. Only look at edits diff1 (by Al-Andalusi), diff2 (by Icewhiz) and diff3 (again by Al-Andalusi). All of them happened within 24 hours.

Diff1 removed the association of MEMO with the Muslim Brotherhood, diff2 restored it (using a bit different wording), and diff3 removed it again. The "spirit" of the remedy is to ensure that between diff3 and diff1 (made by the same person), there should be a bit of time, and ideally some discussion on the talkpage (which is happening on the MEMO talk page).

I would therefore, ask Al-Andalusi to self-revert voluntarily (they can make the edit a day later if they still think it's justified) and this request be closed as no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "revert 1" cited by NeilN a revert of? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: May I suggest another approach? If you look at Al-Andalusi's talkpage, you'll see a couple more instances where Icewhiz asked them to self-revert due to 1RR and they (eventually) did. That suggests that they genuinely thought that this case was not a case of 1RR. The main point is that the first "revert" was of an edit more than a month ago (actually it has been fought over for years).

In political areas, it is not unusual for things to be litigated over and over by newer people. One can't immediately consider every deletion a "revert" (by the way, by the same logic, any addition could also be considered a "revert" of some removal in the past).

To my mind, the main issue is that Al-Andalusi doesn't understand the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy in this area: one shouldn't make the same edit (perhaps paraphrased) twice in 24 hours. This approach doesn't require refererence to a month-old diff unrelated to the main dispute. I suggest that Al-Andalusi be informed of the "spirit" of the remedy, and only warned for now. To Al-Andalusi, I suggest that they follow the practice I mention above: they self-revert when asked, regardless of whether they think it's right or wrong. This approach would require some WP:AGF which the admins may or may not be willing to extend to Al-Andalusi (considering their past record). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: The case you refer to is almost a year old. If you say that "Al-Andalusi doesn't understand 1RR, period", how do you explain the self-revert here (after this discussion) or here (after this discussion)?

Instead, consider my hypothesis: they don't (fully) understand the "tweaked 1RR" remedy in this area. According to the tweaked 1RR remedy, a person who makes an edit cannot make the same (or similar) edit within 24 hours. In the previous two cases, Al-Andalusi self-reverted after this remedy was pointed out to them. If the same remedy had been pointed to by Icewhiz here, I'd suggest that there would have been less resistance. Instead, a diff from a month ago (which Al-Andalusi claims that they weren't even aware of) was pointed out as the original content which was reverted. In this area, I'm sure you know, people are suspicious of bad faith and wikilawyering.

This is why I say above: let's not refer to a diff from a month ago at all. Let's just work with the "tweaked 1RR rule" which already exists, which only looks at diffs within a 24-hour period. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more general comment: during the last ARCA request, I raised this point (of an edit potentially being the revert of an edit indefinitely long in the past) multiple times. My warnings were pooh-poohed by the Arbs who said the scenarios that I was painting were all implausible and the admins at AE will apply common sense anyway, etc. Now, amirite or amirite? I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) in that section that we block a random ArbCom member when my warnings come true. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Yes, that's what used to be a safe practice to deal with the tweaked 1RR in this area. Unfortunately, with the recent ARCA request, that no longer suffices, because you have to wait 24 hours after the the other person's revert to be completely safe, and what counts as a revert isn't clear. Yeah, it's stupid, but I warned against it repeatedly and ArbCom passed it anyway.

However, your suggestion would work in 95% of the cases, and Al-Andalusi could be asked (or instructed, whatever) that if somebody asks them to self-revert, they do it regardless of whether they think it's right or wrong. This has been my practice for many years, and I have had zero problems. I will also talk to Al-Andalusi on their talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Al-Andalusi

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

This does not appear actionable to me. To begin with, no specific remedy that is to be enforced is cited, but only a whole case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which comprises several remedies. Assuming that the 1RR restriction is to be enforced, the cited diffs don't establish, in my view, clear-cut 1RR violations, but rather situations that can come about in the course of ordinary editing (putting aside the merits of these edits by either side). Because 1RR is a very problematic restriction that is easily violated in the course of even constructive back-and-forth editing, I'm very reluctant to act on it except in the clearest of cases, i.e. repeated direct reverts. Sandstein 10:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert 1, Revert 2. I'd say that was a 1RR violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian, this addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Andalusi You are citing an essay. Policy says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Admins look at the intent of the edits and your intent here was clear. There is also no admin "split" here. Four admins (including EdJohnston) agree you violated WP:1RR. A three to six month topic ban seems appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Andalusi To remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas. I'm not saying the removals were not justified (or were justified). I'm saying the intent of your edits is clear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This response from an editor coming off a six month topic ban in December is not encouraging at all. The diffs speak for themselves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: Looking at this, I would say that Al-Andalusi doesn't understand WP:1RR, period. And looking at the subsequent block, it was again involving Hamas. Is there anything Al-Andalusi brings to the table that would justify always having an extra warning step before reporting? And bear in mind it's pretty easy to duck these self-revert requests by laying low until someone else uses their WP:1RR opportunity and reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: 1) If Al-Andalusi understood WP:1RR there wouldn't be editors constantly reminding them to follow it. 2) We're not applying WP:1RR to only content changed within the last 24 hours. That's a non-starter. 3) A month is hardly "indefinitely long" - please don't resort to hyperbole. Bottom line: If you remove some content and another editor adds similar content then don't remove it within 24 hours of your first removal to be safe. Sandstein, do you have any further comments here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Andalusi: I'm trying to come up with a solution that would eliminate the need for other editors to constantly ask you to self revert. "Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article" would probably work. What do you think? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If no admin objects I will be implementing a restriction as follows: "In addition to the standard WP:ARBPIA restrictions, Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article for six months." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have scads of time to look into this. I don't think we should be insisting that editors bringing complaints here must fill out the form exactly correctly in every respect or we will simply dismiss the complaint; this is not a judicial proceeding and it seems clear enough to me what the complaint is getting at. I agree with NeilN that the diffs he links seem a clear 1RR violation (not to mention that this also appears to be a revert of a recent edit in the same 24-hour window). And Al-Andalusi's response here is not encouraging. My gut feeling is that spending three to six months away from ARBPIA would be a good thing. GoldenRing (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: ~~actually I think your first diff is a revert of this - the original page creation back in 2015. While this perhaps makes that revert a bit more muddy,~~ I still think it's clearly a revert and part of an effort to remove Islamist associations. And even without it, I still count two reverts in 24 hours. GoldenRing (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Can you please recheck? I don't see where you're getting that from. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Er, yeah, don't mind me. GoldenRing (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edits cited by NeilN were indeed reverts. I think a few months away from the topic might be a good idea as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MapSGV

MapSGV is indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action (not an AE action). Sandstein 22:36, 1 March 2018 (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 MapSGV

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Elektricity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MapSGV (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#Standard discretionary sanctions

The user MAPS should be Topic banned from India-Pakistan articles indefinitely as they have shown that they cannot engage in debate without antagonizing others and attacking others. If disruption continues on other projects , perhaps a site wide ban.

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

04:56, 1 March 2018 This is one of the long list of perosnal attacks from the user. He has made no contributions to the project since his return some months ago (The contributions log shows only some reverts and the rest is very WP:POINTY content on talk pages etc.)
04:52, 1 March 2018 Along the same lines, accusations, aspersions.
08:02, 27 February 2018 More personal attacks. "Keep your agenda driven disruption out"
09:01, 20 February 2018 Another personal attack.
13:35, 20 February 2018 A somewhat lengthy perosnal attack. Includes, "You are fooling yourself if you really believe such nonsense", " It's a shame that you waste so much time on Wikipedia yet you don't agree with it core principles for the sake of your POV" etc.
13:43, 20 February 2018 More personal attacks.
14:25, 20 February 2018 User also dispalys classic WP:TRUTH attitude.
15:09, 20 February 2018 Another personal attack.
09:33, 21 February 2018 More of WP:POINTY comments, which may be considered benign on thie rown, but as a pattern they are clearly disruptive.
09:57, 21 February 2018 More personal attacks, like "Quit trolling already. It won't help you". "You need to worry about your disruption which is occurring throughout Wikipedia despite your very bad past that is further going to affect your future in Wikipedia. It is funniest when a disruptive POV pusher is trying to lecture."
13:13, 21 February 2018 Another personal attack, calling a troll and "I am editing since 2014, but I never saw this much nonsense ever before on Wikipedia" (He has only 100 or so edits in that period and none of them are mainspace green edits, just reverts or comments like these)
16:04, 26 February 2018 Again, another rude and antagonistic summary.
07:26, 27 February 2018 Edit warring (Diffs continue below)
04:30, 28 February 2018 Again WP:TRUTH
00:13, 1 March 2018 Deleting the RFC template started by another user and accusing them of being a sock.
04:53, 1 March 2018 Twice, added the same accusation as well.
04:58, 1 March 2018 And then again made the same edit to the RFC.
05:23, 1 March 2018 Another personal attack.

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [19] 20 February 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has made no contributions to the project and thier presence is just antagonizing others. PErhaps if an experienced editor with thousands of edits messes up and makes a personal attack or pointed remark once in a while, he can be warned about it. But this user has around a hundred or so reverts/comments and out of those this large number is antagonistic. He should be removed from area of conflict. The India-Pak articles are very contentious even to begin with, and antagonizing remarks and personal attacks like this just destroy any chance of collaboration that there may be, causing irreparable harm to wikipedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828219182&oldid=828208089&diffmode=source

Discussion concerning MapSGV

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 MapSGV

I would like to commend the analysis made by Lorstaking below, that I have been constantly harassed by some editors who are doing nothing but personalizing small and rather easy content disputes.

Every of my comment was a reply to actual personal attack that often included false allegations that I am an SPA, sock,[20][21][22] and no evidence was ever provided for these claims.

Civil POV pushing is a huge problem where a person looks to justify his disruption by falsely labelling every kind of opposition to his disruption as "personal attack" while exhibiting clear WP:IDHT, engaging in edit warring, misrepresenting sources, and such disruption is too prevalent here. Finally what degrades the quality of this website is these editors who are socking for a long time or they have been blocked/topic banned still they are insulting other editors (such as me) by calling them a sock/SPA and engaging in disruptive POV pushing, making personal attacks. But when you dispute any of their argument you are misrepresented as someone who is making personal attacks. That is nothing but WP:GAMING. — MapSGV (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBlaze

This request should not be entertained as the filer is a blatant sock of a disruptive topic banned editor, [23] and is on the verge of getting site banned himself. —MBL ^talk 06:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lorstaking

MapSGV's actions are perfect especially when we recognize the fact that he is a productive editor who is unfortunately dealing with a disruptive wikihounding sock of a topic ban evading user.[24] Elektricity is just trying to take wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and by filing this spurious report, where he deliberately failed to notify MapSGV, he is digging his own grave. Lorstaking (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I think you are only reading what MapSGV has said, but you are not reading what he was replying to. Users have engaged in great amount of incivility against him as well as range of false allegations in order to evade their WP:CIR issues. I can clarify the diffs right here:

[25] was a reply to [26] where an editor falsely labelled reliable sources as WP:FAKE not just once but two times.[27][28] Not to mention that WP:FAKE refers to fake/non-existing references, not reliable sources that meets WP:VERIFY.
[29] was a reply to [30] where other editor personalized dispute by telling "80 edits over a 4 year period starts making such POV edits across longstanding war articles out of no where, we have far more to worry about".
[31] was a reply to [32] where other editor called him to "drop your POV stick, because an SPA whose first edits involve adding contentious OR and POV across several articles doesn't have a very bright future on Wikipedia.'' Clearly a personal attack because MapSGV is not an SPA but someone who had edited subjects such as Libya, Egypt, Hinduism, cuisines, India, China, and more before the other editor made such personal attack in place of discussing the article.
[33] was a reply to [34] where other editor made false accusations of personal attacks and ignored the discussion about content.
[35] was a reply to [36], where other editor called him, "You are not only a POV warrior, but an [[WP:SPA]] whose only purpose is to cause disruption. And you are definitely [[WP:SOCK|not a new user]]" (calling him MapSGV a sockpuppet without evidence).
[37] this was a reply to [38], where the editor made false allegations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, despite sources supporting the content without any question.

Above diffs involve interaction with only 2 users, who have a bad block log and history of sanctions for editing in this very same area and even in above diffs you can see clear WP:IDHT. And this all started only after MapSGV argued that results must show that India won the war because that is what zillions of reliable sources say, but these two editors went to make personal attacks on him in place of providing sources that contradict the sourced content. I think they deserves to be sanctioned for their incompetence if anything. FWIW, 6 people against 3 have agreed with what MapSGV wants on talk page.

I wouldn't go on describing rest of the diffs that are either free of ARBPAK coverage or they are a product of wikihounding and other sorts of harassment from the filer, who also was falsely alleging MapSGV to be a "sleeper-esque"[39] and "throw away sleeper"[40] for days before filing this spurious report.

Talking about personal attacks, I don't see even a single personal attack here from MapSGV or false accusations like rest of others have carried out against him. There is no prohibition on much larger level of incivilities[41] in Wikipedia. Though I understand that this allegation of "personal attack" has been overblown in this report because filer failed to find his way to misrepresent sources, use self-published and non-reliable sources on the article for his POV pushing, hence he resorted to filing a spurious report. You can also have a look at the SPI where Capitals00 shows the evidence of him filing same spurious reports from his main account.

I would better recommend this report should closed as spurious or the filer should be blocked for his deception and using the noticeboard for battleground. We should let the SPI have its run. Lorstaking (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MapSGV

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

I would like to see the outcome of the SPI before taking action here. Otherwise, the evidence presented seems to consist of very low-level incivility, though the sheer volume of it could be a problem. GoldenRing (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this is actionable. Personal attacks are prohibited, irrespective of whether the other user is a sockpuppet. @MapSGV: please respond promptly. Sandstein 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The response by MapSGV is unsatisfactory, as it only attempts to excuse MapSGV's misconduct, rather than convince us that it will not reoccur. Incivility by others is no excuse for incivility of one's own. The scope of the problem as demonstrated by the diffs in evidence requires action. MapSGV has made only 223 edits so far, which of course raises socking questions of its own given the user's fluency in Wikipedia jargon, but it matters here insofar as this means that the 18 diffs reported here constitute close to 10% of the user's total edits. This is an unacceptable signal-to-noise ratio. I am indefinitely blocking MapSGV (as a normal admin action) as a net negative for Wikipedia. If they are unblocked, I anticipate imposing a topic ban. Sandstein 22:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson

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 Andrew Davidson

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA :

What appears to be a long-term fundamental inability to understand the complexities of the Indian caste system leads to often lengthy and wikilawyered discussions such as here, here and here. There is no easy way to explain the complexities in 500 words, sorry, but, for example, in the last diff AD argues use of sources that simply do not refer in any meaningful way to the subject, in the linked Samra discussion he argued at length to use unreliable sources, causing Drmies to issue a sanctions alert, and in the first of these diffs he argued using both unreliable sources and with a clear lack of understanding of how the caste system functions. As some of those diffs infer, they are not the only examples but I'm struggling with the interaction tools at the moment - they keep timing out or simply not returning a result.

We've currently got this, where AD is perpetuating his previous stances, again without any apparent understanding of the caste system. In that discussion, he seems even to think that we should keep an invalid statement rather than remove it and so cause an article to be blank. He has also been arguing at length about the validity of the most recent sanctions alerts here, indulging in yet more time-consuming litigation of dubious merit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None known

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here, soon after expiry of one issued issue a sanctions here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have filed this under the username Andrew Davidson but some past discussions were under another username, Colonel Warden, which he allegedly agreed with ArbCom to stop using but actually has not. The AD account is more active of late.

It is ok to have an opinion but to tendentiously pursue it can be problematic, as can misrepresenting what sources say even if it is due to a lack of understanding. I'd like to see a topic ban from caste-related matters, broadly construed, because I and probably others feel like we're banging our heads against a brick wall.

Replying to AD's edits here. It is nothing specifically to do with one AfD. It is a general pattern of lack of comprehension that, in fact, you are even demonstrating in your comments here. The problem is, you mention expanding your interests into editing caste-related articles but you cannot even demonstrate understanding in the AfDs, throwing in irrelevant sources (the Oxford book being one), unreliable ones and arguments that are non-starters because the caste system does not operate in the manner that you seem to believe. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: then you are unwittingly part of the problem. I know that CIR is not a policy but when someone like Andrew Davidson gets involved it just creates a shedload of issues that need to be addressed. Just one example: this not only fails WP:V on the relevant point but makes a grossly incorrect assumption that "important" = something special in terms of Reservation in India. It doesn't. There are plenty of "important" communities - politically, economically etc - that do not conform to the original research which AD insists makes this impossible list meet LISTN. Yes, AD is a quite extreme inclusionist and, yes, way back he gave me my first barnstar for rescuing an article at AfD, but if people cannot understand that caste-related issues need understanding then there is no hope, sorry. And when the same easily verifiable point is made again and again but AD refuses to accept it, well ... It is just a timesink and it is a timesink that can have quite peculiar consequence because these articles are not particularly well watched (Catch 22?). In this instance, I strongly suspect that AD's fake references in the first AfD caused it to be determined as not suitable for deletion, yet he protests when the thing is blanked because there is nothing verifiable. Then comes back umpteen years later and says he can make it verifiable but in fact he cannot, as anyone familiar with the topic would know. The same applies to his insistence that unreliable sources are in fact ok to use.

I admit that I am struggling to explain here. I know for sure that there are people who think AD is being absurd but this is a topic area where scrutiny is poor and one of the consequences of that is examples such as the current AfD, which comes out of a previous AfD that had no merit other than the fake refs, a complete lack of comprehension, and an admin who presumably saw some mention of sources and thought "that's ok". But, as I said at the outset, this is not a one-off issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I acknowledge your comment about a lack of diffs. I was utterly bemused regarding how I could possibly give specific diffs in such a complex matter but if you can suggest a way to disentangle then that would be great. As it is, I am sort of hoping that common sense could prevail here: if people really cannot see the problem just reading a few example threads then, frankly, I despair and may as well give up. We have two sets of sanctions regims for the topic area for a reason.

@D4iNa4: I have had little involvement in this process and couldn't possibly comment except to say that I used the word unwittingly on purpose. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Andrew Davidson

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 Andrew Davidson

What we have here is an AfD – note that I have not edited the article in question at any time. I'd be quite happy to stop arguing about the matter and just let the AfD process take its usual course but it's Sitush that keeps coming to my talk page to belabour the matter (8 times already today). There are some content issues and I understand them just fine. What Sitush doesn't seem to understand is our policies and guidelines such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:BLANK and he states openly in the discussion that he's not heard of them before. My position is that there's some scope for improvement here and so our policy WP:PRESERVE would have us prefer this alternative to deletion. In the course of discussion, I have produced good sources such The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies – a respectable and recent work from a university press. I have also pointed to other related pages such as List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism which no-one else seemed to have noticed. I'd be quite content to have both these pages merged to Sikhism#Sikh_castes which contains a similar list of Sikh castes and so am quite flexible about the outcome. All that needs to happen now is a period of quiet so that other editors can contribute to the AfD and then the closer can settle the matter in the usual way. Compare, for example, Manchu studies, which is about a similar weak page but for which I have found a good source. I have no strong feelings about these topics but am entitled to my views on them, as is common at AfD, and I contribute usefully to the discussions, arguing from sources and policy, as we're supposed to. Note that the previous AfD referred to (Samra) was over two years ago and so these issues don't arise often enough to warrant special measures. What might require attention is Sitush's insulting incivility, for example, "how dense can you be ... your incompetence". In that previous AfD, I noted that Sitush seemed to be violating WP:OWN, WP:PA and WP:BLUDGEON and we have the same pattern again here. Andrew D. (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: should please move their contribution from the section reserved for "uninvolved admins" because, as they recently discussed the specific topic in question, they seem involved. Note that, when they stated their opinion of the topic, they did not provide any evidence, whereas I provide and cite examples, sources and policy. Note that I don't just google in a crude way, as RP supposes. I have an extensive personal library, including multiple, respectable books on the specific subject of caste. I have good access to research libraries in London which I regularly visit, such as the BL, the Senate House Library, the Wellcome Library and more. Through these and other resources such as the Wikipedia Library, I have good access to online resources such as JSTOR. I am therefore able to read and quote sources when needed to develop or support a position, as in this case. I fully appreciate the ramifications of this topic area but my general position is that we should explore alternatives to deletion so that topics can make progress, rather than being stuck in an unproductive cycle of creation, blanking, reversion and deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Andrew Davidson

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

I don't see how this is actionable. To begin with, the request contains no diffs of edits by Andrew Davidson. As to the caste-related discussions linked to in the request, I don't see anything substantial, at first glance, that might amount to sanctionable misconduct by Andrew Davidson. Even if one assumes with Sitush that Andrew Davidson is mistaken or ill-informed with respect to the questions at issue, that is not a violation of Wikipedia conduct policy. I don't see how this is more than a content dispute coupled with strong disagreement on the inclusionism / deletionism axis. Such disputes should be resolved through normal dispute resolution rather than through arbitration. Sandstein 22:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, AE is a bit strict on policy, evidence, etc for pretty good reasons. To act, we need clear cut diffs that show obvious misconduct. Nebulous patterns of behavior don't fit into WP:AE very well. Keep in mind. AE isn't a consensus board, when an admin acts, they act unilaterally, and they have the authority to ignore everyone else, or take those opinions to heart. We usually work together and often a majority agrees with the outcome, but whichever admin closes and acts, s/he owns those actions, and must be able to articulate the issue via WP:adminaccct. Looking briefly at your case, I don't see a solid case being presented, even while admitting one might exist. My advice is to have actual diffs along with SHORT explanations for each, and take it to ANI, which is better suited for long drawn out ordeals, and allows input from everyone. ARBPIA restrictions can still be issued from there, but if this situation is as you describe, it transcends ARB and would be getting into general policy, which is easier to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't see anything actionable here, I do see some cause for concern. Looking through the edits, it appears that Andrew Davidson, though editing in good faith, doesn't understand the domain. Caste in India is a complex subject, continuously confounded by interest groups, government action, and poor quality judgements made during the Raj era. It is because of this complexity that we have imposed community discretionary sanctions on this area and most uninvolved admins, like myself, issue warnings and blocks solely based on sourcing, i.e., whether edits are sourced or not and, if sourced, whether there is consensus on the reliability of those sources. Editing by googling the way Andrew Davidson is doing is not going to work very well in this area because it invariably pulls up unreliable sources. Insisting on Raj era sources when consensus is against using them is not going to work very well either. But, like I said, there is probably nothing actionable here right now because Andrew Davidson appears to be editing in good faith. However, if this continues, a topic ban from caste related articles is likely in the future. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AndrewDavidson, I don't consider myself involved because I have no opinion on caste matters and an occasional drive by comment doesn't change that. Also, like I state above, I don't think you're editing in bad faith here. Rather, regardless of the quality of access you may or may not have to sources, you seem to be editing with a shallow understanding of the complexity of the topic area, particularly with your "if we build it the sources and content will come" approach which is practically an invitation to the POV editors out there. Also, if I may point out, the three sources you include here are all google books sources which, unfortunately, do give the impression of being found through a google search rather than through visits to the various libraries you list above. That you are editing against consensus is fairly well borne out by comments from other editors such as in this edit summary and this one. Regardless, all I am saying is that when you have a shallow understanding of a topic area, it is generally better to edit with a light touch than with an aggressive one.--regentspark (comment) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since you asked for diffs I looked a little deeper. The AfD in question is a second nomination. In the first nomination, you !voted keep with the same three sources that you've listed in the 2nd nomination and with the same "if we build it the sources will come" rationale but, in the three plus intervening years, you have neither edited the article nor done anything with those sources (nor has anyone else). That, it seems to me, pretty much backs up my "shallow editor" hypothesis. A shallow understanding of the content and an aggressive editing style are not a good combination. --regentspark (comment) 19:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this request, I'm not seeing a consensus for any blocks, topic bans or similar but I am seeing consensus that Andrew should not carry on as they have been doing. So unless there are further comments I suggest closing this with some form of advice to Andrew to gain a deeper understanding of the topic area and review past consensuses about the quality of sources* before commenting (contributing?) further if he wants to avoid a topic ban in future. How should this be phrased? Should it be highlighted as advice, encouragement or a warning? *A summary of these with links to the discussions would be a useful resource for a Wikiproject to collate if they haven't done so already (I haven't found one but didn't look particularly deeply). Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

No action. GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (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 The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Rambling Man (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/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited :

The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

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

TRM asks if anyone in Women in Red has articles to nominate for DYK for March 8 Not a vio, obviously
"Well, yes, it was just an opportunity to promote women in general. I understand if you're no longer interested in that. Sorry I mentioned it." Insulting the motivations of the two editors who declined the offer
"...the fact that no-one here is interested in getting eight women hooks onto the main page for the whole day is clear..." Again insulting the editors who'd rather create articles than shepherd nominations they didn't want to make in the first place

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked for violating the same prohibition in March and September 2017 - see enforcement log in case

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=828486522&oldid=828481054

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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 The Rambling Man

Statement by power~enwiki

This looks like a complete waste of time. Saying that people aren't interested in DYK isn't insulting their motivations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GreenMeansGo

Sarek, please do us all a favor and withdraw this. This is silly. GMG ^talk 21:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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

Revenge nomination much, Sarek? Can you give me any reason not to haul you off to Arbcom for conduct unbecoming, because I'm not seeing one right now. ‑ Iridescent 21:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willard84

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 Willard84

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Excelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Willard84 (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#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

Warned by EdJohnston in July 2017 that: "If you continue to edit war on any topics related to India or Pakistan you are risking a topic ban."[42]

Template:History of Pakistan:

Back in September 2017 when he was edit warring on Template:History of Pakistan: [43][44] by Wikihounding other editor to the template.[45]

Template ended up getting fully protected due to this edit warring.[46]

There was a huge discussion regarding his disruption on this template and other namespaces on EdJohnston's talk page. But nothing has improved.

Once this protection was removed, he resumed edit warring [47][48] against consensus.

Claiming there is "no consensus"[49] regardless of the majority agreement of 8 editors against the non-consensus version of an editor who was topic banned from the subject and remains blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.

Template ended up getting protected again due to his edit warring.[50]

Misleading an admin that "consensus was actually not reached",[51] and continued deception on talk page[52] where he claimed that there was no consensus because, "Pakistani editors seems to be in unison that these changes were not warranted, though despite this being a template on Pakistani history, Pakistani editors’ opinions are actually in the minority here."[53] This argument about ethnicity of involved editors is an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND.

The template editor rejected the request and said, "I see a consensus above which contradicts your request".[54]

Nanga Parbat:

Removes long term sourced content by falsely asserting that there "This has been discussed",[55] regardless of any discussion.

Removes it again[56] in middle of new-born discussion.

After that he removed the content from lead again, by moving it to section.[57] (I added this sentence on 05:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC) after reading below comments )

Added an image without explaining the "puffery" he added.[58]

Edit warring to restore the puffery:[59][60]

Bludgeoning on talk page for adding the puffery against policies.[61]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

From block log:

23:48, 6 July 2017 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 4 days (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: at Godhra train burning per a complaint at WP:AN3)

07:31, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Violation of the three-revert rule)

02:29, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [62]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These are the two most recent incidents that I can name. The long term edit warring, stonewalling, civil POV pushing, misrepresentation of consensus, and demonstration of WP:INCOMPETENCE shows that Willard84 is truly careless about how much disruption he is causing. I believe that a topic ban is clearly warranted now. Excelse (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I don't know anything about the report against Mar4d, though his messages and comparison of the report against him with this report about Willard84 is described in the first point of WP:SANCTIONGAME. We have a "clear-cut case" here that Willard84 had made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours on 1988 Gilgit Massacre right after coming off from a 4 days block back in July 2017. But he wasn't blocked for edit warring because EdJohnston thought it would be better to give him a stringent warning that further edit warring will lead to topic ban.[63] With Willard84's demonstration of his incompetence here we can simply agree that there are no chances of improvements. Since he has continued to edit war and there are many other issues with his disruptive editing and he has completed enough requirements for a topic ban, I am not sure what else needs to be clarified here. Excelse (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [64]

Discussion concerning Willard84

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 Willard84

I’m confident the arbitrators will find this complaint to be unwarranted and not done in good faith. This is an editor who engaged me in a heated discussion months ago who now appears to be seeking some sort of discretionary sanctions based upon sour feelings. He’s making accusations essentially on behalf of others who didn’t find my behavior so disturbing that they themselves would file a request. Instead we have an editor with whom I haven’t interacted for many months randomly appearing out of the blue and stalking my edits to build a frivolous case against me. Out of many months of edits, and literally hundreds, if not thousands, of edits, he pulls out a few cherry picked examples to build a case. I think this violates the spirit of collaboration and I find this sort of stalking to be very objectionable - even worthy of sanctioning to be frank. If the arbitrators seriously feel these accusations warrant actual disciplinary measure against me, please ping me back to this page and I can dedicate more time to a rebuttal. So much of what he said is an inaccurate depiction that completely neglects so much, but just as a quick illustration of the sort of details that he neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page that he complained about was resolved cordially via discussion with that other editor.Willard84 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the issue of consensus on the Pakistani history template page, once the third party declared they had seen consensus, I dropped the issue without further debate. This complainant neglects to mention that fact.Willard84 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Capitols00 below - this is a user who has tried and failed to get me blocked in the past. His friend User:Excelse, also jumped in that argument to join the witch hunt, and now roles are reversed. These two users act in unison to make these accusations every few months. His list of accusations seems impressive but is a paper tiger. He’s complaining that I removed Sanskrit from the Mt Kailasha page, which isn’t true. As shown on the talk page, I actually just moved it out of the lead because a few months back someone had removed this Chinese script and replaced it with Sanskrit, despite this being a Chinese mountain. He also claims claims that I removed Punjabi from a page about “Sikhism” though the Punjabi is still on that page about a temple in Pakistan. What he neglected to mention is that a user had tried to remove the Urdu name, and replace it only with Punjabi script. He also claims I removed a sectio about a Hindu temple - probably in an attempt to convince you of anti-Hindu bias, but he seems to neglect that the page it was removed from was about a fort, and that the temple in question has its own page, Prahladpuri Temple. Another ridiculous attempt to malign me is when he claims I removed Sanskrit from the Peshawar page, when it was actually changed to [the IAST] version of Sanskrit which is exceedingly commmon practice. He then claims I downplay the number of burushaski speakers in India, despite the fact that the NPR source in the article did indeed say 100. He tried to confuse you by pointing to a different source that says 300-400. That wasn’t the source in the article - but he’s using this new source to make a point.The rest of his list of accusations is similarly misconstrued. That’s probably why he’s scraping the bottom of the barrel for edits from months ago to build his case.

That isn’t exactly the same sort of malicious intent Capitols00 tries to portray. Those are two random ones I chose. I can dedicate more time to a point by point rebuttal. But judging by how frequently Capitols00 joins these witch hunts (three cases in just a few days!), it should be no surprise that he’s jumping on the band wagon again. This sort of behavior, and misrepresentation of facts, ought to be themselves sanctioned like WP:BOOMERANG.Willard84 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 23:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raymond3023

Willard84's on-going attempts to deceive others are concerning. He is still misrepresenting incidents and trying to throw mud on OP's report by falsely claiming the existence of the incidents that didn't even occurred when the report was filed. See WP:GAMING.

The report was filed at 05:43 (UTC). At 08:37 (UTC) Willard84 changed timestamp of his 1 hour older response and makes a misleading claim that OP "neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page that he complained about was resolved",[65] after leaving a message on talk page at 08:32 (UTC), despite the report was filed almost 3 hours ago. Willard84 is now attempting to get away from the article by claiming that he "resolved cordially" when he is clearly giving up on the article and he failed to remove the sourced content and failed to get his puffery accepted because his disruption has been highlighted in this report. But I am sure he will resume his disruption on that article for his WP:OR.[66]

Furthermore, edit warring of Willard84 didn't even stopped with this one edit[67] and one revert,[68] because after he failed to remove the content from lead, he still removed it from lead by creating a new section called "Etymology" and moving material there[69] and he provided no reason for his edit. Since his aim was to get rid of the meaning of the word from the lead, I would count it as 2 reverts for removing the meaning of the name, and 2 additional reverts for adding puffery. In total, he made 4 reverts.

Seeing he is clearly working on deceiving others not only on articles but also here now, he is leaving me with no choice other than to support topic ban which would be still lenient because editors also get indeffed for such shenanigans. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Willard84 you can't ignore your long term pattern of your nationalistic editing by making false accusations against others. Even if you had never edited the the main Template:History of Pakistan, your behavior on it's talk page has been purely disruptive, though you edit warred enough to get the template protected twice by restoring to a pseudohistorical nationalist version written by an editor who used a sock to notify you recently.[70] The template should be totally unprotected the way Template:History of India is, even though it is much more edited and visited than Template:History of Pakistan. But due to your disruption I think we will never reach there unless you are topic banned. I am really seeing no justification for your actions. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to D4Nai by Willard84

Nationalistic editing? The Template discussion revolved around whether consensus had been reached - don’t misconstrue this into a question of competing nationalism. I think the arbitrators here are well aware of how to spot arrogant nationalism - and it isn’t coming from me. The debate has been ongoing since October, yet you made a change in late February after months of stalemate and resurrected a version which was objectionable for its inclusion of minor empires like the Marathas who ruled for not even 2 years and left essentially no trace of their presence,while you suggested that the Indus Valley Civilization (with its major sites in modern Pakistan) be removed from a template about Pakistan. In fact, the changes you made aren’t the changes you put forward for discussion - you made a set of changes that hasn’t been discussed in their entirety. I was pushing for a reversion to status quo - I think you’ll need to do a better job of demonstrating how this was pushing a nationalist viewpoint. Even the comment about Pakistani viewpoints was explained in the debate as a point brought up simply because this fell under wiki project Pakistan. And anyway, once the third party had stated they thought consensus had been reached, I dropped the issue even though I think that third party did not consider the context behind it.

D4iNa4 has had his own history of belligerent POV editing against me. Here another reviewer had to explain to D4iNai and another user that Washington Post is a reliable source when D4 had sided with another user to ensure the page only reflected claims that the train was burned as a result of a pre meditated “conspiracy” by Muslim passengers, by ensuring that any mention of events prior to the burning which cast other non-Muslim passengers as rowdy were not included.

Willard84 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

I would acknowledge that Willard84 is a bit quick to hit the revert button, but he is a good productive editor otherwise. Perhaps a warning should suffice for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lorstaking

I agree with the filer, Raymond3023 and D4iNa4 but I disagree with Kautilya3. Another warning would be a waste of time since he has been already warned and blocked enough times for what he has been doing and he is not still not understanding the serious problems with his editing. According to his own statements here, he still believes that even if none of his edits were accepted they were still correct and also that others are engaging in misconduct by not accepting them. He still believes his edits are correct where he is treating princely states and their subdomains (Phulra, Khanate of Kalat, Dir, etc.) during British Raj as the main power as per his own edits[71][72] to paint a wrong picture that Pakistan was never really colonized by British and was mainly ruled by these vassals. Willard84 also wants to mention initial and outdated rumors about Godhra train burning as facts even after being told otherwise by Edjohnston and not just the involved editors. You just can't expect him to collaborate without creating enough problems.

His input on talk pages[73][74] can be also described as mass bludgeoning just like his statements here, some of them have been already removed by Sandstein.[75]

I am also noting that his accusations against others of misconduct without giving any evidence constitute personal attacks.

He is saying in one of his statements here [76] that everyone is allowed to revert but he is now gaming 3RR by not reverting 3 times in 24 hours. Clearly that is how he managed to revert 4 times on Nanga_Parbat [77][78][79][80] In short words this is a clear case of disruptive nationalist POV pushing and WP:CIR. Lorstaking (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willard84's further deceptive approach can be described by his recent statement here on this page, falsely claiming that I "had commented on just an hour earlier" before MapSGV reverted him, ([81][82]: seems more than 22 hours to me) despite the fact that I had commented on the template against the problematic version in 6 October 2017.[83] Also that he deceptively cherry picked this diff to claim the request was "was quickly shut down", when I was the one to "shut down" the request.[84]

I must also add that Willard84 was edit warring, bludgeoning and misrepresenting consensus on talk page for restoring problematic version of an indefinitely blocked topic banned sockmaster upon the request from his sock.[85] Months ago, he was doing this same thing[86][87] when this editor was blocked indefinitely for being WP:NOTHERE.[88] Willard84 attempted to get his topic ban overturned before,[89] despite being the only person to oppose any sanction on him at WP:ANI.[90][91]

Willard84 has really left me in no doubt now. He is a case of WP:CIR whose deceptive approach is harmful for this project. Lorstaking (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Lorstaking by Willard84

I don’t have time to rebuke rehashed accusations that were already brought up above, but it’s clear what Salem 1620 must have felt like.

Anyway, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this user, Lorstaking, has been spending an unusual amount of effort to defend User:MapSGV, whose account has been blocked above, by petitioning arbitrator User:Sandstein above to rescind his decision. The accusation that I tried to downplay British rule is exceedingly ridiculous- as a review of the edits would make very clear.

Lorstaking and MapSGV have an unusually deep relationship that appears to have only developed in the end of February 2018 when MapSGV started making a significant number of edits. He randomly jumped back into editing after a 2 year hiatus on 19 February 2017, and seems to have somehow rapidly developed a deep relationship with Lorstaking, who took the unusual step of writing a lengthy character defense of MapSGV. Lorstaking even opened a case to challenge sanctions against MapSGV, although this was quickly shut down.

Yet now, Lorstaking finds his way on here to join a witch hunt. Perhaps in retaliation, because MapSGV somehow randomly appeared on the Template:History of Pakistan that Lorstaking had commented on just an hour earlier, and reverted my edit before threatening me with blocks on the talk page. He also seems to be unusually well-versed in Wikipedia lingo for someone who apparently just parachuted back in after a making a few dozen edits.Willard84 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

While a number of recent examples of continued disruption have been already provided, I think it is nonetheless worth it to describe the problem to be bigger and continuous. I have observed Willard84’s edits over a long period of time and many of them have proved to be problematic. Here are a few examples of nationalist editing over a broad range of articles:

Removed "India" from the Xuanzang article.

Removes Sanskrit from article about ancient Indian city in modern-day Pakistan citing a policy that doesn’t exist

Removes Sanskrit word from Mount Kailash.

Pushes his POV above what reliable sources state

Removes a section about a Hindu temple from an article

Removes “ancient India” from an article about a city formerly part of the Indian cultural sphere

Replaces Puruṣapura with Peshawar in an article. This is another example of Willard84 purging anything related to India from Pakistani-related articles.

Edits the Burushashki langauge article to state that only 100 people in India speak Burushashki when the source mentioned around 300-400.

Removes the Gurmukhi script from an article about Sikhism.

These edits show Willard84's problematic editing behavior across many articles. Despite previous warnings and blocks, it has continued and Willard84's own comment indicates that this problem will remain. I would recommend a topic ban on India and Pakistan related articles broadly construed. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mar4d

I will second Kautilya3. These are content disputes, not conduct disputes if it all. In the limited time I have known Willard84, he has been an extremely productive editor and the majority of his contributions, particularly to Pakistan topics, have been outstanding and one of the best I've seen on Wikipedia. One only needs to go through his contributions log and his article creations to appreciate this user's presence in this topic area, and his expertise in finding reliable sources to improve under-covered subjects. What I see here is mostly a collection of stale, cherry-picked diffs cobbled together to form a mudslinging contest, by a group of editors who belong to the most controversial topic area on Wikipedia which is riddled with content disputes and nationalist edit warring. The timing, content and structure of this ARE is clearly suspect and in extremely bad faith, as I have raised below. Mar4d (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peoples Colony

I endorse Sandstien , a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. Singling out Willard84/ Mard will be un fair.

Result concerning Willard84

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

Both in this case and in the one concerning Mar4d below, it appears to me that we have several areas of problematic editing that are probably best addressed with topic bans for a number of editors. However, in both cases the report mixes genuine potentially problematic conduct such as edit-warring and personal atacks with what seem to be mere content disputes, which means that we don't have a clear-cut case. Moreover, a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. I don't currently have time for this. As such, I can't currently propose any specific action, which is not to say that action is not necessary. Sandstein 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d

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 Mar4d

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mar4d (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#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

20 February 2018 Falsely accusing other editors of POV pushing "in complete mockery of WP:ARBIPA" instead of rebutting their arguments. This is the first of the many ad hominem comments made by this user on the article's talk page.
20 February 2018 Another ad hominem attack directed against the other editor, and this was after he was told to focus on the content.[92]
21 February 2018 Again launches ad hominem personal attacks on MapSVG with unfounded accusations in place of rebutting his arguments.
21 February 2018 Doubles down on the personal attacks, calling MapSVG, among other things, a sock without evidence.
22 February 2018 Deliberately falsified the numbers with a misleading edit summary that he was fixing "per ref" and the "numbers are unsourced", when in actual fact the sources (both in the infobox and in the India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)#2018 section) clearly supported the numbers.

And, the explanation that he gave on the talk page — that there were no figures available for 2016[93] — gave the impression that he didn't even read the refs because the figures from 2016 were already sourced in the infobox (see refs [20]–[22]), and this was discussed already a couple of months ago.[94] He never replied when I quizzed him asking if he had even read the sources.[95]

Added objectionable material on Rape in India [96] by adding his opinion, "However, in reality", "further exacerbated the crisis", and using unreliable sources. One editor reverted him for using unreliable sources and he reverted that editor saying that his sources are "RS"[97] and made another controversial edit[98], another editor reverted him pointing out the use of unreliable sources,[99] he again restored the reverted content[100] and left a firovolous warning on the talk page of the editor that he didn't provided any reason to revert him,[101] after that the discussion on talk page was held, where everyone opposed his edits, and in middle of the discussion he again removed the content that was being supported by the involved editors[102] though required a little bit of improvement that took no time,[103] but unnecessary edit warring from Mar4d clearly making 3 reverts in such sensitive article is concerning.
On Kashmir conflict:

Reverted King Zebu because he made his edits "without consensus"[104]
Reverted Kautilya3 because he made his edits without adhering to "WP:NOCON and WP:BRD"[105]
RegentsPark criticized Mar4d that his "reversion does not make sense"[106]
Reverted Kautilya3[107] by disregarding WP:NOCON and WP:BRD himself, the content was being discussed and had no consensus. And, it took him ony two minutes to post a request at WP:RFPP for full page protection of his preferred version,[108] despite that version had no consensus.
Quickly reverted the IP's revert of non-consenus controversial content[109] by disregarding the sanctions placed on this page. The first point of the sanctions clearly reads "A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block."[110]
What's even more concerning is that the content dispute was raised on WP:DRN on 14 February but Mar4d never commented on it, despite being a party of the dispute.[111]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See Mar4d's block log

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, on [112].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mar4d was adamant in his personal opinion that the Siachen conflict is an "ongoing conflict" and adding a result "is like adding a conclusion on Kashmir conflict",[113] despite multiple reliable sources saying to the contrary that the conflict ended with the ceasefire in 2003. One just has to take a glance at the talk page to notice the outright personal attacks he made on others (including false accusations of socking, SPA, etc), not to mention that he kept engaging in stonewalling, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, repeating the same personal opinion over and over again, and resorting to ad hominem strategies in place of refuting the arguments of others.

As per discussion with Sandstein on MapSVG's talk page,[114] Sandstein told that he "will take a look" if a separate report is filed against those who also engaged in misconduct. The report against MapSVG was filed by a user who was already under a SPI investigation[115] and the report resulted in sanctions on MapSGV despite much of the diffs were showing his responses to ad hominem personal attacks and false accusations made by Mar4d, despite objections by multiple editors, and Mar4d's misconduct is much more than just incivility because it also concerns edit warring, treatment of Wikipedia as battleground, use of unreliable sources, misrepresentation of sources and lack of collaborative approach to resolve content dispute. For all these factors Mar4d should be sanctioned. —MBL ^talk 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, will you stop beating around the bush and tell us how your ad hominem attacks, false accusations of WP:SPA, socking, etc do not constitute personal attacks and why you should not be sanctioned for them?

He has made a lot of baseless accusations and engaged in deception. I will just rebut a few of them:

Mar4d was the one who was actually engaged in "provocative conduct", as evident from the diffs I supplied above. I never defended anyone's "personal attacks", as Mar4d claims. I provided a multitude of reliable sources to back up my claims so did the other editor, MapSVG, unlike Mar4d, who is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT and repeating his personal opinion. I focused all my comments on the content, unlike Mar4d, who was simply resorting to ad hominem strategies.
Mar4d is simply deceiving, when he says, "MapSGV's additions which MBL later pursued, apart from constituting tendentious editing, contain basic factual inaccuracies including WP:SYNTH." Either Mar4d do not understand what WP:SYNTH means or he is just deceiving like I said, and if it's the former, he shouldn't be editing in this topic area at all. He is the one who engages in tendentious editing all the time. He really ought to stop making allegations that he cannot substantiate.
The version[116] prior to my edit had the death count at "193–201 soldiers killed". Mar4d deliberately changed the numbers, in this edit with a misleading edit summary, to 158. His version contained the following refs in the infobox: "[20][21][22][23]c[24][25][26]". These refs clearly supported the death count of 195 (not including the BSF claims). His claim that there were "lack of 2016 figures" is obviously false as demonstrated in the refs. The fact that he did not responded when I quizzed him just strengthens my claim that he didn't even read those refs.
Such deception alone is grounds enough for a sanction, in my opinion.
And, lastly if Mar4d thinks that I'm engaging in "BATTLEGROUND", "problematic editing" etc then he should file an ARE report and present evidence, and if he fails to do so then he should be sanctioned as soon as possible, because such groundless accusations are completely unacceptable. —MBL ^talk 12:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. Sandstein 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: you asked to provide the outcome of an RFC that went against Mar4d's preferred choice and then you will have something to make your decision on. However, misconduct is not just limited to Siachen conflict, it also concerns other subjects, as others have already noted. In particular, concerns have been raised regarding Mar4d's misconduct on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan, and I would urge you to read the closure of the AfD and compare the closing admin's note with every comment of Mar4d as well as a few others who !voted there and have also participated in this report. This case seems already crystal clear that who is engaging in sanctionable disruptive behavior. —MBL ^talk 05:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: as you can see, at least a couple of editors have already mentioned that Mar4d refused to respond at the DRN that Kautilya3 had filed following a series of edit-wars, where Mar4d was a party (along with Dilpa kaur, NadirAli, Kautilya3) since he was also making reverts on the article that led to DRN. But I'll repeat it again:

You can see in the edit summaries of Mar4d in the reverts that he made:

"Restore longstanding text; please do not make such unilateral changes involving major content removal without consensus on talk"[117]
"AFAIK, there is a section on talk where modifications to this entire section are under discussion, disputed content is in complete disregard and violation of that; please note WP:NOCON and WP:BRD"[118]
Following these edit wars, Mar4d had been notified on 14 February via his talk page about the filing of this dispute on WP:DRN by Kautilya3.[119] But Mar4d was not participating on DRN and he was still making controversial reverts on article during the course of DRN.
Here's the timeline:
On 24 February, NadirAli made major edits[120] that were reverted by Kautilya3,[121] saying: "Rv; I don't agree this is WP:NPOV; please wait for the discussion to be concluded".
On 24 February, Mar4d reverted Kautilya3[122] without gaining consensus for the controversial edits, and like I already said, it took him only 2 minutes to request full protection for his preferred version[123], then some IP reverted Mar4d[124], but Mar4d reverted the IP[125] in violation of the first point of the page sanctions.[126]
While NadirAli and Kautilya3 discussed a lot, Mar4d never participated in the DRN until it ended on 1 March as failed.[127] Clearly Mar4d had enough time to respond and since he is interested in this article and wanted to retain the controversial content, he had to make efforts in solving the content dispute raised in DRN. —MBL ^talk 16:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Mar4d

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 Mar4d

As Willard84 noted above, this is yet another unsubstantiated, half-baked report with absolutely no substance. Note the same recurrent theme of allegations and accusations by a highly-involved editor(s); and the same, usual pattern of misrepresentation, and near-farcical cherry-pickings. What is deeply regrettable is the constant misuse of forums like arbitration, ANI, and other noticeboards, for settling personal vendettas and mudslinging over content disputes, to the extent of a WP:WITCHHUNT. The ultimate objective, it seems, is to drive out experienced, well-meaning editors from a topic area plagued by nationalist edit-warring. MBL has an axe to grind over their multiple content disputes and problematic editing, and in my defence below, I'd like to point out why:

The article in question is Siachen conflict, where the infobox summarised the conflict as following: Ceasefire since 2003. This has been the longstanding version of the article as covered by WP:RS, and is predated by three separate discussions on talk (please see this, this, and more particularly, this consensus). It is therefore surprising when MapSGV, an account with barely 80 edits prior to February and no history on the article (yet strangely well-versed with editing norms and Wikipedia jargon), turns up and replaces the "ceasefire" on the infobox with "Indian victory". There is no edit summary let alone any explanation. Any admin who is remotely familiar with WP:ARBIPA knows these sanctions are in place to prevent exactly this type of disruption. This edit was later raised on the talk by another editor (as it rightfully should be), and MBL was one of the first editors to defend MapSGV's editing and personal attacks. Since a large part of this complaint actually seems to focus on my interactions with MapSGV, I'd like to point out MapSGV has just been topic banned for 6 months (which was downgraded from a block). Since MBL apparently wasn't satisfied with that sanction, the timing of this A.R.E. is honestly questionable. Please note that so far as my interactions with MapSGV are concerned, I am not the only user, neither the first one, who raised red flags over his editing [128] [129]. The allegation of "unfounded accusations" holds no ground, and should there be any doubt, please do revisit the provocative conduct which actually led to MapSGV being sanctioned in the first place. .

I won't get too much into the nitty-gritties of the content dispute here, but the core of the dispute mainly stems from the issue that MapSGV's additions which MBL later pursued, apart from constituting tendentious editing, contain basic factual inaccuracies including WP:SYNTH. The article is on the current, ongoing conflict over the disputed Siachen glacier (part of the Kashmir conflict), whose status quo has been dicated by a ceasefire since 2003. Any editor well-versed in WP:MILHIST knows what a ceasefire means. It is not on the 1984 operation whereby India occupied the glacier (also summarised), which has a separate article under Operation Meghdoot. There's a difference between both.

As for this edit, this took into account the existing references supplied, which cited 138 casualties for 2017 and 20 casualties for 2017. The confusion appeared to stem from the (lack of) 2016 figures, as the sources did not appear to indicate how the updated figure of "206–212" was calculated by MBL. Again, this was perfectly reasonable, and I left a query in regards to this.

Please refer to this discussion which, unsurprisingly, MBL is not even part of. There is no foul play here. There were consistency and summary issues with the lead of that article as seconded in that discussion, and if you have any doubt, please refer in particular to the comments and sources there left by admin Vanamonde93.

Lastly, you really need to read and understand WP:CONSENSUS if you want to edit with the "collaborative approach" you talk about. Because as it stands, you visibly have no idea let alone even a fraction of involvement in the discussion on Kashmir conflict. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you had even bothered to read the talk page, you would've at least been informed enough to know what issues around half a discussion editors there are talking about. And thinly-veiled threats/stunts like this [130] [131] hardly qualify as WP:CON. Mar4d (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AshLin by Mar4d

- I am unfortunately out of time owing to real life commitments. However, just a short note regarding AshLin's statement: we had no interaction on this AfD until I simply left this comment under an existing comment of mine: Also, far too many users voting on this AfD seem to be involved. Would be good to get neutral views... This was AshLin's response, which automatically assumed bad faith on a genuine concern: This is not true. An attempt to generally discount those editors who have not agrred with Mar4d's views. This was the first interaction, not the comment linked below. Again, if you want to skew anything to make it sound how you want it, then anything will work. Also, I have seen little to no acknowledgement of what led to the Siachen article content dispute - it was MapSGV's modification of the infobox without any discussion or edit summary, and in disregard of an existing consensus. It is disappointing to see experienced editors condoning this behavior. Mar4d (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other comment/s

- I also concede that the conversation at Talk:Siachen conflict got heated, and out of hand too quickly. Revisiting it, it certainly could have been more toned down and succinct, at least on my part, irrespective of what was being dished out left and right. And sure, if there are outstanding concerns with regards to a user's editing history, I'll try to keep it contained to an WP:SPI or relevant noticeboard. Point taken. Mar4d (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, there's some tremendous level of cherry picking going on, on behalf of deeply involved parties. Therefore, much of the accusations and diffs here are completely skewed, one-sided, and extremely out of context. I have neither the time nor resources to go back and dig out every "he said, she said" diff. This vain exercise is essentially cherry-picking one edit of a hundred to build a case, but one does not equal a hundred. Mar4d (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. Sandstein 22:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: There is no bad faith at all here, and this is not conduct based. The case at the WP:DRN was genuinely (and positively) put forth by NadirAli, which covered the main points under contention. The purpose of DRN is to complement or help form consensus where there's an existing, and in this case longstanding, dispute, and any involved party is free to add as much or little summary of the issues they feel need to be raised, if compelled. If something is achieved from this mediation, the merrier. The main issues were raised sufficiently as you can see. Unfortunately, I have been inactive the entire last week of February owing to real life engagements, so there was no voluntary commitment I could provide. However, I did leave my two cents and a suggestion on the talk page prior, on 24 February [132], to indicate a way forward for all. Mar4d (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

His conduct on AfD of Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan has been also concerning where he is tirelessly defending an article that is surely going to get deleted. Some of his comments over there are:

"another disposable !vote for the sake of !voting"[133]
"too many users voting on this AfD seem to be involved."[134]
"you acquainted with all these acronyms in your such short time of editing"[135]

These comments seems to be unnecessary assumption of bad faith and attempts to dispute the credibility of the editor who made their vote!, and that is also a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. These comments had to be made on content or why the article should be kept or deleted.

While other recent examples of disruption have been already provided, there are also some examples that date a bit earlier, but still relevant enough to show the long term pattern of nationalistic POV editing.

The scenario of censoring result parameter that mentions "Indian victory" [136](with reliable sources), then making personal attacks on his opponent by calling them an SPA or sock[137] and using his own personal opinion against tons of reliable sources, such disruption is not new or limited to Siachen conflict.

Just like this he was also removing "Indian victory" on Umayyad campaigns in India [138] and then edit warring the editor[139] while removing the reliably sourced content and not getting consensus for his edits that were likely never going to be accepted.

On talk page, he made personal attacks against the editor such as, "I haven't asked for a brushdown on WP:NPOV, least of all from an obvious WP:SPA"[140], while there was no incivility from this editor and he was not an SPA either.

Continued to have WP:LASTWORD on talk page despite disagreement from 3 editors[141] who supported what reliable source state, not personal opinions of Mar4d.

Independence Day (India): Edit warring[142][143] against IPs that were removing the problematic content[144][145] added by a paid editing sock.[146] I reverted Mar4d and opened a section on talk page,[147] where he made no response. Point is that why he even defends the problematic content that is not actually defensible or he thinks of stopping only when the objections have been made by one of his common opponent?

2016–18 Kashmir unrest: Invoking WP:BANREVERT by restoring problematic edits of a paid editing sock [148], he reverted Mblaze Lightning who removed the problematic content[149] and then Mar4d restored the same content again[150] without gaining consensus on talk page.[151]

If Mar4d had been sanctioned for such disruption earlier, I am sure that we wouldn't be having the problems highlighted by Mblaze Lightning above. Capitals00 (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. Sandstein 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

And, it took him ony two minutes to post a request at WP:RFPP for full page protection of his preferred version, despite that version had no consensus.--This is definitely non-actionable.See WP:WRONGVERSION.
What's even more concerning is that the content dispute was raised on WP:DRN on 14 February but Mar4d never commented on it, despite being a party of the dispute--DRN is voluntary.
I don't see how Mar4D's behaviour at the article and corresponding discussion at Talk:Rape in India#Revert or at 2016–18 Kashmir unrest is remotely disruptive/sanctionable.
I will agree though, that his conduct at Talk:Siachen conflict could have been somewhat better.
At any case, I don't suppport MapSVG's T-ban and will neither support any over-the-top action over here.A reminder to Mar4D to comment on content and not on contributors will be probably sufficient enough.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NadirAli

This looks like the latest effort in MBlaze Lightning's series of spurious reports against opposing editors.[152]

None of the diffs show any sort of problematic statements from Mar4d, who is one of our encyclopedia's most productive editors. If there are some statements from him about MapSGV's provocative behaviour that should not be a call for alarm because even the administrator Sandstein is suspicious of that account.[153]. I do wonder why users like MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 are so desperate to support MapSGV and so quick to file spurious reports. Capitals00[154] left no stone unturned to argue against MapSGV's block and topic ban. Such desperation was in their tone as if it was their own account they were defending. But none of these 2 had any presence on his talkpage before the block.

Content disputes such as those in Talk:Rape in India do not belong to WP:AE. I do not see any wrong done by Mar4d.

As for the reverts shown[155][156] on Kashmir conflict there is nothing wrong with them because there is a policy of reverting contentious new edits while they are being discussed on the talkpage according to WP:NOCON.

Reverting Kautilya3 here[157] was not a problem because contrary to MBlaze Lightning's claims, the version Mar4d restored did have WP:CONSENSUS from the deeply involved editors.[158] No less than five users wanted it. Only one user, Kautilya3 himself, opposed it and he even refused to explain his objections (He said So, if and when I come to review the proposed paragraphs, these are the principles I will use. When we run into disagreements, I will take them to WP:DRN. For the time being, let me just say that none of the proposed sections is ready for the mainspace).[159] WP:1AM does not overturn the WP:CONSENSUS of everyone else.

Reverting this disruptive IP[160] ought be the action of any normal Wikipedian.

There was also no 1RR violation. No second reverts within 24 hours.

I do think a WP:BOOMERANG should be this case's outcome. Owais Khursheed filed an WP:SPI last year which the administrators ignored.[161] The SPI claimed that the filer was using IP socks to harass opposing editors. Now we saw this behavior from an Indian IP again today at Talk:Kashmir conflict.[162] I translated it and reported it To editor CambridgeBayWeather:.[163] I would suggest a full investigation. Enough is really enough.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kautilya3

I am not surprised by Kautilya3's comment given the content disputes he has. Pakistani editors are receiving threats from Indian

IP [164][[165][166] in the background of WP:WITCHHUNTS such as these [167][168][169][170] involving false accusations against opposing editors by Kautilya3, MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00. A lot is explained, especially when there are suspicions of WP:TAGTEAM [171][172] and IP socking[173]. No tagteaming from Mar4d who has a long and lengthy involvement in the content dispute at Talk:Kashmir conflict unlike those who turn up to do reverts and deliver one liners in support of Kautilya3's position with hardly any other talkpage input.[174][175].

I took an analysis of Talk:Siachen conflict. I found Mar4d's side of the discussion very constructive. He was very polite and far more interested in sourcing than the other users whose obsession was sneaking in 'Indian victory'. Granted there were a few times he made comments outside of content but that was in response to incendiary comments from MapSGV[176][177], MBlaze Lightning[178] and Capitals00[179].--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TripWire

Another WP:WITCHHUNT attempt by MBL (see previous one), no wonder Capitals00 has also joined the bandwagon. They have become so desperate in casting WP:ASPERSIONS that they will say anything to put across their point (I dont even know Capitals00). I think there's a dire need to implement WP:BOOMERANG strictly so that such frivolous reports are avoided in the better interest of WP.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Mar4d shouldn't be compared with MapSGV (even though his banning apparently seems the cause behind this report). Below are some edits by MapSGV (any sensible editor would feel offended at such a tone, a + for Mar4d for not loosing his cool); Mar4d was just trying to bring MapSGV to the table so that the issue(s) could be discussed:

Do you have anything sensible to say?

You are fooling yourself if you really believe such nonsense

Why? You feel hurt? Your problem.

I am not going to bother with your apparent dislike of the results which is evidenced by your laughable claims

Given your own record of blocks and inability to discuss content

He even accused an Admin of helping Takeaway (an editor) evade 3RR.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this report has been filed in response to banning of MapSGV (as can be seen from above and comments like: It is better if we only focus on the report against Mar4d. Major point is that this report wouldn't have been filed if the report against MapSGV had been procedurally closed - so they agree that this is a retaliatory measure?), then why this report is still open? Are we allowing a new trend on WP; One ban on this side will automatically mean that a report, however frivolous, must be filed to get a ban on the other side too? Seems like, what this IP threatened to do is unfolding already.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 08:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by wearied passers-by

How about a 6-month topic ban from AE for everyone involved? Uanfala's sock (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peoples colony

Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢

Accusations are over the top to the extent that I started laughing immediately. Come on every one behave like community not rivals. I strongly support Mard for many reasons I observed while reading all relevant contributions and edit history

Self less Dedication to wiki cause (Like every good wiki contributor)
Dealing with difficult discussions
Trying best to avoid few hard nut users.

At any case, I don't support any ban on Mard. I encourage MBlaze Lightning to cheer up and be sport. Peoplescolony (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

There was a time when Mar4d and I used to jointly defend India-Pakistan conflict pages from going toxic. Those days are long gone. Mar4d's fall from grace began with an atrocious article called India and state-sponsored terrorism that he created jointly with another editor. Since then I have been hard put to find any objective edits made by Mar4d. He basically edits along national lines, reverting and name-calling any pro-India editors that he runs into.

On the Siachen conflict article, Mar4d was basically battling reliable sources with WP:OR.
On the Kashmir conflict article, he is basically tag teaming with NadirAli, who in turn is doing edits for KA$HMIR and Dilpa kaur. All these editors call themselves "deeply involved editors". As MBlaze has pointed out, Mar4d reverted a fairly innocent edit citing WP:NOCON and reinstated a highly problematic edit ignoring WP:NOCON. You can just check the amount of reliably sourced content that has been removed in the second edit with not a single word of explanation.

Winged Blades of Godric states that participation in WP:DRN is voluntary. That it is. But it would have been polite for Mar4d to mention either on the talk page or at the DRN that he has conceded the points at dispute. Instead, if he just lets the others carry the burden, then I am afraid it reinforces the impresison that he didn't actually dispute anything, he was just WP:TAGTEAMING. Doing so in a highly contentious subject like Kashmir conflict is very problematic.

I am afraid, at this point, Mar4d is part of the problem rather than solution. Sandstein has drawn parallels between this case and that of Willard84 above. But I don't think there is any comparison. Willard84 is a highly productive editor as I pointed out above. On the other hand, Mar4d has not producing anything worthwhile in the last couple of years. His role seems to be limited to reverting edits and noise-making on the talk pages. A sad fall for a once-great editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, here are the details of the DRN referral regarding Kashmir conflict (not Siachen conflict):

9 February 2018: copy edit done by me
9 February 2018: First revert by Mar4d
11 February 2018: Second revert by Mar4d
13 February 2018: Third revert by NadirAli
14 February 2018: DRN Notice given to Mar4d (also to NadirAli and Dipla kaur)
21 February 2018: DRN opened with no participation from Mar4d or Dilpa kaur
24 February 2018: Extensive edits made by NadirAli
24 February 2018: Reinstated by Mar4d
24 February 2018: Reinstated again by Mar4d
1 March 2018: DRN failed, partly because the article was editing during the dispute

It is also worth pointing out that at the time when Mar4d claims AFAIK, there is a section on talk where modifications to this entire section are under discussion, the concerned talk page section was empty [180]. (Why there should have been an empty talk page section is another issue, but let us ignore that.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samee

The report is frivolous with no tangible evidence for anything actionable against a single user. I do not expect good faith from MBlaze Lightning pro tem for their multiple pointless warnings over a single incident of routine patrolling. Ironically, they’re taking a wikibreak to attend their education [per their user page] and don’t have enough time yet they find it at ease to file such reports. Perhaps WP:NOTHERE and in retaliation to MapSGV t-ban. samee ^talk 05:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AshLin

Support. Its been years since I have had any interaction with User:Mar4d. I recently returned to editing WP and came across Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Research_and_Analysis_Wing_activities_in_Pakistan. Here I saw him up to his old tricks once again. He attempted to discredit all dissenting voices as can be seen in this diff. After my own vote which was succint, he tried to paint my vote as meaningless for not being verbose via this diff. Mar4d has a long history of edit warring and wikilawyering. He has been blocked 5 times to date. From above it appears that he has got into contentious disputes over seven articles this year alone. He routinely attacks or undermines the editors and their posts in the debate. This is not the one-time behaviour of an editor who gets swept into a dispute through misplaced emotion. This is the behaviour of a serial offender, who intends to get away with whatever he can. This behaviour of his is most commonly seen in the field of India and Pakistan articles. Hence I support a discretionary sanction to topic ban him from India-Pakistan articles. AshLin (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Edit warring against consensus or edit warring when your edits are obviously not going to receive any support is also disruptive and Mar4d had been doing that on Rape in India, by showing clear failure to realize that the problems that had been already told to him during reverts and further discussion.

I have to disagree with above comments by Winged Blades of Godric, because seeking protection for your non-consensus version after edit warring yourself for it is called disruptive editing. Mar4d also violated page restrictions with his 2 reverts[181][182] by restoring the controversial version that had no consensus.

Mar4d's conduct as detailed by Capitals00 and AshLin above on an on going AfD is also problematic. He has created a toxic environment on this AfD by assuming bad faith towards other editors. He is still not getting per this comment on AfD that he is attacking other editors.

@Dennis Brown: Evidently Mar4d was uncivil since his first comment on Talk:Siachen conflict [183] and MapSGV was still committed to "focus on content"[184], but Mar4d continued making personal attacks,[185] along with pushing personal opinion over WP:RS. He was attacking multiple other editors[186][187], but MapSGV was supporting what WP:RS say and unlike Mar4d he didn't engaged in original research. Evidence shows that Mar4d was a bigger problem not only for talk page but also for the main article.

@Dennis Brown: Mar4d also avoids participating in DRN, and it is evidenced by above diffs regarding the incidents that took place in relation to Kashmir conflict, where Mar4d was a party of dispute resolution that spanned its duration from 14 February to 1 March,[188] it was expected that Mar4d would respond there and help resolving the content dispute. It seems that Mar4d was not interested in resolving content dispute but rather keeping his preferred version, which is also apparent with his edit warring against consensus and seeking protection[189] very soon after making the revert.[190]

The diffs provided above concerning India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)[191], shows source misrepresentation from Mar4d and further establishes that Mar4d cannot be trusted with these controversial and sensitive subjects.

There are more issues with Mar4d than what has been highlighted here. Mar4d is Wikihounding edits of Störm by disrupting every of his AfD nominations even when most of those AfDs ends up against Mar4d's vote![192][193][194][195][196][197], Störm had already asked Mar4d before to stop this[198] but Mar4d is not willing to.

Also after reading these personal attacks from NadirAli[199], TripWire[200], Samee[201], I find it obvious that you can't justify the actions of Mar4d. You can only make personal attacks and false accusations against others in order to defend him.

How many times Mar4d has been already blocked for his disruption? No one has time to have a watch over him, just to find out how much trouble he is creating. When Mar4d was blocked indefinitely from November 2015 to July 2016, the environment was much better but since he has returned we are only having more problems.

Given the evidence here, as well as Mar4d's outright rejection of any misconduct and further misrepresentation despite being the root of many problems. When more better editors like Darkness Shines get topic banned indefinitely from this same noticeboard,[202] I am really seeing no reason why Mar4d should not be sanctioned for his long term problems. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: RegentsPark is WP:INVOLVED and appears have to have been canvassed to this report by Mar4d himself.[203] RegentsPark has been involved with Mar4d as an editor for a long time by participating in same content disputes.[204][205][206] In one of the above incident cited as evidence of misconduct of Mar4d, RegentsPark was also involved in content dispute.[207] I think his comments should be moved due to his close involvement. I am amazed that he is marginalizing the widespread issues into content dispute of a single article where he was canvassed by Mar4d, who posted a non-neutral and disparaging message on his talk page attacking other editors.[208] D4iNa4 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 1990'sguy

Mar4d has been badgering votes on the AfD where I participated,[209] and he is belittling the editors who are actually making policy-based argument unlike him.[210][211] There seems to be a long pattern of edit warring and disruptive editing, even his block log speaks about it and it also includes a block for long term sock puppetry that Mar4d carried out for almost 7 years.[212] I think any editor would be very cautious after incidents like that, but Mar4d has shown a lack of improvement and like Kautilya3 noted above, Mar4d has been more problematic than what he was before. His responses above further confirms my assessment, and I recommend a topic ban on Mar4d. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by code16

I was involved on the Siachin dispute briefly. He was arguing a point based on the relevance of sources presented by the other side, and I supported him on that. I did not see anything worth topic-banning Mar4D over. Code16 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ma'az

Mar4d is a productive editor and his conduct is satisfactory and cooperative. Regrettably, some editors have possibly reported this for their own interests. Differences exist but they can be resolved with sincerity and respect for each other. If anything needs to be done here, it's to end what is quite obvious. Mar4d is one of Wikipedia's most productive editors (ranked 800th on edit counts). If any unilateral action is taken against him, it would be certainly against the principles of equality and justice. M A A Z T A L K 16:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mar4d

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

Both in this case and in the one concerning Willard84 above, it appears to me that we have several areas of problematic editing that are probably best addressed with topic bans for a number of editors. However, in both cases the report mixes genuine potentially problematic conduct such as edit-warring and personal attacks with what seem to be mere content disputes, which means that we don't have a clear-cut case. Moreover, a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. I don't currently have time for this. As such, I can't currently propose any specific action, which is not to say that action is not necessary. Sandstein 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admin my blocked friend mapSVG told me edit on his behalf to let all admin know that mard and his friends are isi spy working for pak agencies to spread propaganda against India please unblock mapsvg and block all pak editors on this page. Thanks advance. KarunArjun (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Hello there, KarunArjun. Whatever that comment may or may not say about any other editors, it tells me that you are here for no good. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC). Also, as long as I'm here, I might as well inquire of @Peoplescolony: whose sock are you, please? Bishonen | talk 18:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
{{checkuser needed}}. Blocked User:PAKHIGHWAY looks interesting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- KarunArjun is Confirmed to Saltpot99 and Rayanakho/Hranday8. This is Nangparbat.
- Peoplescolony is LanguageXpert. This edit restores a version from 2013 that was curated by PPPPMLN/Maria0333. The CU log shows LanguageXpert using the same range within the last six months.
- PAKHIGHWAY looks like Mfarazbaig and/or another account from the Liborbital SPI that uses an ISP in a country from a different part of the world than one would expect. They edited articles that were created by Bk2006 and Faizan which may be more than a coincidence. Previous PAKHIGHWAY SPI case.
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I blocked and tagged Peoplescolony. Almost collapsed this SPI like section, but it may be related to the merits, so didn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read all the available information, but from what I have, MapSGV is a bigger problem than Mar4d as far as talk page behavior. The core of this is a content dispute which needs to go to WP:DRN. Probably the most effective thing an admin could do is full protect the article and force everyone to DRN, an option I won't rule out. It is either that or a handful of sanctions. I strongly suggest the interested parties simply take this to DRN now before someone else gets ham-fisted with the tools. As usual in this topic area, there are no saints. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It still needs to go to DRN. I don't think any admin is going to pour over all the available sources to make a decision on sanctions when there isn't a clear consensus or decision on a complicated issue. If you can show that you tried to go to DRN and he refused to participate, or you had an RFC it it went against his version, then we have something to base a decision on. Otherwise, you are asking us to get involved in a content dispute. As for civility, everyone there is a bit uncivil but nothing so extreme I would take action. These are heated topics, a bit of minor push and shove is expected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- MBlaze Lightning, do you have links to the DRNs he refused to participate in, including the invite on his talk page? If he has been refusing to participate in DRN and still warring over content, that would be enough for me to consider a topic ban for bad faith editing. That doesn't rule anyone else out, but that is a bright line from my perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to make any sense of what's going on here (to my untutored eye, the who won the Siachen conflict imbroglio borders on the ridiculous) and I'm tempted to agree with Uanfala and just topic ban everyone. But that's not really practical. Either topic bans for several, though not all - editors, perhaps leaving Kautilya3 and Mar4d to argue it out, or DRN as per Dennis seems to be the way to go. --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only workable solution (I think) is that we have two editors discussing content with a mediator overseeing the discussion. No mediator will be able to follow the discussion if all the editors involved are allowed to comment. --regentspark (comment) 15:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@D4iNa4: I don't see myself as involved (I've probably overlapped with most of the editors in this mess and it would be odd anyway considering that the DS in the areas here have been imposed by me). But, of course, if other admins think I am then I will withdraw my comments. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle

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 Born2cycle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Born2cycle (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/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Born2cycle_warned

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

Special:Permalink/829071352#Closers:_Determining_CONSENSUS_rather_than_"consensus" Permalink to WT:RM, where he continued to bludgeon the discussion, not appreciate that others could have different views on policy than him that were legitimate.
Permalink to discussion on my talk page as of 6 March 2018 acceptable challenging of a close of a controversial move, but quickly became a back and forth, and led to the eventual conversations elsewhere, including for background.
Special:Permalink/829095159#Criteria_for_determining_whether_someone_is_"commonly_called_X"_for_WP:NATURALDIS Permalink to WT:DAB discussion as of 6 March 2018: shows continued forum shopping and trying to move a specific close he didn't like to a policy discussion.
2 March 2018 at WT:RM We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one: shows inability to understand the consensus based process of RMs and that people can have legitimate differences of opinion on naming policy and guidelines.
6 March 2018 at WT:DAB: Stop trying to rationalize around this. again, failure to under
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#Born2cycle: previous discussion at ANI around the behavior in this RM

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): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Born2cycle_warned

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For full disclosure, I am one of three editors who closed the requested move at Sarah Jane Brown. I'm filing this AE request not because of criticism of me or because of B2C's views that we got the close wrong, but because he has refused to drop the stick and has now engaged in conversations on three pages (my talk, WT:RM, and WT:DAB) about the correct understanding of policy, has insisd that everyone who doesn't understand it like he does is wrong, and is now attempting to change policy (or clarify) policy based on the

outcome of an RM that he didn't like. He has gone from pages with successively less page views and visibility as he has continued to fight the outcome of this move and argue over the policy surrounding it (my talk is more active than WT:RM and is where you'd expect people to come to see discussion over an RM close and he has basically been shut down at WT:RM, so he shifts the conversation further to WT:DAB, which is even less visible). Through this process, he has consistent shown the very attitude that the committee warned him about years ago: he is unable to see why people might view the article naming policies and guidelines different than him. An ANI was opened which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#Born2cycle, which discussed his behavior at the specific RM and in general to RMs.

As a procedural matter, the DS are only authorized around policy discussions, which while this was triggered by a specific RM, B2C has tried to shift it into a larger policy discussion around natural disambiguations on multiple forums, and this has become disruptive. Additionally, as he was warned as a party in that case years ago, his general behavior in this process that matches that should be subject to enforcement of the warning.

I'm not sure what the best outcome is here: the DS apply to article title policy discussions, and I think a full topic ban there might be beneficial, or if a more tailored restriction might be better. Obviously not asking for blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Born2cycle

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 Born2cycle

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Born2cycle

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 761: / Line 761: @@
 *:Actually, the only workable solution (I think) is that we have two editors discussing content with a mediator overseeing the discussion. No mediator will be able to follow the discussion if all the editors involved are allowed to comment. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 15:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 *::{{ping|D4iNa4}} I don't see myself as involved (I've probably overlapped with most of the editors in this mess and it would be odd anyway considering that the DS in the areas here have been imposed by me). But, of course, if other admins think I am then I will withdraw my comments. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
+==Born2cycle==
+<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>
+===Request concerning Born2cycle===
+; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|TonyBallioni}} 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
+; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Born2cycle}}<p>{{ds/log|Born2cycle}}
+;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Born2cycle_warned]]
+; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
+#[[Special:Permalink/829071352#Closers:_Determining_CONSENSUS_rather_than_"consensus"]] Permalink to WT:RM, where he continued to bludgeon the discussion, not appreciate that others could have different views on policy than him that were legitimate.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&oldid=829035545#Sarah_Jane_Brown Permalink to discussion on my talk page as of 6 March 2018] acceptable challenging of a close of a controversial move, but quickly became a back and forth, and led to the eventual conversations elsewhere, including for background.
+#[[Special:Permalink/829095159#Criteria_for_determining_whether_someone_is_"commonly_called_X"_for_WP:NATURALDIS]] Permalink to WT:DAB discussion as of 6 March 2018: shows continued forum shopping and trying to move a specific close he didn't like to a policy discussion.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequested_moves&type=revision&diff=828500038&oldid=828499328 2 March 2018 at WT:RM] {{tq|We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one}}: shows inability to understand the consensus based process of RMs and that people can have legitimate differences of opinion on naming policy and guidelines.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation&diff=prev&oldid=829093299 6 March 2018 at WT:DAB]: {{tq|Stop trying to rationalize around this.}} again, failure to under
+#[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#Born2cycle]]: previous discussion at ANI around the behavior in this RM
+; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
+;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Born2cycle_warned]]
+*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
+; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
+For full disclosure, I am one of three editors who closed the requested move at [[Sarah Jane Brown]]. I'm filing this AE request not because of criticism of me or because of B2C's views that we got the close wrong, but because he has refused to drop the stick and has now engaged in conversations on three pages (my talk, [[WT:RM]], and [[WT:DAB]]) about the correct understanding of policy, has insisd that everyone who doesn't understand it like he does is wrong, and is now attempting to change policy (or clarify) policy based on the
+outcome of an RM that he didn't like. He has gone from pages with successively less page views and visibility as he has continued to fight the outcome of this move and argue over the policy surrounding it (my talk is more active than WT:RM and is where you'd expect people to come to see discussion over an RM close and he has basically been shut down at WT:RM, so he shifts the conversation further to WT:DAB, which is even less visible). Through this process, he has consistent shown the very attitude that the committee warned him about years ago: he is unable to see why people might view the article naming policies and guidelines different than him. An ANI was opened which can be found at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#Born2cycle]], which discussed his behavior at the specific RM and in general to RMs.{{pb}}As a procedural matter, the DS are only authorized around policy discussions, which while this was triggered by a specific RM, B2C has tried to shift it into a larger policy discussion around natural disambiguations on multiple forums, and this has become disruptive. Additionally, as he was warned as a party in that case years ago, his general behavior in this process that matches that should be subject to enforcement of the warning.{{pb}}I'm not sure what the best outcome is here: the DS apply to article title policy discussions, and I think a full topic ban there might be beneficial, or if a more tailored restriction might be better. Obviously not asking for blocks. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
+; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
+<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
+<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+===Discussion concerning Born2cycle===
+<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
+====Statement by Born2cycle====
+====Statement by (username)====
+<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+===Result concerning Born2cycle===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
+*

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