Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:02, 2 November 2022

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Bookku

Topic banned indefinitely from the intersection of Pakistan and Feminism, appealable after six months--RegentsPark (comment) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Bookku

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bookku (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 or whichever applies

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

Repeatedly blamed me for victim blaming in discussions despite my clarifications (1, 2)
Told by User:Thinker78 about WP:BLPPUBLIC but still held a vague RfC blaming me for non-cooperation (3, 4)
Editors commented in the RfC about suspects to be WP:PUBLICFIGURE but still not accepting it (5)
Told about difference between WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:NBIO but still bent on otherwise (6, 7)
Bludgeoning the process users told him to be concise but continues to create walls of texts making difficult for editors to have a say (8, 9)
Calls himself a South Asian gender studies student but his editing mostly centred around pushing POV against one country and sometimes one community (10, 11)
Accepted his POV in the topic area (12)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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 (diff, diff)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have previously worked with User:Bookku over Feminism related articles and was ready to discuss the additions to 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and expected him to assume good faith on my behalf but he made it quite a dispute. Since the start of discussion he continuously blamed me for victim blaming even though I clarified multiple times that I do not deny the happening of incident but there are other things that needs a inclusion for balancing the article and neutrality. He was not ready to accept the inclusion based on WP:BLPPUBLIC and making WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based arguments. He was also not ready to accept the other editor view who came on his notice to some project but held a vague RfC (as called by editors there) where most editors opined the suspects to be Public Figures for the purpose. He still did not accep their views and wilfully brings WP:NBIO to be criteria to include someone's name in the article which is criteria for a person to have separate article and was told about it. Bludgeoning the discussion by bringing irrelevant things to the discussion and creating walls of texts for which a couple of editors requested him to be concise but seems like he always does this as evident from his talkpage discussions. Although he calls himself South Asian gender studies student but his editing is mostly centred around pushing POV against a specific country and sometimes a community. He is even warned for shenanigans for an undue addition and singling out a specific country by User:TrangaBellam. He accepted his POV in his editing in the subject area contrary to Wikipedia is Not Advocacy and WP:NOTFORUM for which he was previously told as well. One more thing which is though a couple of years back happening but since we both were directly involved in a redirect discussion where I was called supporter of Pakistani deep state, promoting Armed Forces' narrative, wisher of soft censors by him.

In conclusion his behaviour seems like just lingering on the matter in an attempt to exhaust contributing editors by doing argument for the sake of argument, refusal to accept the other views and hell bent on resisting these changes and inability to understand the situation to follow policies and guidelines. USaamo ^(t@lk) 14:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon thanks for your mediation offer, you have my full cooperation. Appologies that my response got longer in last discussion but before that I tried to be as concise as possible. He kept on making long replies for which I reluctantly have to reply but still he said to me that I'm not co-operating and his concerns remain unaddressed. In last thread I just combined my responses from above in a single post as I was not in a mood to reply again and again. USaamo ^(t@lk) 10:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Deepfriedokra since @User:Johnuniq himself saying that sources does say it, on Wikipedia content needs to be sourced. I believe its inclusion for reasons I explained here esp 2nd and 3rd point. In brief Police found the said audiotape from victim's associate phone as call recording which is quite likely. The same guy later turned to be the main accused as charged by her. Also audiotapes are not denied by any party and are admitted fact in proceedings since victim charged her associate on its basis and accused himself accepted the tapes reiterating it in his statement that victim wanted to extort money and I disagreed with her so she charged me.
Anyway AE is not a place to discuss content disagreements for which I've expressed my full cooperation to RM. But other than this dispute there are POV issues with Booku's editing as well which need some kind of action. For not accepting an RfC outcome I was partially topic banned from here two years back which I accept I was wrong and happened because of my inexperienced approach but I have no agenda of any sort. I would also like to mention observations of an experienced editor User:Fowler&fowler from an AN3 thread who worked alot for NPOV in ARBIPA area for a general reference. (13, 14, 15) USaamo ^(t@lk) 11:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel I have abided by my topic ban from articles of wars between India-Pakistan and I haven't even appealed it after two years for which I was eligible after 6 months because I don't want to edit in that area.(16) I edited The Kashmir Files once only thinking it to be a film article and had no further intention of editing it but when I was told by User:EdJohnston that the said page also cover my topic ban, I duly abided by it. You bringing that here seems to settle the left over scores against me like always. While you yourself have been the editor mostly up on nationalistic lines as noted by editors (17, 18) and your recent undue addition of similar pattern to 2022 Pakistan floods reverted by me and subsequent edit warring by relatively new accounts to add it reverted by other editors. (19, 20)
@User:Dennis Brown the said talk page has three discussions opened by Bookku and I remained as concise as possible in first two discussions but he kept on making long comments for which I reluctantly have to reply, still he said to me that I'm not co-operating and his concerns remain unaddressed. My response only got longer in last thread where I just combined my responses from above discussions in a single post as I was exhausted after seeing another long discussion by him. USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, My body my choice and Mera Jism Meri Marzi was another case of WP:UNDUE from you since MJMM was an Urdu slogan with no history or usage outside Pakistan while Mbmc had a global usage where that was best suited. I explained that on talkpage before removal. And that redirect discussion was not a humorous essay but a serious discussion and there was no joke happening there. USaamo ^(t@lk) 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inline with TarangaBellam's observation about Bookku's drafts; he started Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai which was rejected at AFC and then he started RfC to determine the topic's notability against due process and as in his responses here too he stressed on RfCs to be the only way out(quite ironic of him since he's not accepting the RfC outcome in the ongoing dispute). I was not much opposed to the said draft but he wanted me to do it without discriminating between Pakistan India sources as South Asians only in discussion. In his article My body, my choice too he mentioned India Pakistan just as South Asia while mentioning all other countries with name. Well both Pakistan India comes in South Asia but they have distinct identities which comes first. Wikipedia policies and nationalities can't be simply ignored because he likes it this way.(21) USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Bookku

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 Bookku

Requesting goodfaith. Pardon me for minor hiccups, spare for bad faith attacks on my talk page some of which I might not have replied. Over all I have been following WP policies to best of my understanding.
My re to TB. (1)
Previously covered a bio regarding Public spaces. Non–military mass sexual assault (Indian incidence draft pending for very old ref books) caught my editorial attention months before Pakistan incidence (2). Noted other global incidences @ Talk:M.S.A for later expansion.
Few other examples of my editorial neutrality: ( 3, 4, 5)
See time stamps of My body, my choice was started before USaamo's Mera Jism Meri Marzi. Mb,mc is global in nature not targeting Pakistan only. @ MJMM I added Indian feminist issues and USaamo and other Pakistani users removed reserving the article for Pakistan. Can provide many more editorial neutrality examples on request.
Dif cited by USaamo (6) itself is proof I am not personalizing but the case may be otherwise (7), In another cited case ( 8) I was in light-hearted passed comment with smiley at beginning to bring a point home (then didn't know One has to specifically note humor as humor, I request pardon for.) but that too did not intend to name/ target USaamo in any way. (I have other humor related drafts too.)

Assuring you all, I am very much here to build encyclopedia constructively. Pl. let me know any other/ more clarification needed. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra First para in my user page is already clear, I can work in whatever area of cosmos available. While I put my agencies to utilization but I am not sure the description '..seeking to right great wrongs ..' fits me well in spite of POVs, since I don't believe WP is last resort.
I do have a long list of examples of my well sourced relevant and even very neutral content being deleted or declined and I have not made even any RfCs for most of them. This time too if it would not have been serious BLP violation (agreed of being BLP violation at least 4 users by now) I would not have taken to this length. In spite BLP rules would have allowed me to delete directly or create RfC for direct deletion I am going to great length to seek mediation and best possible accommodation.
You are admins, your decisions I would surely respect and accept. The concern is this time itself a user selectively clubbed multiple bad faith attacks and came here asking for admonishment of mine. You admonish me next time some one like them will have more authentic admonishment to add in their list and corner me. WP political realms can do very well without my contributions. How many nonBLP consistent contributors WP has on women's rights front?
Even if some content is believed to be WP:Undue why it can not go through content dispute resolution mechanism at respective talk pages and needs to be personalized and brought to this forum in this fashion is not entirely clear to me.
Your admonishments are not an issue, the users keep finding it easy unquestioned route to personalise issues in stead of preferring talk page resolutions of content disputes, concerns me more.
You all are experienced admins you must have gone through all such discussions earlier too, it is all for you to decide. I will respect and accept whatever you decide. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Deepfriedokra I read through Aman.kumar.goel. For some one like me academically sourced edits like this ( 9) giving all sides can be example of ideal neutrality. But when narrative of every side gets affected, people tend to trade some strange adverse charges. Why all those content disputes can't go through RfCs ? rather than clubbing all strange misrepresentations and corner or oust uncomfortable neutral user.
- Why don't we have a condition every one bringing up charges over here prove neutrality of respective strangely charging users first. I know that inconvenient won't happen here.
- Is not that usual Wiki gaming. I understand admins too have to grow and live through same environment and systems. And I would understand whatever your decision you take. As of now I bow out. Many thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C, The whole thing is simple content disputes and 'we don't like it' so 'we will take ARE shortcut' attitude of some users. If you do not agree with me I will take 72 hours break on my own. This is primarily case of a BLP policy violation in plain sight. Other 4 users seem to classify it as BLP policy violation 1a, 1b, 2 (This user says ".. still fails BLP on other grounds .."). If proper BLP protocol would have been followed, I would not have needed to write a single sentence. See time stamp @ Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard I said ".. It is close call. .. I am seeking guidance in writing briefly and systematically the way it happens in DRN ..".

Bookku (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also while I am very much following protocol mentioned WP:DDE guideline the accusing side seem to miserably fail the protocol mentioned in the guideline. Bookku (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply with details 2

Statement by Bookku (2)

This is additional subsection for ease of navigation and reading.

^[Humor] In Textbook case things seem going on lines, where mob ready to WP:BLUDGEON even a dead horse alleging WP:BLUDGEON. Group of triggered pupils in the school pressuring their hall monitors to clip the wings of fellow student alleging the student has flaws in completion of assignments (he simply writes what we don't like!) hence that student's behaviour ought to be considered bad and punished for. Every one would not understand such parallel or may not like it they might call names bully more, that is fate of that student. They can also take this opportunity to say that this user even does not understand Wikipedia is not forum or standup comedy stage and trail show must reach to it's decided **logical end. :) End of humor note.
If this ARE is the ultimate forum for content decisions then why not officially acknowledge that. And when big pile of charges is being brought by multiple users against a single one that single one need to get reasonable time to provide response at least for mental satisfaction.

Following is more for my own mental satisfaction and record.

I have already submitted whatever closing admins action would be I shall co operate constructively.
At times whether to respond back or not is quite catch-22. On one hand lectures being handed over to me being asked to be concise, to their long list now even funny charges being added, idk, intends to just mock me or subvert the system. Now usual content deletions of my sourced contributions like at even Non-vegetarian are being cited as great examples of my bad personal record. I am confused Idk whether to laugh or cry.
Here roughly 9 months before TB wrote to me ".. Love in Pakistan and Urdu Feminist Literature are fascinating (and valid) topics - if you need resources, give a ping. I will take up the article on forced conversion. .." But as soon as women's issues are covered at Public spaces their patriarchal structure and power on Wikipedia feels threatened.
Take google.com, books.google.com, scholar.google.com search for "Public spaces" "women" and various countries names including Pakistan, for many countries including Pakistan entire WP articles can be written and substantial part can be criticism, Let global women know why a sections dedicated to women issues in public spaces can not be there in Public spaces article and all women related issues are to be compulsively restricted to special for women articles. Why public spaces article can not be opened. Was there any restriction to begin with Pakistan and later adding others? Some one already covering those sources will naturally cover that. Show me existing article talk page RfC consensus against. Is that affecting male power structures on Wikipedia that I am being mansplained and dislodged. For that they bring me to ARE with repeating fake bad faith attacks of proven long duration sock accounts? (More details on request or visit later User:Bookku/ARE for updates)
One likes or not likes or not, as of this day 1969 Rabindra Sarobar Stadium en masse sexual violence controversy is first known on record non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy with multiple reliable sources for notability. Idk why any one should be afraid that to be covered.
Examples after examples (17) like this one show my best possible editorial neutrality. With all humility I submit, if any one feels my content is not perfect then should have been discussed on article talk pages without resorting to personalization tactics.

I would request discussion closing admin to let me know if they want any specific content related clarifications from me for the baseless pile of them submitted by USaamo AKG and TB. Any detail logical scrutiny will prove most of that to be just frivolous much of it making mountains out of molehills intending to smear and hound for their own POVs being hurt in some way. As such I shall update my detail submission with detail study at User:Bookku/ARE as time permits me.
Last but not least, in any case, let me wish best luck to ongoing hounding and synchronized symphonies for times to come. I repeat I have already submitted whatever closing admins action would be I shall co operate constructively.

Bookku (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Own sign is updated with fresh to avoid bloating

Reply with details 3

Statement by Bookku (3)

The latest reply of T.B. 18 shows continuation of unnecessary diatribe proves their WP:IDONTLIKETHEM strategy, to respond or not is quite catch 22 to me. If I don't respond they shall continue take ARE forum and Admin confidence for granted, continue bypassing regular content dispute mechanism by making blatant misrepresentations here, not only for me but multitude of other users in times to come. If I respond admins will need to enter in detail content analysis and end up saying detail content analysis is not my job at this forum. This way TB and company seems to be manipulating and misusing ARE in plain sight.
Any ways topic is raised I address as brief as possible. If you do not want to take google search yourself, Ask @ WP:Reference desk/Humanities if they can find any other notable 'non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy' before the Calcutta controversy. The day you find one, ignore my words and update the article Mass sexual assault for the same, I will be first to thank any one for any such efforts. If not then one ought to examine Calcutta controversy thoroughly and not just by selective reading. An autobiography or authorized biographies written by any one how those can be last word in themselves. How do you ignore what other reliable sources are saying just like that. The controversy had been covered by multiple reputable Indian print media and analysts. The quote TB is giving weight to, itself says, ".. and catcalls soon turned to more physical expressions and .. . Women too were allegedly molested.". Jyoti Basu's biography does not ignore controversy but includes it and you want to censor it?

Words 'alleged' and 'controversy' means this really happened as claimed or not we don't know. We Wikipedians can not sit on judgement, if reliable media and sources are covering it it has to be on Wikipedia. You are not supposed to sensor. Would you not consider what women parliamentarians said ?
".. On 14th April 1969 members of Lok Sabha debated various incidences and situation in West Bengal. In respect to Rabindra Sarobar stadium incidence Congress leaders namely Sucheta Kripalani, Sharda Mukherji and A. K. Sen, former Law Minister, criticized unconstrained hooliganism at the Rabindra Sarobar stadium in which many women were molested and subjected to every forms of humiliation. .."
".. The issue came again in Lok Sabha on 10 th December 1970 Ila Pal Chaudhari asked who was author of the Rabindra Sarovar incident? Jyotirmoy Basu said a High court judge has given lie to that. Ila Pal Choudhury responded back saying it is it is a heart-rending; women came to her crying; they showed their clothes which had been torn. Pal Chaudhari says, in reality, commission of inquiry headed by the High Court judge turned out to be a farce since it was not allowed to function freely, because witnesses and the lawyers including including Pal Chaudhari's own counsel were intimidated with grave threats as none will be left alive in their family if any one gives evidence. .." ~ Ila Pal Choudhury * Lok Sabha is India's parliament and person with similar name 'Jyotirmoy Basu' is parliamentarian of Jyoti Basu's party. You don't know Jyoti Basu was not chief minister but just home minister then. His then Chief Minister Atulya Ghosh himself publicly protested against own ministers and later resigned.
At least one contemporary leftist Calcutta newspaper too criticized incidence. Another leftist investigative journalist from another Indian state traveled to Calcutta plays down with words rapes not likely to have happened but agrees incidence of molestation likely to have taken place. Then other news papers including Indian Express with then reputable editor Frank Moraes, Reputable Bengali Journalist Barun Sengupta and at least one research paper of North Bengal university discusses the controversy. You are free to deny what you did not see yourself, how you can deny notability of controversy widely covered in contemporary media and books?

Do you want all those paragraphs and references at this forum itself or you will sincerely address the topic looking for old references including those you don't like and discussing at appropriate talk pages first.

It is whose mistake I had to type wall of text here itself. Will you blame me for providing logical credible presentation too?

I am not used to personalizing content disagreements in this way, though I do have more proofs against such questionable maneuvers. "I repeat, manipulation and misuse of this forum to oust unwanted content and contributors is quite frustrating. Problem is not me getting unfairly punished likelihood of other genuine users too may keep suffering concerns me much more." (Please read again 10000 times.)

Bookku (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TB

Will make a statement in support of a logged warning. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Booku is essentially trying to right great wrongs - that is what I perceived of his rambling reply to RegentsPark's AC/DS alert, prodded by me. Such a political stance is not condemnable —much less, blockable— in itself and is the raison d'être of acclaimed Wiki-projects like Women In Red etc.

However, as the mindboggling edits on Public Space (diff-ed by Johnuniq), Drowning (link), and Tourism in Pakistan (link) show, Booku either does not understand our core content policies concerning DUEness of content or chooses to flout them intentionally. Besides, there are inane article creations like Superstitions in Sikh societies (check history) filled with dubious sources and dubious content derived from illogical synthesis. To compound things, their walls of text are mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand, makes for painful reading, and only serves to digress.

All in all, I think a good case is made for an indefinite TBan, at least from all topics connected to Pakistan, and women. Alongside a logged warning that any further shenanigan will extend the Topic Ban to include India. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, thanks for the query. I meant the latter option (union); not certain that my choice of punctuation was appropriate. The intersection won't work - see RegentsPark's evidence of strange drafts lying in his user-space.

I express my firm disagreement to Deepfriedokra's and Dennis Brown's idea of a time-limited TBan. This is not some garden-variety case of edit-warring to necessitate a cooling-off penalty! As RegentsPark — one of the few administrators who patrols S. Asian topics — notes, there is a borderline CIR issue at play and it is irrational to expect the problems to go away in a span of few months! Booku has been here for years and he has been made aware of these issue by multiple editors (see evidence by AKG). My proposed scope of topic ban is quite narrow and if Booku can edit competently in other areas, I won't oppose an appeal as and when it is filed. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Came across Booku's edits at Non-vegetarian and yet again, a fundamental disregard for NPOV, DUE etc. Much of those additions have been removed by others. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add another (the last; please bear with me) evidence and expand in some detail, which exemplifies everything that is problematic with Booku's editing. Over the course of a few many edits, Booku added the following paragraph in wikivoice to Rabindra Sarobar Stadium:

Analysis

In the first quarter of 1968 at the Rabindra Sarobar Stadium, a scheduled musical night of large gathering, called 'Ashok Kumar Nite', failed to take place due to faulty amplifiers; mob went unruly, women attending the gathering were molested and sexually abused en masse. [...]

Now, what do the (three) cited sources say?

The first source is the (unofficial) mouthpiece of the political party, which governed the state during the incident. I won't rely on it for anything and even then, it contains a single (indirect) reference:

There is still an enquiry in progress on certain reported incidents in Rabindra Sarobar stadium in July when there was to be held what was called Ashok Kumar "nite", in aid of the reputed Bombay actor. Brassieres were alleged to be all over the place, as the whole show broke up in chaos.

The second source is a contemporary speech by Hem Barua, a legislator from an opposition party, belonging to another state (Assam). He taunts the Government of West Bengal to launch an enquiry on the incident, albeit to deflect from a discussion that centered on another issue (firing on workers who striked):

If you are so enthusiastic about holding inquiries [on the firing], why don't you hold an inquiry into the incident that happened in Rabindra Sarobar Stadium where women were made naked, women had to return home in a state of nakedness? Then what happened, Sir? After this discovery, a large quantity of torn sarees and torn brassiers were found there on the spot. The incident at the Rabindra Sarobar Stadium was a ghastly incident and I want to say that, instead of holding a parallel inquiry into the Cossipore firing incident, the State Government, if it is so enthusiastic about holding an inquiry, can hold an inquiry into the incident at the Rabindra Sarobar Stadium where women were humiliated and insulted. Even today I hear - this is my report; I do not know how far this is correct - that 30 women are missing because of this incident. Whatever that my be, that was a ghastly scene or a ghastly spectacle and I say that an inquiry should be held into it.

It shall be obvious to not rely on partisan political tirades, though they might be true.

Now comes the relatively-decent third source - a biography (albeit, official) of the-then Deputy Chief Minister by an academic:

The first major problem he had to deal with occurred in April 1969 and threatened to tarnish the reputation of his ministry. A musical soirée, Ashok Kumar Night, at Rabindra Sarobar stadium tumed ugly. The immediate cause of the audience's restiveness was faulty amplifiers. Boos and catcalls soon turned to more physical expressions and an angry audience started to throw chairs at the stage. Women too were allegedly molested.
The police, who were attacked with grenades, crackers and other missiles, were compelled to open fire and fifty people were injured. The media played up the incident and reported several deaths, claiming that corpses had been fished out of the adjoining lake. Maverick politician Raj Narain, ever willing to fish in troubled waters, issued an official statement saying that the police found two truckloads of women's undergarments. [compare with Hem Barua's speech.]
At the time, Basu was in New Delhi where a deputation of women belonging to the Jana Sangh came to meet him to protest against the incident. In reality, the audience had turned unruly and had completely ignored the police orders to stay calm. The police action was the only way to restore order. The United Front government ordered a judicial enquiry into the incident. By now the Congress Party, aided by the Centre, as well as some members of the ruling front itself, had begun efforts to dislodge the United Front government. Accusations of the misuse of government machinery were voiced and the United Front was accused of being dictatorial and non-cooperative. The Centre fanned the flames.

Do you see anything of this in the original paragraph, added by Booku despite the citation? I leave it to you to decide whether Booku is plainly incompetent or .... TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is first known on record non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy

Somebody ban this editor from anything that has to with women, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark, Deepfriedokra, Johnuniq, and Dennis Brown:: This has been stale for over a week. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I became aware of the dispute over 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and of Bookku on 11 September, when Bookku posted to the DRN talk page asking for mediation; see Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mediation_help_request_@_article_talk_page. The posts of both Bookku and USaamo are too long, didn't read in detail. Bookku was saying that they would be requesting assistance at DRN and at BLPN. I advised Bookku against forum shopping and said to file in one place. Bookku replied and said they would also need help from other pages. It appears that Bookku is running around in a panic and not helping things. Both Bookku and USaamo need to be civil and concise. I haven't researched the details of the article dispute. If there is a content dispute, I am willing to try to mediate, but will impose word limits and other restrictions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

This may be a restatement of the obvious, but if a topic ban is imposed, I will not be mediating a dispute over an area where the subject is not permitted to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel

@Deepfriedokra and Johnuniq USaamo remains topic banned from conflicts related to India and Pakistan,[1] and has violated that topic ban as recently as May 2022.[2] USaamo treated allegations as facts on this diff and wrote it in wikivoice. That was a BLP violation. On talk page, USaamo tells Bookku to "be concise in discussions as your comments are bludgeoning the process by creating walls of text and are a cause of exhaustion for editors"[3] but USaamo himself wrote walls of texts.[4][5]

Topic ban of USaamo should be extended to cover whole ARBIPA.

Bookku is not understanding about the nature of their POV pushing. He has been already warned over WP:UNDUE, NotAForum, bludgeoning in the recent months. However, the activity of Bookku on Public Space,[6] and 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault[7][8] shows he has ignored these warnings and above message confirms great chances of similar disruption.

Bookku should be topic banned as well. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from both editors, Bookku and USaamo, to my above comment reinforces my view that both of them need a topic ban to cover whole WP:ARBIPA. They simply don't see what is wrong with their own editing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bookku

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

Awaiting statement by TG. Noted Robert's statement. Hopefully, this can be resolved without AE action.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to go with a logged warning per TG, and in hopes of dispute resolution with Robert. Unless someone has a better idea. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku I'm afraid it is glaringly obvious you've brought a personal point of view and possibly an 0ff-Wiki agenda into the encyclopedia. Your latest post makes me feel that while you are capable of leaving that agenda out of your editing, you have at times chosen to include it. I'm willing to "admonish only" if it is clear you will cease and desist from the POV pushing moving forward. USaamo, it looks like your edits have been unfortunate as well. I echo what Johnuniq has said below. More concise and clear information is always useful. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: I thought you would be arguing for a warning. Now I must reëvaluate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read it all, and I support Dennis Brown's short-duration (about 1 month) TBAN proposal. The intersection of Pakistan and women/feminism seems a good starting point. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: Point taken. Will defer to my colleagues on indef vs time limited. The time limited seems a happy middle ground between a warning and an indef. @Bookku: If we go with short duration TBAN, please see it as a boon and an opportunity. If we must address this matter again, the result might be more than a indefinite duration TBAN, considering issues TG has raised. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask my colleague El C to close this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku added a section on Pakistan at Public space (diff). That was totally WP:UNDUE in that article and indicative of someone seeking to right great wrongs. However, USaamo's edit at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault (diff) with claims of "alleged audiotapes" (with a handy ^dubious tag!) in the lead is worse (yes, the sources said that but don't add "dubious" material to the lead merely to repeat gossip—how likely is it that someone has an audio recording of a conversation showing criminal intent on their phone?). I would like to see if there is further commentary that might enlighten us regarding whether something stronger than a logged warning is needed. I agree that other editors need relief from walls of text. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of points: Aman.kumar.goel, does raise some interesting questions, that this may be the pot calling the kettle black, but more importantly, I want to point out that writing one or two TLDR comments is not the same thing as WP:BLUDGEONing (itself a subset of WP:DE), as bludgeoning is a pattern of doing so, usually in the same thread or topic. From what I see, this looks like someone trying to Right Great Wrongs, and while a logged warning is ok, I guess, I get the feeling we will be back here soon enough. This is where I differ from my compatriots, and think timed tbans can be effective, as a month off a subject but with the promise of being able to return may provide incentive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to formally weigh in on this case based on past interactions with editors party to it, but I do have a clarifying question: TrangaBellam, is your intended suggestion for a TBAN of the topical intersection of Pakistan and women, or of separate TBANs for topics pertaining to Pakistan and topics pertaining to women? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support some sort of topic ban. TrangaBellam brought Bookku to my attention and a look at their contributions shows a focus, not necessarily misplaced, on womens rights issues in India and Pakistan. However, the steamroller approach demonstrated in Public space, Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault, Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Sikhism, other declined drafts, and the rambling response to my templated notice are problematic and borderline WP:CIR. Perhaps a topic ban on topics related to women? A timed one like Dennis Brown is suggesting? That might give them some space to explore other topics, get comfortable with incremental editing, and then return to the gender area which appears to be of significant interest to them?--RegentsPark (comment) 23:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. On responding to an ECP edit request, I came cross this hard-to-figure-out discussion. I'm beginning to think that we may have a CIR issue.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DFO asked me to close this, but I probably owe closure to WP:AE#Jargo Nautilus before any other report on this board. But I'll make 2 notes, a general one and one specific to this complaint.

First, the general one: my view on timed TBANs is that rarely, if ever, they're useful. Could this be that one rare exception? I suppose it's possible, but there would have to be a good reason.

My 2nd note that's specific to this complaint concerns its length. Which is to say: disregard for this board's 500-word limit rule. As it stands, USaamo and TrangaBellam each exceed it by more than double, while Bookku by over 4 times. So I don't know what to do about that at this point, as it's a bit late in the day. Still, if parties and reviewers really want fresh eyes on this, then I dunno, maybe work to collapse...? Good luck! El_C 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this with the narrowest of sanctions (Pakistan and feminism) appealable in six months. Will leave this open for a bit in case there are other views. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USaamo

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 USaamo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: USaamo (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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: "Topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan".[9]

30 September: Violates the topic ban by removing content about "sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971", the same page (Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020 for topic ban violation.[10]
6 October: Same as above.

Apart from 2 of these diffs, he has also violated his topic ban on August 2020,[11] and also on May 2022.[12] Both times he was clarified that the topic ban is broadly construed.

I hadn't reported either violation, only asked him to back off, but both times he was not understanding how he is violating the topic ban.

When he violated it last week, I reported at User talk:EdJohnston#Continued topic ban violation by USaamo, where he again failed to accept the topic ban violation. WP:IDHT again.

Few weeks ago, I already provided my comment just above at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Aman.kumar.goel that why USaamo needs a broader topic ban himself, given his long-term inability to edit in this area. These recent topic ban violations just prove it further. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic ban from "Topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan" in July 2020.[13]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): See his comments just above at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bookku

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@RegentsPark: A topic ban violation is a topic ban violation. Why a warning? This is USaamo's 4th topic ban violation since he has been topic banned. He deliberately violated the topic ban on 6th October even after being told about it. You can take a look at his response here. He is still not accepting his topic ban violation and assuming bad faith with his WP:BATTLEy response. I still recommend extending topic ban or a block for violation at minimum. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm, EdJohnston, and RegentsPark: After "highly" regretting the edit wars here, USaamo has initiated a meaningless edit war on Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault [14][15] to reduce !vote of another editor in the RfC. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: With this falsification of evidence, you are complying with a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for which you were already warned by WP:ARBCOM during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#Vice regent warned.

Contrary to your false claims, this report was filed not after "getting into content disputes" but a number of topic ban violations by USaamo because he is refusing to understand the definition of his topic ban.

The content was added by a sock months ago. Not to mention the sources are weak and even cite unreliable ones. I made many attempts to describe USaamo a few times on his talk page but he was ignoring it.[16] To claim that "Aman.kumar.goel's edits violated policy" and "Usaamo modified the article text to match the sources", is absurd because it was already made clear to USaamo that Pakistan is not a regional power and it has been already extensively discussed but he ignored all inputs and continued to edit war, just like he did on 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and is now edit warring at Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault.

This edit is not a revert, neither this edit is any BLP violation or undue.

If you seriously thought that these diffs are going to divert from USaamo's behavior then your behavior is even more concerning. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [17]

Discussion concerning USaamo

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 USaamo

A useless report and yet another attempt to drag me to AE to frustrate me out. I suggest AE should have a preliminary scrutiny for reports to be formally accepted for proceedings here. It will not only save their time but will also protect users from being dragged into baseless and frivolous reports.
AKG already filed a complaint against me with the enforcing admin EdJohnston who viewed in there that I assume this is a political issue and not military issue. [18] It should have been over for him after this clarification but he still chooses to edit war with me and went on to revert me and that too with a misleading summary.[19] I didn't want edit war so I haven't reverted him back rather alerted admin [20] and waited for a couple of days for his response and since no further response came so I assumed his previous reply to be his view and went ahead with reverting AKG which he at once reverted back and started edit warring. [21] The content I removed was totally undue POV pushing based on original research. As to whether topic ban applies to it or not, I sought clarification from admin which he actually did and I very much intend to abide by my topic ban. For previous allegations of violation, I've already replied in an above report to AKG where he showed up and my answer is still the same to that extent. [22]
His another undue addition of similar pattern to 2022 Pakistan floods was also reverted by me and subsequent edit warring by him and other relatively new accounts to add it back was also reverted by other editors. [23] [24]
I requested a warning for these shenanigans by AKG and behaviour suggesting Wikihounding me and up with a battleground mentality but now it seems like he's so desperate to get me topic banned from ARBIPA and has dragged me uselessly to here, so I ask for proper action against him for this behaviour which doesn't belong here. USaamo ^(t@lk) 17:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update (Please allow it if it gets past 500 words)
Swarm, first of all edit war is highly regretted. Although there was no 3RR violation but it shouldn't have happened anyway from my side. I straightforwardly accepted it in my unblock request as well if it was a necessary administrative action, what else do you think I would have done. Rest it happened from both sides if you see the edit histories of those articles [25] and as Seraphimblade said in above report that it takes two to make an edit war. Aman.kumar.goel is still edit warring on Pakistan article [26] to remove the sourced content that has been there for years with misleading summaries without any effort to build consensus which has been totally disregarded in this report. I reverted him because there has already been a consensus when dispute arised in 2016. Now if he wants to remove it, onus is on him to build a new consensus on article talk but instead he kept on reverting me and other users and editwarred. In one of his summary he linked a 2018 discussion from another article as overriding consensus but that actually ended with no result and went to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and there too, editors arrived at no new consensus so how is it due to use that discussion to remove sourced content.
Also it's wrong to say there was no effort to build consensus from my side. I was very much on Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault trying to explain my edits and previously too I had 14,000 words long discussions including an RfC for these edits which I mistakenly called formal consensus instead of informal consensus. But it's clearly mistaken to say that I'm trying to present the incident as ploy in Wikivoice while I have said this in talkpage discussions repeatedly that incident did happen and was unfortunate but it's the later developments after coming of audioleaks where both were discussing to use it as a ploy to extort money and it's from here that it took a turn when according to girl the one who was her saviour in the incident was charged by girl herself for blackmailing and the guy also blamed her for same. It's all pretty much sourced and I explained it all in length in previous discussions at talk but that's an edit dispute either require DRN or mediation as offered by User:Robert McClenon in a report above which I welcomed.
EdJohnston there has been no balatant or intentional topic ban violations from my side and I very much intend to abide by my topic ban and not appealing it for almost two and a half years while I was eligible after 6 months shows my resolve to stay away from topic. As to the reported violation on Two-nation theory, I did not revert after I was reverted for second time and in my responses on your talkpage while I explained my side, I kept on saying I'm seeking further clarification and same I said in earlier response in this report as well. Had there been a more explicit response by you earlier, it won't have to come here as I already ceased my editing from article even before this report.
Vanamonde93 while I did assume from EdJohnston's reply but before and after that I still sought clarification if you see my responses at his talkpage and here in this report. I earlier believed that topic of wars between India-Pakistan only include the direct wars(which is quite obvious from wording as the dispute which brought these sanctions was about 1965 war) and really didn't know that it does include all military conflicts between India-Pakistan until it was further elaborated by EdJohnston after Kashmir Files comment. As to Two Nation Theory while there is a mention of war but context was political as RegentsPark said, Hut 8.5 explained and EdJohnston assumed it was political issue. My edits on Kashmir Files and Two Nation Theory were not meant to be disruptive nor do meant intentional or balatant violation so requesting good faith. I believe it's pretty much excessive to get me sanctioned from ARBIPA or from all the pages that give any mention of war when I'm up on abiding the already enforced topic ban, maybe it's better to make its wording more elaborative. USaamo ^(t@lk) 19:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really intended no edit war from start but somehow I was dragged into it as some editors with no prior editing history at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault (but significant interaction history with OP[27]) showed up and reverted me one after one but I shouldn't have involved in edit-warring from my side which I highly regret, perhaps I should have been more patient in the process. As to the new edit-warring allegations brought up by Aman.kumar.goel on behalf of one of those editors, I only meant to improve the RfC discussion at talkpage as I filed for RfC close after editors suggested for convenience of the closer and gathered relevant responses as the discussions have been quite long and messy over there per WP:TPG. As to the moving one of comment below I wasn't sure that RfC can be restarted after template was removed month prior and the editor who started it also viewed about summing it up month ago. I even asked about it from other editor whose comment was being moved. USaamo ^(t@lk) 17:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, @Swarm:, @RegentsPark:, @Hut 8.5: I showed my resolve to abide by topic ban and regretted edit-warring from my side but still if it's necessary to sanction me and that will make Wikipedia better, fair enough. But there's an important note at the top of this AE which states:

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.

I don't understand even after highlighting the problematic behaviour of the OP from edit-warring to POV pushing, see VR's statement and report below for further illustration, there's not a single word from Admins, not even mere warning against him. Best of luck for AE's neutrality! USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I recommend not expanding this to "pages that mention an India-Pakistan war"; that's a recipe for wikilawyering, and giving opponents a chance to play Gotcha. Is there a reason to prevent Usaamo from editing Henry Kissinger? If Usaamo is skirting the edge of the ban, I recommend broadening to an Indo-Pakistani conflict TBAN, or enforcing the ban with escalating blocks. If there's confusion about the edges of a TBAN, Usaamo ought to be aware that asking is better than assuming the TBAN doesn't apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KoA, your statement is an egregious misreading of what I've written, as I have nowhere argued that the ban as it exists is unclear, only that the proposed revised scope is. Please re-read what I've written. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA

Vanamonde, I was curious to dig a little after seeing your comments, and your thoughts would directly contradict the topic ban. Here was EdJohnston's close After a discussion at the user's talk page I am proceeding with an indefinite topic ban of USaamo from all wars between India and Pakistan. This ban includes any page anywhere in Wikipedia including talk pages and noticeboards.[28]

That's not to comment on the merits of this request at all, but I am wary of DS sanctions being undermined by those claiming the DS are being weaponized, playing gotcha, etc. when the broadly construed boundaries of those sanctions were already laid out. This topic ban was pretty clear as day, and broadly construed sanctions like that are done for a reason. If someone is pushing the boundaries, that is on the topic banned person regardless of if they are being WP:HOUNDed or not. KoA (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I was quoted above (correctly) as having offered to mediate a dispute. I will only mediate any dispute between editors who are free to edit in the area in question. I will instruct the editors not to edit the article in question, but the editors must be in good standing to edit. The editor to whom I made that offer has been topic-banned, so that that offer is moot. I am again willing to try to mediate another dispute, but only if there are no topic-bans. So I was probably pinged above merely as a courtesy note. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice_regent

IMO, admins should not levy any sanctions until the behavior of all users in this dispute has been examined. There is a pattern of behavior of Aman.kumar.goel getting into content disputes and then using this board to have their opponents sanctioned. In fact, Black Kite observed this pattern earlier: "I note that the person who is edit-warring with Bringtar is the filer [Aman.kumar.goel], and I also note that the filer has brought multiple previous AE cases to try to remove their ideological opponents from the subject area". Same thing happened here. Swarm notes below Usaamo edit-warred at Pakistan; so did Aman.kumar.goel ([29][30][31]), and neither of the users made a single comment on the article's talk page while continuing to revert the other. And, at first look, Aman.kumar.goel's edits violated policy because the multiple citations([32][33]) immediately after the changed text (assuming they have been quoted correctly) actually call Pakistan a "regional power". I have no opinion on whether Pakistan is a regional power, but it seems Usaamo modified the article text to match the sources cited, while Aman Kumar Goel did the opposite.VR _talk 20:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also the behavior of CapnJackSp; it was their report of edit warring after which Swarm blocked Usaamo. In that report CapnJackSp pointed out that Usaamo reverted 4 times between 15:22 12 Oct and 11:26, 14 Oct (45 hours). Yet CapnJackSp themselves reverted 3 times[34][35][36] between 8:24 12 Oct and 7:37 14 Oct (47 hours). More recently, they added text to the lead[37] that is not just undue but also a possible BLP vio.VR _talk 23:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston can you clarify if the topic ban would ban Usaamo from editing all articles related to Pakistan, or only those at the intersection of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan? I ask because I was going through their contributions and find they've created good uncontroversial Pakistan-related content, such as Dosso case, Mera Jism Meri Marzi, Mela Loot Liya etc. Is it possible to carve something that would allow them to continue to be productive on non-controversial articles relating to Pakistan? VR _talk 05:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An example would be to restrict them to 1RR or 0RR in the ARBIPA area (since a recurring issue is edit-warring).VR _talk 01:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oriental Aristocrat

AKG's own conduct is questionable and they seem to be a serial disruptor. Let's take for example this revert they made. They call other's edit as disruptive editing without assuming good faith and make a revert that removes large chunks of long-standing text without giving any reason. I see that a WP:BOOMERANG is in offing as they clearly show a behavior of someone who's WP:NOTHERE. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fowler&fowler

I don't know anything about U Saamo, but I have just edited the lead of Two-nation theory and disabused it of its exceptionally deliberate and deep-rooted pro-India-POV, and by that I mean a pro-India slant that is nowhere to be found in the scholarly consensus. It was so deliberate and so pervasive that I was left aghast. Whatever U Saamo's antecedents maybe, removing POV from a toxic Wikipedia article should not be considered a violation of a topic ban. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning USaamo

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

@Aman.kumar.goel: I haven't looked at the earlier diffs (probably stale) but the two diffs you've provided seem like a stretch re the topic ban. Yes, there is a reference to a war but the context is not war related. Regardless, USaamo, you need to be careful because "broadly construed" is a very wide net and is subjective in interpretation. I suggest closing this with a warning to be more careful. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the recent edit war at Pakistan I think some sort of sanction is necessary (though neither USaamo nor AKG bothered to take their case to the talk page, from what Vanamonde says above, AKG read the consensus correctly). While an all topics from ARBIPA may be excessive, I'll support it with an "appealable in six months" slapped on. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Bangladesh Liberation War is in scope for the topic ban, although the conflict was mainly between Pakistan and what's now Bangladesh the war saw extensive Indian intervention against Pakistan in the closing stages, and judging from our article the Indians basically won the war by overwhelming the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh. The edits in question removed content which mentioned the war in passing and doesn't deal with any aspect of the Indian intervention. Also one of them took place after this edit from the admin who imposed the sanction. I suspect EdJohnston might have missed the fact that the edits related to the Bangladesh Liberation War but USaamo might not have realised that. I suggest a warning to stay away from that topic. Hut 8.5 18:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that USaamo's edits have been causing concern since at least 2020 I am not optimistic that a reminder or warning will be sufficient. My impression is that USaamo is willing to follow very precise rules. So I would modify my previous topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan by adding a ban from all articles that mention any wars between India and Pakistan. This would exclude him from editing the Two-nation theory. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of User:Swarm's observation below about USaamo's behavior at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault, I propose that User:USaamo be banned from all topics covered by WP:ARBIPA. As Swarm observes, "There is both history and a clear pattern of current disruption in AE topic areas". USaamo's responses to this AE complaint do not suggest he is mellowing out or becoming more interested in achieving consensus with others. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary, EdJohnston. There is already a standard explained at WP:TBAN that explains how TBANS are apply in situations where an article is not inherently about the subject but covers or mentions the subject in a lesser way. However that is not even the case here, so I'm not sure why we're so hung up on it. The violation is unambiguous; the editor is directly removing a mention of a war fought between India and Pakistan from the article. It is not a case of them simply editing an article that happens to mention such a war. I think most of the time maybe we would factor in that this is a minor violation on a tangentially-related article and cut someone a break, but I reviewed this user's conduct at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault earlier today in response to an AN3 report and I got the impression that they are completely out of control. They were basically trying to forcibly reframe the article to state, as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that the attack was staged by the victim. They edit warred over this in spite of a unanimous and specifically articulated local consensus objecting to the change based on verifiability, synth and RS grounds. They outright falsely claimed that they were enforcing a formal consensus and that they were not to be reverted without consensus, and continued to do so even after a warning. They were also edit warring over at Pakistan quite disruptively as well. I blocked them for disruptive editing before even seeing this report. There is both history and a clear pattern of current disruption in AE topic areas. This should be actioned. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be fine with expanding the TBAN as proposed, given the unapologetic unblock request I don’t think this user is moving in the right direction. I think this is a textbook case of why we have these sanctions in place to begin with. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't find User:USaamo's response above to be convincing, I'm planning to go ahead within 24 hours and widen their topic ban to all of WP:ARBIPA. If admins disagree please let me know. The topic ban would be indefinite but could be appealed in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dallavid

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

Request concerning Dallavid

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAA2

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

15 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
20 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
19 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

24 March 2021 - Blocked from a user page for Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy.
19 September 2022 - Blocked for 72 hours from the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article for edit warring.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above 15 October 2022
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

26 October 2022 - Dallavid partially restores their edit, justifying it with a very clear consensus despite the fact that there are three users actively opposing Dallavid's change.
24 October 2022‎ - Dallavid restores a category by the name "Azerbaijani war crimes" in an article about Nazi massacre in Poland simply because of the participation of some ethnic Azerbaijanis.
26 September 2022 - Although not done after the report, this is a good example Dallavid's tendentious editing: Dallavid removed a whole section from the Ruben Vardanyan (businessman) article, which was supported by reliable sources such as RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, Eurasianet, OCCRP and The Guardian, justifying it with only "alleged" by one source with no evident reliability, is a BLP violation. Yet two days later, on 28 September 2022, Dallavid adds contentious material to an article about Nasimi Aghayev, a living person, and supports it with a bunch of Twitter links and a Fox11 source. A b r v a g l^(PingMe) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Done

Discussion concerning Dallavid

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

Statement by Dallavid

How is my September 14th edit "contentious"? It was reliably sourced and, as Abrvagl admits, I opened a talk page discussion right afterward to further elaborate and so anyone that wanted to dispute them could discuss it. Abrvagl is incorrect in saying that I reverted Viewsridge, who had claimed there was an issue with my sources in his edit summary but never elaborated what that was, and his removal of my edit also broke several reference tags. Viewsridge was instead reverted by User:Blaylockjam10.[38] Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users,[39][40][41] and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted.[42] When I restored the edits on September 19th, that had been two days after User:Knižnik (himself being reverted by Viewsridge) made a talk page post agreeing[43] that the "both sides accused each other" wording was very undue, given that multiple third-party politicians and organizations confirmed Azerbaijan was the aggressor. These false balance points were further agreed on by User:XTheBedrockX.[44] That is why I restored a version making it clear that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia; there was a clear talk page consensus to do so. But I didn't restore the exact same header, as I had taken care to reword it in order to address Sandstein's stylistic concerns. The user who reverted me was Viewsridge again[45], who bizarrely claimed "Changes opposed by multiple users and discussed against inclusion in the talk page" even though the False balance discussion showed the opposite was true; multiple users opposed the changes Viewsridge was making and he never even replied to them on the talk page. Abrvagl's September 20th edit was not the stable version, and it is very odd for him to have said "lets achieve consensus version at talk fist", because there had already been a talk page consensus established by Knižnik, XTheBedrockX, and myself. Abrvagl and Viewsridge continued to revert other users and asking them to "achieve consensus" while at the same time not participating in the talk page consensus they were reverting. Abrvagl was then reverted by Blaylockjam10 again[46], and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.[47]

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

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

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

Statement by Vanezi Astghik

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

Statement by Olympian

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

Statement by Blaylockjam10

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

Statement by XTheBedrockX

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dallavid

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

Saucysalsa30

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 Saucysalsa30

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Saucysalsa30 (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/American politics 2 or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan

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

18:37, 29 October 2022: Revert 1.
21:58, 29 October 2022: Revert 2.
23:01, 29 October 2022: Revert 3.
03:09, 27 October 2022: Talk page comments that may run afoul of WP:BLP.

As explained in full at BLP/N, Saucysalsa30 reverted three times in less than 24 hours to accuse Vermont Democrat Peter Galbraith (who sought the gubernatorial nomination in 2016) of singlehandedly concocting ("his claim of") additional Iraqi chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians following the end of the Iran–Iraq War (during Galbraith's tenure on the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations), but "Despite Galbraith's claim, physicians from the United Nations, International Red Cross, and Turkey did not find any evidence of chemically inflicted wounds." Saucysalsa30's reverts actively removed the subject's direct response to this accusation and incorrectly portrayed Galbraith as the only source for the chemical attacks reported. Absent a consensus on whether (and how) to include criticism of Galbraith's report, I believe that the material should be excluded per our BLP policy, as I explained on the talk page—not edit warred in over and over and over again.

Meanwhile, at Talk:Peter Galbraith (albeit prior to being notified of the AP2 sanctions), Saucysalsa30 made additional unsourced claims that Galbraith acted as a "controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially", which heightened my BLP concerns. Furthermore, Saucysalsa30 incorrectly labelled my own edits to the article as "vandalism" and "disruptive editing."

To me, this behavior is unacceptable in any article that falls within a DS topic area. And, while I drafted this as an AP2 complaint, I doubt that the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area benefits by having an editor who incorrectly states that only 100 people died in the Halabja massacre (which is not consistent with declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents), or that the Anfal campaign was "made up" by Kanan Makiya (citing a source that directly, repeatedly contradicts this assertion).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18:09, 29 November 2020: Blocked 60 hours by Drmies for edit warring following a BOOMERANG at WP:AN3.

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, as well as these diffs: [48], [49].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff.

Saucysalsa30 incorrectly states that this diff constitutes a formal warning to stop WP:HOUNDING him from EvergreenFir. However, the note, which does not mention HOUNDING, concerned a dispute at just one article (Racism in the Arab world), whereas "Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Furthermore, the context is very different from what Saucysalsa30 describes: At the exact same timestamp (23:41, 31 January 2021) EvergreenFir left identical warning messages on both of our talk pages ([50], [51]) advising both Saucysalsa30 and myself "to WP:DISENGAGE either from that page or from interactions with that editor." Saucysalsa30 responded to EvergreenFir's message with a lengthy tirade accusing me of "slander," prompting EvergreenFir to post a second, more forceful warning at User talk:Saucysalsa30 at 05:39, 1 February 2021. It seems evident that Saucysalsa30 frequently misstates or exaggerates what diffs (and other sources) say—something that was recently noted by several editors at ANI. For example, Praxidicae referred to Saucysalsa30's "greatly exaggerated claims," while Drmies pointed out: "That diff doesn't say what you want it to say. It's really simple. ... And you are either willfully misrepresenting me or you don't get it."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While irrelevant to Saucysalsa30's disruptive editing at Peter Galbraith, the claim that Qahramani44 or I edit-warred to reinstate a WP:COPYVIO at Ba'athism in early 2021 is incorrect. In actuality, a COPYVIO was identified by Saucysalsa30, Qahramani44 rewrote the text, and Berrely incorrectly stated that the issue had not been resolved. However, Berrely quickly corrected his mistake: "Qahramani44, apologies, I was looking at the edit summary of the previous diff and got confused. I have reinstated the edit." Berrely's self-revert should have been the end of it, but Saucysalsa30 continued to incorrectly insist that "Berrely: You were right the first time, as the content still contains some copyright violation," citing this as justification for additional reverts.
As this thread makes clear, EvergreenFir did not consider Saucysalsa30 to be "on equal footing" with Qahramani44 and myself at the time.
Saucysalsa30's description of HandThatFeeds as an administrator is incorrect; the latter's userpage states "This user is not an administrator and has no desire to be one."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Saucysalsa30

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 Saucysalsa30

The last paragraph is false accusations and he had also hounded me on Anfal page, where he spent days bludgeoning and attacking multiple users when consensus and sourcing was against him. His first edit in that Talk page was to attack me with similar misrepresentations/insults, which I and others refuted him on such as this[52].

TheTimesAreAChanging made this request right after an edit with personal attacks and falsities about me, including the very first sentence[53]: "Saucysalsa30 has a reputation as a remarkably extreme pro-Iraqi Ba'th Party partisan editor". I have no such "reputation", this is a WP:PA violation.

While he's WP:HOUNDING/attacked me in the past and an admin gave him a formal warning to stop doing so, in this latest instance, TheTimesAreAChanging followed me to an article where he had no prior activity, and engaged me in his edit summaries. He noticed on 10/27 I had activity on Peter Galbraith [54] in which I fixed failed-verification/OR/BLP violations, and explained my changes in the Talk page with sources. His edit summaries comprised false accusations/attacks and OR, which I refuted in the Talk page.

Contrary to the claim, TheTimesAreAChanging started edit warring, with his first edit on the article being a partial revert, and made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours.

Revert1: 08:18, 29 October 2022: Partial revert of my edit with a false accusation/attacks in the edit summary
Revert2: 21:22, 29 October 2022: Full revert by TTAAC
Revert3: 22:45, 29 October 2022: Reverting all additions I made to the article

He did not bother to explain his changes in the Talk page, like I had, demonstrating an unwillingness to build consensus.

This accusation by TheTimes is false: Saucysalsa30 made additional unsourced claims that Galbraith acted as ... and he deliberately misrepresents it by leaving out the last part of the quote: ", already noted in this Talk page and article."[55] It's clear that TheTimes' didn't read Talk page and article before making this accusation. Galbraith's controversial relationship with and financial benefits from Iraqi Kurdish groups was discussed in two Talk page sections, and there's a section on the article about it.

TheTimes' other accusation is wrong. I never said Galbraith "singlehandedly concocted it", and his embellishment demonstrates the deceptiveness of his request. Galbraith drafted a bill making the claim he championed before the US government. Saying "his claim" is correct. Here is a definition of "claim". Galbraith made a statement that something was true, with the addition of not being proven, and introduced legislation in the US government.

TheTimesAreAChanging had been indefinitely blocked before on the topic of American politics[56] for disruptive editing and not gaining consensus, and in this case he did not seek consensus either. He was also blocked for violating the topic ban. He later requested for it to be lifted, and given his continued disruptive behavior on Peter Galbraith and other articles the the original topic ban was for, it appears justified to reinstate it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In his addendum[57], TheTimesAreAChanging admits to being warned by EvergreenFir to WP:DISENGAGE from me yet has still hounded and engaged me on Wikipedia multiple times since then as I proved. In fact, he had hounded me in that very situation in which EvergreenFir had to intervene. On Jan 19-20, 2021, TheTimesAreAChanging and another editor Qahramani44 stalked me, immediately following an unrelated content dispute, over to Racism in the Arab world and Ba'athism where I had just a few days earlier fixed copyvio and other issues. TTAAC had no prior activity on the first article/Talk page, and only previously had a few sporadic unilateral reverts on the second. Qahramani44 had no prior edits on either article/Talk page. Here is my initial diff on Racism in the Arab world [58]. Qahramani44's first edit on the page [59] and TTAAC's first edit [60] came only after mine, and they made a number of Talk page comments directed at me and edit warring following that. EvergreenFir had to intervene, removing TTAAC's last Talk page comment and telling him to "Stop the bullshit". TTAAC defiantly reverted it[61] calling EvergreenFir's actions "wildly inappropriate". EvergreenFir re-reverted this[62] and temporarily protected the article.[63]

The story on Ba'athism is the same. I made my first edit [64]. TheTimesAreAChanging's edit[65] and Qahramani44's[66] stalked me to this article too, with more comments and edit warring to follow by them like in the other article. EvergreenFir intervened here too temporarily protecting the article[67] and EvergreenFir agreed with the copyvio I originally fixed when attempt to re-introduce it was made.[68]

Uninvolved editors have politely asked TTAAC to stop harassing me and other editors, such as [69][70][71][72] In one example, admin HandThatFeeds had to correct TTAAC's false charges against an editor multiple times: "Why are you using the “tenacious hacks” comment to rebut GregKaye’s statement that (sic) you are the first person to accuse them of tendentious editing? Are you not understanding the difference in those words and conflating their use of them with your accusation of their behavior?" and "I think you’re misreading GregKay’s statements. ... Nothing in those quotes is worthy of sanction."

In an attempt to defend himself in an ANI section about his conduct, he falsely accused me of making a real-world threat/crime in August 2022, claiming that I somehow know his address and sending him "fan mail" making a threat. He got the dates wrong in this ridiculous accusation too; his attacking me came in January 2021 (EvergreenFir intervention case), not March 2021 as he falsely states where I had only 2 unrelated edits[73][74], so his "during the height of our previous dispute" is a proven false statement. TTAAC's accusation was elevated to ArbCom by the admin Barkeep49[75][76][77][78], where it was presumably thrown out as a ludicrously false accusation. At this point, his false accusation about me making of real-world threat is an egregious WP:PA violation. (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: Repeatedly, TheTimesAreAChanging casts false aspersions based on not understanding what words mean. Like his previously noted confusion about the word "claim", and his accusations refuted by HandThatFeeds, he doesn't know the definition of the word "slander", which he believes only means making legal threats[79], of which I've never done. Here's the definition: "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation". Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [80]: There's still no defense from TheTimesAreAChanging has for the proven fact that he very deliberately stalked and attacked me and engaged in disruptive behavior on multiple instances, such as in January 2021, August 2022, and most recently in October 2022, as I proved above, among other occasions not detailed here.

TheTimesAreAChanging's stalking, false accusations, refusal to engage in consensus building and constructive Talk page discussion, and personal attacks on Peter Galbraith has already been proven since my first statement section[81]. His continued attempt at shifting blame instead of explaining his disruptive behavior is because he knows he did wrong. Let's recall the situation on Peter Galbraith happened because TheTimes chose to stalk and harass me in the first place.

TheTimesAreAChanging's latest claim is wrong. As I already provided above, EvergreenFir did take my side and reverted Qahramani44 for re-introducing a copyright violation [82]. Quoting EvergreenFir from Feb 1, 2021: "(Undid revision 1004094635 by Qahramani44 (talk) with tweaks. WP:STATUSQUO had copyvio issues. These two versions are very similar, but i tweaked it a bit. Qahramani44 you are party to this dispute and edit war. Please do not continue warring)" Berrely is not an admin and was an uninvolved editor who was misled by Qahramani44's erroneous statement. Yes, you are correct in that I fixed Berrely's misled error which he made on Jan 19[83]. EvergreenFir agreed with me that it was a copyright violation because on Feb 1, the end result on this whole situation was EvergreenFir removing the copyright vio, putting to rest Qahramani44's and TTAAC's disruption and Berrely's misled error.[84] EvergreenFir would not have done that if TTAAC's and Qahramani44's editing was not disruptive. I was correct in removing a copyright violation.

In that case, it's good that HandThatFeeds is not an admin. It means someone with no responsibility to do so proved in detail that TTAAC was making false accusations against a good editor with the ANI report, even telling TTAAC to "Just drop this diversion".[85] They weren't the only one, either. Admins didn't appear to bother with TTAAC's report because it was based on false representations and accusations, and no action was taken against GregKaye. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 1 to @Acroterion and other admins: The above statement is now 500 words according to wordcounttools.com. Kindly requesting to go above 500 words to point out other disruptive editing and conduct and casting false aspersions by TheTimesAreAChanging on Peter Galbraith and other articles he mentions such as Anfal campaign, and pointing out other recent misconduct against me personally like his ludicrous and self-disproving accusation of real-life threats in an ANI discussion on his disruptive editing and personal attacks? Also, I just noticed the below clarifying comment to ParadiseChronicle had been moved here, which it wasn't here originally.) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

(Note 2 to admins: With this 'addendum'[86] added by TheTimesAreAChanging, he has increased his request to 708 words, far past the 500 word limit, when copying everything under "Request concerning Saucysalsa30" to the end of the added content. Like proven of his other accusations, these are likewise deceitful misrepresentations and fluff). Even if we go with the "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy" and under, it's still 623 words. Only if we omit the diffs and other information critical to the statement, it gets close to 500). Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 3 to @Acroterion: Thanks for your response. In addition to demonstrating I was hounded/harassed on 2 separate articles in the case EvergreenFir had to intervene in the first place, I took the opportunity to point out a false accusation that TheTimesAreAChanging made against me in August 2022 that I made real-world threat/crime against him. He's yet to receive consequence for this excessive WP:PA violation) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears my Note 3 practically overlapped with Acroterion's, so I missed their response before publishing. Regarding [87], thanks for clearing that up. This would mean that other than the Peter Galbraith issue, which I've demonstrated TTAAC hounded me on, none of his other charges are relevant seeing as they had already been brought up by TTAAC in relevant ANI sections. I refuted his misrepresentations in any case. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 4 to @Acroterion: Re [88]: With Barkeep49's input (thanks Barkeep!)[89], it appears ArbCom hadn't considered it in the first place, not being at their level of action. Even if it is put aside despite the gravity of such a lie (one that could carry legal charges against me given the false accusation describes criminal offense) and severe WP:PA violation this false accusation entails, it is still evidence of extreme dishonesty. For clarification and follow-up, would you suggest that I report the false accusation to ANI given it wasn't taken up at ArbCom's level after all? Thanks.) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 5 re @Paradise Chronicle: Unfortunately, Paradise Chronicle is also guilty of WP:HOUNDING me on Peter Galbraith, with their only edit there[90] being made right after I had activity on the page, within a few hours of this AE request being created[91], and in less than 2 hours of my first response on this AE request.[92]. PC is wrong in saying "no-one opposed it" about the change he mentions in his statement, seeing how I kindly asked for Buidhe's approval[93] on their re-introducing poor content, and it didn't have better contextualization as P.C. claimed. Waiting on a response from buidhe and the hope that PC would fix their error, I didn't respond further. This was only one change of many made by PC on the article which were unilateral, and the others had no Talk discussion by PC regarding including or re-inclusion content. To give just a few of many examples of POV and/or unilateral edits on Anfal campaign (not including other articles PC makes edits on despite being formally warned on the topic of Kurds and Kurdistan:[94][95][96]. PC's warning[97] was for "Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future." It is unfortunate that PC has not heeded by these warnings as shown in this AE request and on Anfal campaign, and again, I am not mentioning other articles that PC edits on in this topic area in the same manner). Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 6 to @Acroterion: Thanks for your response! I will take no further action then on that. I appreciate Barkeep49 having taken the initiative even if he had removed the whole ANI section which included other conduct violations by TTAAC. These kinds of personal attacks are not uncommon for TTAAC, as I gave a few diffs including in my first statement regarding the Peter Galbraith issue, the unacceptable insult "Saucysalsa30 has a reputation as a remarkably extreme pro-Iraqi Ba'th Party partisan editor". His last block[98] had also been for personal attacks, on a rare occasion that an editor had challenged his disruptive editing. There's other cases of him calling me a child and other insults for no good reason, but I'll keep it recent. I will note for clarity that TTAAC has already brought up all (refuted) accusations except the current Peter Galbraith matter before in ANI and other boards. In staying current, we have a case then just in the last week where he 1) hounded/harassed me, 2) made direct insults, 3) cast false aspersions, 4) disruptive editing including edit warring.) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 7 re[99] I was not the first to bring up old disagreements, but only did so because 1) I will address misrepresentations, personal attacks, and aspersions (most of the 'tendentiousness' here and on those articles), and 2) it demonstrates here that TTAAC is not a editor who suddenly came across me, but someone who has actively harassed me over a long period of time. There isn't such tendentiousness with other editors. In the two most recent instances as already proven: in the first, consensus, sourcing, neutrality were overwhelmingly on my side against TTAAC which he didn't take kindly, and in the second (Galbraith), I provided reliable, balanced sourcing and explanation (not a REDFLAG bibliographical note contradicted by any books/articles on the topic), pointed out OR+BLP violations that even TTAAC agreed with most, but I was still stalked and insulted in both cases because TTAAC didn't like that.) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RAN1

I'm only filing this statement since I DS-alerted Saucysalsa30 (in fact, my alert is the only one that appears in the DS tag search). I only became aware of Saucysalsa30's actions through TTAAC's BLP post. The post ran long, so I didn't look through any of the 10+ diffs in it, and assumed this was a recent development and that Saucysalsa30 hadn't been alerted before today. I researched the relevant citation, verified it and reverted Saucysalsa30 because they claimed the material failed verification before their edit summary war with TTAAC. I then alerted both them and TTAAC on the Kurds DS. I didn't think there would be a prior deleted notice if this was at BLPN, so I didn't see Saucysalsa30 had been alerted 3 months ago until after this AE section showed up in my watchlist. RAN1 (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN1 Just want to point out for the sake of balance that TheTimesAreAChanging received the same alert before from the same editor ParadiseChronicle on July 31. [100] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paradise Chronicle

As I have been mentioned I want to explain a bit. I gave the DS awareness note on Kurds and Kurdistan to both editors here and here as they appear to have an issue in the topic area and if only one knows about the DS the other editor might be surprised (blocked, TB'd) that there apply different rules for the topic area than in the "normal" wikipedia.

That said I believe the issue escalated into an ArbCom case per email in which case some Admins might be more familiar with the issue between the two.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the AE side for Kurds and Kurdistan. I also have noticed that Saucysalsa30 is rather doubtful of Kurdish victims during the Halabja chemical attack or during the Al Anfal campaign. For the Admins and also the reporting and discussing editors sake I'd say its more efficient to strongly warn (once more and a temporary block is in place) them for bludgeoning and disruptive editing as their numerous talk page edits are often of 1000s of bytes with a lot of text not really on the topic and to produce and read the diffs is rather a tiring work.

At Peter Galbraith they are number 1 Here and assembled a 30% share of added content in 3 days.

and at Al Anfal they are way off the top here with a ca. 2/3 share of added content in the entire existence of the article within less than 2 months. This is way more than all editors together in the top 10 combined.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saucysalsa30, yes I meant to link to the talk pages. Talk page edits is what WP:BLUDGEON is about. To find your argument which is at best one or two lines within the several WP:WALLOFTEXTs doesn't help to find consensus. Read WP:WALLOFTEXT, its very descriptive of your talk page edits.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last phrase of their answer to me, there is a good example for the editing of Saucysalsa30. Not an issue in the current discussion they bring an edit of me. For what, lack of consensus? I opened discussion on it the same day of my edit and no-one opposed it. The edit was on the existence and location of detention camps and the opened discussion included an invitation to reword the section. Saucysalsa30 answered in the discussion but didn't change anything. And now I have searched diffs and texted for probably about half an hour for an answer on 1 phrase in 1 of their WALLOFTEXT. Imagine dealing with several phrases in about 30 WALLOFTEXTS by Saucysalsa30.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who reads the two edits above and doesn't know why I wrote it, I want to point out that my two edits above (not the first one) were an answer to this edit which Saucysalsa30 removed the same day.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this accusations of Saucysalsa30 are going to get an issue, let me know, but I am not going to invest time into answering to an edit that a few hours later gets withdrawn.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Saucysalsa30

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

@Saucysalsa30: A 1500+ word response is not even close to 500, and permission to exceed limits should be requested first, not ignored and blown through. Please reduce your comments to the required limits, or your comments may be truncated. Verbosity is not a virtue, and your history of talkpage discussions includes walls of text that are not appropriate in this venue. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saucysalsa: yes, because they've replied. So can you, just keep it short and to the point, and please resist the temptation to gradually add back what you removed. Part of the complaint involves your tendency to bludgeon discussions, which will not be tolerated here. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless @Barkeep49: has anything that they can mention concerning the "fan mail" allegations, I'm going to set that aside as old news, now resolved, that was within the remit of the arbitrators, not this noticeboard. It does not appear to be directly germane to the issue at hand. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If T&S and arbitrators did not take action in August, it's not going to happen here. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to see arbcom take action in this case owing to the sensitive evidence but the general opinion of other arbs seemed to be that the incident did not rise to the level of ArbCom action. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Since private evidence can’t be submitted or considered here, the “fan mail” issue must be set aside. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Saucysalsa30's latest note: ANI is not an appropriate place to discuss anything that involves private information, and is for current, ongoing problems that require immediate attention, not things that happened in August. If the arbs declined to act, then the subject is closed, as it must be here. Please do not litigate that issue here or anywhere else, I am focused on conduct on the relevant topic areas. I am reviewing the other material, please resist the urge to enlarge on the dispute. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My general impression on reading through the extremely lengthy talkpage discussions and diffs is that there is a thread of WP:IDHT, which extends to this discussion, in which Saucysalsa is focused on portraying other editors as aggressors or rehashing old disagreements after being advised to stop. The sheer volume of words is indicative of a tendency to bludgeon discussions, even here. I can't say that either TTAAC or Saucysalsa30 have been shining examples of civility or righteous conduct, but I'm seeing a consistent thread of tendentiousness in Saucysalsa's overall conduct with respect to Iraqi attacks on Kurds and with respect to Galbraith. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05

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 Toa Nidhiki05

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Toa Nidhiki05 (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 § Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

03:57, 27 October 2022 – Not assuming good faith and casting aspersions by telling other editors they'd be better off on a fringe wiki.
15:30, 28 October 2022 – "But given how utterly divorced from reality your argumentation has been, this doesn't surprise me. I'll once again advise you to head to RationalWiki, where your hyperpartisan arguments and information will be accepted readily with open arms."
01:14, 28 October 2022 – "I am going to hastily dismiss your "facts" because they aren't that. Bite me. Take your partisan talking points to RationalWiki or somewhere else where they will be respected."
15:22, 28 October 2022 – Another WP:PA.
00:47, 27 October 2022 – Insulting others with ad hominems.
01:43, 27 October 2022 – Accusing others of "ridiculous political tirades".
03:10 27 October 2022 – "There's no point in having discussion with a brick wall that is dogmatically shouting partisan talking points like they are the be-all, end all of reality."
16:21, 29 October 2022 – Making a WP:PA in their edit summary.
17:35, 29 October 2022 – Calling the ACLU a "left-wing think tank".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

07:28, 1 June 2022 – Previous block for personal attacks in AP.
16:30, 28 April 2021 – Previous block for edit warring in AP.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More issues

Now Toa has followed me to a page they've never edited before in order to oppose an unrelated RfC I recently opened. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- They submitted a RPP to try to get Republican_Party_(United_States) fully protected and restored to their preferred version.
- In the middle of an ongoing discussion about whether an RfC should be started, Toa went ahead and started an RfC themselves at the talk page of the article that they're blocked from editing. They didn't take any WP:RFCBEFORE steps to work with other editors on drafting the RfC.

––FormalDude (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with BlackKite. Toa shows a pattern of behavior that is not compatible with editing in AP2. Another article that they've stonewalled discussions on recently is Talk:Karine Jean-Pierre § Stolen elections, back in the spotlight where they refused to accept existing consensus on the reliability of sources. They added "election denier" categories to Barbara Boxer and Bennie Thompson. They consistently cast aspersions on other editors. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12:31, 30 October 2022

Discussion concerning Toa Nidhiki05

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 Toa Nidhiki05

What a ludicrous report. There’s no consensus for this edit (numerous others have rejected it), as others have noted, and more importantly it isn’t backed up. I should be a bit nicer, but frankly my patience for regurgitation of base hyperpartisan talking points (which both FormalDude and Viriditas have insisted on making}} to justify inflammatory and unproductive edits is minimal. Repeated claims like “this is a fact” while citing to left-wing think tanks are not what I’d consider to be productive discussions. What's abundantly clear is that FormalDude either does not understand that partisan think tanks are not reputable sources of fact, or he doesn't care. And now it’s clear that, rather than actually present quality referencing or engaging, FormalDude just wants to remove me. This case should be summarily closed and returned to the talk page.

For some examples of what's been going on on the page, which includes less-than-polite discussion from both sides.

The Four Deuces noted that FormalDude's claim that all of his sources are objective and none are opinions is untrue; the Washington Post piece was an opinion piece, and another (from Robert Griffin) is from an author whose entire background is working with hyperpartisan partisan organizations like the Center for American Progress. Would we cite the Heritage Foundation to establish that Democrats are bad? No, we wouldn't.
Viriditas making the ludicrous, hyperpartisan claim that "Voter suppression is a policy position of the Republican Party", then making a statement so ridiculous ("The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment. They receive much of their funding from the Koch Network, a collection of American oligarchs in the oil, gas, armaments, and industrial sectors who believe that corporations, not individual citizens, should direct the political future of the United States. They wish to rebuild and remake America in the image of authoritarian regimes like Hungary and the Russian Federation. Their primary political positions for achieving these stated goals involves anti-democratic behavior and policymaking that opposes labor unions, Social Security, supporting voter suppression and privatization, and placing impenetrable barriers to popular and social democracy.") that I suggested RationalWiki as a better outlet.
Viriditas making a hypertpartisan political rant ("So when the majority of Republicans openly tell journalists why they don’t want most Americans to vote, and then help pass hundreds of voter suppression bills throughout the country based on the Koch-financed philosophy of economist James M. Buchanan who was against majority-based voting and advocated a constitutional amendment overturning one person one vote—you’re actually telling me that when the evidence is documented, historically demonstrable, and has dark money funding sources tied directly to the GOP donors, you’re going to sit there with a straight face and say "voter suppression is not the official policy of the GOP"? I’m sorry, but there is no higher standard of evidence. Voter suppression is the official policy position of the GOP. Those are the facts."), which I described as such.
FormalDude repeatedly mischaracterizing arguments made by Jayron32, including making incorrect claims about things Jayron32 said.
FormalDude said that "SCOTUS has been killing the VRA softly for decades anyways" and implied that's why we should reject all court cases that don't indicate voter suppression. I told him to "Leave the partisan talking points out of this", to which he responded by cursing at me.
FormalDude declared in bad faith that Springee was not reading the discussion - a remark that was frankly quite rude, given Springee's long and detailed arguments.
FormalDude declared I "just make shit up about sources you don't like" and that I "have to resort to red herrings when you don't have any legitimate counterarguments", a clear violation of WP:AGF
Viriditas asked if I " have a Q drop to attend to" - literally accusing me of believing a conspiracy theory about a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. If that's not bad faith and inflammatory, I don't know what is.

All of this because some editors object to a hyperlink in a subheading. It's clear this discussion has become heated, but FormalDude's report here is simply not helpful. At all. I urge people to actually look at the edits FormalDude has posted and see what they are responses to. We're here to build an encyclopedia - not to regurgitate the opinions of left-wing think tanks as if they are the light and truth and all that is good and beautiful in the world. We would not use the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute or Prager University to claim that Democrats have bad policy, nor should we. All I ask is the same thing be applied both ways.

Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on RationalWiki: it’s a valuable resource in rejecting pseudoscience. Its page on the GOP is also kind of laughably bad, like Viriditas’s remarks. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty rich of Valjean to complain about templating when he spuriously templated my talk page for no reason. Maybe provocations like this can be stopped, and instead a discussion can be held on the talk page instead of attempting to ram through edits. Toa Nidhiki05 17:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding barnstars to admins who vote the way you like seems to be in exceptionally bad taste. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the arbitration remarks - and having cooled down a bit - I can't disagree that my primary issue in this topic area is reverting too often. I imagine this is frustrating for everyone involved. That being said, I have a long history of work in the AP2 area; my barstars include creating the 2010 United States state legislative elections article (a series I should continue), policing the Center for Immigration Studies and John Tanton articles (where racist trolls repeatedly attempt to whitewash ties to white nationalists and eugenicists), and "Herculean labours nominating ancient, ill-sourced articles on non-notable political parties and groups for deletion". I also engage in the creation of electoral maps, routine cleanup, and policing the addition of entries on endorsements, and all sorts of routine anti-vandalism efforts across a field where this is a frequent issue. If the issue here is edit warring, wouldn't a 1RR or 0RR sanction (with exceptions for vandalism) be more appropriate? This would enable me to continue the things widely regarded as productive, while cutting out the problem area. Toa Nidhiki05 01:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to believe whatever you want, Vanamonde93, but the complaint as presented is not an actually accurate depiction of this discussion. It's the depiction of FormalDude, who also has a vested interest in the dispute; he's reverted four times as well since introducing the material ([101] [102] [103] [104]), to the point where he's trying to shut down an RfC despite three other editors telling him that's not a cool thing to do. And as for behavior, I'm pretty sure accusing another editor (me) of believing in a conspiracy theory about a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles (which Viriditas did earlier is the worst thing anyone has done here - it's a beyond-the-pale personal attack. Stuff like this is why I got angry - unjustifiably so - and lost my cool. That's on me. I agree the warnings were utterly unnecessary, and a knee-jerk reaction to the same thing happening to me. Shouldn't have happened, won't happen again. Toa Nidhiki05 02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FormalDude - Thie RfC was started at the behest of other editors, who suggested it would be a good idea. Multiple other users said it should be started, and anyone could do it - I chose to do so because nobody else did, and this should resolve this issue permanently, meaning an end to this lengthy discussion. I fail to see how this is disruptive, and several other editors seem to agree - in fact, already several other editors who had not previously engaged in the discussion already have. That's a good thing! Toa Nidhiki05 02:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I would recommend you read MOS:WEASEL. Wikipedia policy tends to point against broad, unsupported claims like "widely regarded as", especially when sources don't support them - so narrowing it to what the source does say is common-sense. The reason I did not include the claim about "voters" is that it's rather vague; "voters" is, broadly, too large a group of people. It's akin to saying that "people" like something, whereas "celebrities and activists" is more specific. If you disagree, you are welcome to change or modify it, or to discuss it on the talk page, and I'd invite you to do so. I'll also note that the source says negative things about Abrams that I did not add - it says, for example, that Republican critics regard her as divisive (who would have imagined that political opponents regard their political opponent in negative terms?), that some Democrats are uncomfortable with her personal ambition, and that some Black Democrats dislike her "disruptive" influence on the Democratic establishment in Georgia. I didn't add any of these to the article of lead - in fact, I didn't add anything negative about Abrams at all in my edit! I did not make this edit to prove that "'ordinary people' didn't credit Abrams" - in fact, I didn't make this edit to prove anything. I made the edit because the existing content was unsupported by the sources listed. I would invite you to assume good faith in the future rather than casting aspersions or assuming you can read my mind. Toa Nidhiki05 13:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Black Kite, I'd invite you to discuss this on the Talk:Stacey Abrams page, or to edit it yourself; if you feel so strongly that "voters" should be included, add it back! I personally think that's too broad of a claim, but that's something that can be discussed.

I do want to mention something else, however you make repeated notes of "inserting negative content into a BLP" - be more specific here. My edits on the page have, indeed, primarily revolved around the 2018 election, which Abrams regards as stolen. My edits have primarily focused on removing overly flowery language that characterizes her claims as objective truth (something that election law experts and journalists roundly reject - they generally regard voter suppression in the election as not having impacted the result) and updating information (including the status of lawsuits, all of which have finished their course). This is, in fact, "negative content" (although there is no rule, of course, that BLPs can only discuss positive aspects of public figures), but it's also the defining part of her personal public image - her claims of a stolen election have been the subject of, among other things, dozens of public appearances and speeches, her advocacy group Fair Fight, and the film All In: The Fight for Democracy, among other things. I've made a total of 21 edits to the page this year, three of which are reverts. My edits have been generally well-regarded; for example, after SPECIFICO removed content I added about Fair Fight's finances, this content was promptly added back by Endwise. I regard our interactions on the page previously to be fairly positive and to have resulted in a page that fairly accurately reflects the situation (for example, including Richard Hasan's takes on both Abrams's claims and how Kemp managed the election), so I'm disappointed you seem unhappy. I'm more surprised that you've not once brought this up. You have never gone to my talk page to discuss this, and in fact you've only discussed on the Stacey Abrams talk page once this year, for a situation I was not involved in. If the work I've done is so objectionable, it would have been helpful to either bring it up to me directly or discuss if on the talk page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response to SPECIFICO - I don’t believe I’ve engaged in any edit warring on the Stacey Abrams article, and I’m extensively discussing it on the talk page while there are probably a dozen or so reverts going around on main over the last few days. This is an extremely contentious discussion, apparently, and I trying hard to keep my cool on the talk page. In the last 24 hours, however, SPEFICIO is at 3 reverts ([105] [106] [107]). I find it a bit frustrating to be accused of edit warring by someone who is more involved than myself. Toa Nidhiki05 22:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some more context: Generalrelative, another user involved in the dispute there and who has commented here, is also at 3 reverts, and 4 or 5 over the last two days ([108] [109] [110] [111]). Once again, I think the situation on these pages is fairly volatile, and I'll do my best to bring the volume down. Toa Nidhiki05 00:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

The edits that Toa responded to were outrageous suggestions, so their edits calling them that was an accurate response. For example, in the first example presented,[112] Toa was responding to a proposal that the lead for Republican Party (United States) should be changed to begin, "The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment." (Viriditas 03:32, 27 October 2022)

While Viriditas may have been expressing a valid opinion that would be acceptable in some fora, obviously the tone and emphasis would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Even for articles about far right parties, the phrasing is more nuanced.

Viriditas was trolling and Toa's replies should be seen in that context. There should be some way to stop that so that discussions remain constructive. While there's a vague line between legitimate edit proposals and trolling, Viriditas has crossed it and their edits should have been included in this report.

Incidentally, RationalWiki is not a "fringe website," but a respected source that debunks pseudoscience and its supporters.

TFD (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

With the 2022 US mid-term elections just days away & the possibility of Trump becoming the 2024 Republican presidential nominee? Perhaps, administrators should keep a closer eye on the aforementioned discussion at the Republican Party's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letting administrators know. I've advised Toa 'not' to edit Abrams' page & to concentrate on that BLP's talkpage, instead. I understand how frustrating these things can be & so I believe a gentler approach is best. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - Abrams' discussion has moved to the WP:BLPN board. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrevan

I am involved in some of the disputes with this user but I must agree they are not consistently civil and frequently make borderline or outright personal attacks. "Two wrongs don't make a right." This user frequently violates WP:AGF and makes statements questioning the impartiality or competence of editors. This user exhibits an WP:OWNership mentality about their articles that they patrol or contribute to about politics, frequently reverting without discussion with an edit warrior mentality. Their rationales are often terse such as "not an improvement" or no reason given. This user should be sanctioned. Andre🚐 16:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User is a perennial violator of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars [113] [114] Andre🚐 17:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User also misuses dispute tags [115] [116] Andre🚐 18:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

The line The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment was not a serious proposal, and the person who said that said as much. That said, talk pages are for discussing the topic of the article, not bantering back and forth and seeing which one can make the silliest argument with a straight face. That this generated an equivalently absurd response reminds me of the adage on playing stupid games. Suggest closing this with a reminder to all parties what the purpose of a talk page is. nableezy - 16:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments in the diffs are pretty far out there, the ACLU is certainly not a left-wing think tank, law review journals are yes student run but the more widely cited of them are certainly reliable. And there may be reason TB the user per BK below, but I dont see it in the diffs presented here, which all read like par for the course for AP2. nableezy - 17:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring while at AE is mind-bogglingly lacking in awareness. Thats 1, 2, 3 reverts just outside of 24 hours, a few days after the edit-war in the same article on October 25. Certainly not the only user edit-warring, but the please do not edit war edit summaries while edit-warring is a bit too rich. How do yall not get the process here, edit is disagreed on stop and get consensus on the talk page. In the highly likely event that the people edit-warring cannot reach a consensus, open an RFC. In the highly likely event that the users involved do not agree on the consensus of the RFC, request a formal closure. Rinse and repeat. Edit-warring has always been a topic-bannable offense, doing it while at AE is just asking for it. nableezy - 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I am not a regular editor in the AP2 area, but I am not going to post in the uninvolved admin section here either as I have argued with T05 before over their obviously POV editing. I have noted them having serious problems with Democratic female politicians of colour (see their very extensive edits to shoehorn anything negative into Ilhan Omar, Stacey Abrams and Karine Jean-Pierre - the latter article being one that they were blocked for personal attacks on other editors in June this year). Oddly, that problem doesn't extend to Republican female politicians (i.e. Mayra Flores ). A significant number of their other edits are bludgeoning debates, and not really caring about NPA whilst they're doing it [117]. A significant number of their edits are reverts, or have been reverted themselves, which suggests that they are not following WP:BRD. It is probably time that an AP2 ban arrived at this editor's door. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The persistent edit-warring on the Republican Party article whilst this AE was open suggests very strongly that a topic-ban is definitely required. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More issues

Even during an AE report, TN05 is again shoehorning negative information into Stacey Abrams which the citation doesn't support. In this edit, they change "her efforts have been widely credited with boosting voter turnout in Georgia" to "her efforts have been credited by celebrities and Democratic activists..." despite the actual source saying, quite clearly, "Celebrities, activists and voters credited Ms. Abrams...". This bit of semantics is done, of course, to give the idea that "ordinary people" didn't credit Abrams. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05 I am very familiar with WP:WEASEL, thanks. However, my ability to AGF only stretches so far. When someone who has persistently inserted negative material into a particular BLP in the past makes a wording change to that BLP which may make some readers believe something different from what the source actually says, it is unsurprising that I would assume that has been done deliberately. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I'm certainly involved in this debate. I think it would be best if everyone toned things down a few notches. Personalizing these debates isn't helpful and neither are the over the top comments that can come across as trolling. Tongue in cheek the best thing to do would be lock the page until after the 2022 elections in just over a week. Springee (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think some of the reverts should be seen in context. Until very recently there was not a consensus for the changes various editors are making. What we have is a conflict between Toa enforcing what they, rightly saw as a NOCON state of the discussion, and other editors deciding they were right in "winning" an edit war because there were more "supports" vs "opposes". Those supporting the change should have just waited until it was a clear CONSENSUS. That doesn't excuse excessive reverting but an editor who restores a new, disputed change without consensus is also violating policy. Toa needs to tone it down but those who were restoring when consensus hadn't been established should also note their own part in escalating this issue. Springee (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I think you might not be giving the 1RR restriction enough of a chance. You are correct, such a restriction doesn't prevent one from going to the talk page and saying, "You're a jerk Dent. A complete kneebiter." However, since the ability to actually change the article in question is curtailed it ends up creating two positives. First, no edit warring. Second, it does force one to think more carefully about one's arguments. Sure, you can try to bludgeon the discussion but others can simply ignore you since you can't "revert to win". If I'm frustrated with your newest edit, I revert it. You say I'm wrong and revert my edit and that's it. All I can do is plead my case. If my case isn't good I'm not likely to convince others. The intent of any sanction should be to pick the smallest one that fixes the problem. Hence, we have single page blocks now instead of block or no block. If is warned about civility and gets a 1RR block the message should be clear. I'm sure any ANI complaint after that would be happy to throw on an AP2 if things are still an issue. However, if the 1RR is sufficient and gets Toa to spend more effort on the quality of their arguments, or at least keeping things from being personal, is that sufficient?

Toa, I will say, from my own experience, you should always avoid trying to personalize things in any way. Yeah, we all know that calling someone as idiot is not OK. Calling their arguments stupid is also a bad idea since it tends to escalate emotion. Another one which I have some trouble with but can be very powerful... don't use too many words, don't reply to everything (I'm sure some of the editors I've debated are snickering right now). But really, you will actually be more effective at making your point if you slow down and think it out rather than argue too much. I'm certain some will think that is rich coming from me but I'm comparing me to older me :D Springee (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, I'm not sure about the optics of chastising Toa for edit warring then engaging in the edit war yourself [118]. We now have an open RfC related to a change to the article (your edit represents the new vs the stable version). The RfC is currently 7:9 so nothing that could be called a consensus yet you restored the disputed material with an edit summary that doesn't really address the problem. Springee (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

Toa keeps accusing other editors in a personal attack fashion of being partisan, but their own argumentation chooses partisan talking points and spin over what RS say. We are supposed to prioritize the latter, including wording. Toa is forgetting a founding principle here. "Verifiability, not truth" reminds us that personal opinions about what is "true" do not trump what RS tell us. We apply this every single day when we insist on writing "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" (which redirects to Anti-abortion movements). We do not adopt the deceptive talking points of those who advocate fringe positions. When RS describe the abortion stance of conservatives, they often say "anti-abortion", and so should we.

The GOP talking points and spin are that their voter suppression methods are for the sake of "election security" (based on Trump's big lie of a stolen election). When they close polling places in minority areas, forcing people who don't even own a car to travel long distances to vote in white areas, that's voter suppression, and RS call the GOP's methods "suppression". The GOP knows that minorities tend to vote for Democrats, and that there are fewer registered Republicans than Democrats. If they can make it harder for legitimate, registered, minority voters to vote, they have a better chance at winning, so they do all they can to make it much harder for them to vote. They use myriad methods: gerrymandering, closing polling stations in minority districts, limiting voting hours, voter intimidation, rejecting ballots, and purging voter rolls based on last names that sound minority. The GOP makes minorities jump through hoops not required of their privileged, white, elitist base.

We have articles about this, but Toa opposes we even wikilink to our properly-sourced articles. That's a problem. That's what started this mess. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa is continuing their edit warring right now. Also templating the regulars with spurious warnings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayron32

I was notified on my user talk informing me I was involved in this case. I am merely posting that I confirm I received the notification. I have nothing further to add. --Jayron 32 09:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Toa Nidhiki05 is continuing to edit-war on Stacey Abrams. Also, I would have thought their talk page access would have been included in the block on Republican Party (United States). SPECIFICO talk 11:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Stacey Abrams: TN wrote above I'll do my best to bring the volume down. Meanwhile, it feels like he's been trolling me on my user talk page here. And he's continuing to deny the BLP problem on the article talk page. If there's a TBAN, it should perhaps be a ban from BLP in addition to AP. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Generalrelative

Just piping up to say that while there's nothing sancionable in this exchange on Talk:Stacey Abrams, it doesn't bode well if what we're witnessing is Toa Nidhiki05 on their best behavior. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Toa Nidhiki05

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

I p-blocked Toa Nidhiki05 from Republican Party (United States) for a week due to the edit warring today and the last few days. I haven't digged into the diffs from the talk page enough to comment on the wider issue --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing eight blocks or partial blocks all related to US politics (admittedly over a lengthy period, but some are recent); evidence of personal attacks; bludgeoning; and edit-warring, including during this request. I can't help but think this editor needs to take a break from the topic. There's bad behavior from other editors too, but I see nothing exculpatory to TN5. My inclination is toward an indefinite AmPol TBAN, appealable in six months. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Toa Nidhiki, the primary problem I'm seeing isn't edit-warring, it's a battleground attitude, of which edit-warring is only one aspect. It's being rude and dismissive of other editors, it's sending them warnings and notices that are thoroughly unnecessary, it's engaging in personal attacks, and it's basically failing to collaborate. You're not the only offender here, but in the complaint as presented you're by far the worst. And if you want to be a productive contributor in this area, this attitude needs recalibration. A 1RR restriction doesn't require that. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I noticed here is that Toa keeps posting edit warring warning templates on their opponents. That's hardly becoming in an editor who violated 3RR at Republican Party (United States) on 21 October and knocked up against the rule with three reverts once on 25 October, and once again on 29-30 October. That's 10 reverts in a few days. And yet, today they warned Andrevan and warned Valjean with the "Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing" 3RR template. I'd call that harrassment, considering that Andrevan and Valjean have each made a grand total of one revert at Republican Party (United States) this month. Toa has made no secret of the retaliatory nature of their template on Valjean's page, neither in their commentary above ("Pretty rich of Valjean to complain about templating when he spuriously templated my talk page for no reason") nor in this edit. Since Valjean templated Toa (after Toa had made three reverts to the article in less than 24 hours), Toa apparently considers it only fair to template Valjean, (after Valjean has made one revert to the article in a month). And Andrevan also. Going back through the article history for October to check this, I kept seeing more reverts by Toa. Reverting seems to be their favored mode of editing. It's almost funny to see them exhorting everybody else to "Please do not edit war" here. This is one example of their aggressive and tendentious editing. Guerillero's partial block from Republican Party (United States) is certainly well-motivated, but I believe the problem is larger. I agree with Vanamonde that this is a case for an indef topic ban from American politics, a topic that appears to bring out the worst in this editor. Toa, as for your commentary above, did you notice how the other editors on this page provide diffs so admins can read the evidence for themselves and see its context? It would be helpful if you did that too. Bishonen | tålk 19:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: I did it as a temporary measure to control the immediate disruption. Admins should not see it as standing in the way of any larger restrictions to control disruption within the wider topic area. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hari147

Indefed by Bish --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Hari147

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hari147 (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: Hari147 was topic-banned from ARBIPA topics in June 2020 [119]. As far as I can see, the TBAN was never lifted. They were blocked in March 2022 for TBAN violations [120]. Essentially every single edit they have made since is a TBAN violation: [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], and [126] are a few examples. This user clearly has no intention of abiding by their TBAN, and an indefinite block is warranted. The authority of AE to place an indefinite block is somewhat vague, but I believe any admin could place an indefinite block as an ordinary admin action: TBAN violations are sufficient evidence of disruption. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Hari147

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 Hari147

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hari147

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

Right. Yes, the user clearly has no intention of abiding by their T-ban. It was for extra belt-and-braces security clearly explained to them (without any sanction) by the banning admin Newslinger when they first violated it and appealed it in June/July 2020, and they were then temporarily blocked for violating it in March 2022. Indefinitely blocked as a regular admin action. Bishonen | tålk 08:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

TheCurrencyGuy

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 TheCurrencyGuy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NotReallySoroka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheCurrencyGuy (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/The Troubles

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

On 30 October (before TCG was alerted to the the Troubles DS), TCG added John MacBride (a participant in the Easter Rising) to our list of people who were executed, later reverted by Scolaire who pointed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals? where it was argued that Easter Rising participants should not be deemed war criminals. However, in the above three edits (all made after TCG was alerted), TCG twice restored their preferred version of the page (revert to first two edits here, to the third edit here) within a few hours, despite intervening reverts by Scolaire and Spelodrach. This should be a case of IDHT, if not of a breach of 1RR.

There are also other cases of TCG adding the criminal infobox to Easter Rising participants (which can be found in their contribs), but I will leave them out because they were not yet alerted of DS when those edits were made.

I understand that Arbitration is a serious matter, and I hope I didn't err too much in my first enforcement request; I apologize for any wastage of time that this request incurs. Thank you all for your time. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable.

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

Special:Diff/1119388769

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would like to fix a ping. @Spleodrach: NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved "On 30 October... for your time" one section up (under the diffs) and the ping-fixing comment to this section. Thanks. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1119551559

Discussion concerning TheCurrencyGuy

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 TheCurrencyGuy

What Scolaire had done was not recategorise but removed the individuals entirely, something Spelodrach did again, somehow implying these people were not executed, I have not altered it since they were retained but shunted into a different category. I added the "criminal conviction" infobox in good faith after noting it on the articles of similar individuals likewise guilty of politically motivated crimes and I considered it an omission.

The argument over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals? is hard to follow. It is my position that if a person was lawfully executed and whose charge, conviction and execution is a pertinent aspect of their lives then it ought to be included in their infobox and should be supported by the categories the article is listed in. I am unsure whether the charge of treason by "levying war against the government" is technically considered a war crime, But I would have been happy to be advised to simply move them to another section. The heavy handed complete removal of them is what spurred my reversions.

Statement by M.nelson

The discussion at WT:IE#Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals? is not all that hard to follow - it's clear that there's significant opposition to TheCurrencyGuy's changes, which was apparent before their post-DS alert reverts. Their response here is WP:IDHT - trying to explain why they're right and everyone else in that discussion is wrong. -M.nelson (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Banner

Rather concerning is that The CurrencyGuy not only depicted the leader of the Easter Rising as criminals but also as war criminals (example: [127]) or just branded a fighter as a murderer (example: [128]). The Banner talk 12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also included persons who were victims of miscarriages of justice, marked "pardoned", Why are you upset at me categorising a person by the charge against them? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scolaire

I think this is a bit excessive. 1) three diffs are shown where in fact there were only two reverts: WP:EW defines a revert as "an edit or a series of consecutive edits", so the first two diffs make one revert (two is still too many, but bear with me). 2) Adding John MacBride to the List of people who were executed is a red herring, since it was not a revert. 3) The notice on TheCurrencyGuy's talk page was clearly about the articles where he was editing the infobox – a friendly warning not to revert any of those articles, which he did not. 4) Not having experience in Troubles-related articles, it would not have been obvious to him that List of people who were executed would come under the Troubles ArbCom's remit; that was not made clear in the notice, and NotReallySoroka did not take the trouble to explain that to him. I don't think any action should be taken here. Scolaire (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

It was pointed out in the thread that by TCG's definition above, Jesus should be listed as a criminal in the infobox and categories. While I don't think action should be taken at this time, he does need to rethink his actions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheCurrencyGuy

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

I note that TheCurrencyGuy already has one topic ban in place (on currency, imposed 3 weeks ago after a number of visits to ANI) and has since moved into the topic of Ireland. Given the tone and content of their arguments in discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Were_the_Easter_Rising_leaders_criminals?, and Talk:List_of_people_who_were_executed#POV_removals_from_the_list, I would suggest that they are not a very good fit for this topic area, and should probably stick to something less contentious (or preferably, not contentious at all). I will note that (a) "arguing that they're right and everyone else is wrong" is exactly what got them topic-banned from currency, and (b) editors with existing topic bans do not usually end up topic-banned from a second area - they're usually just blocked indefinitely as a time-sink. Black Kite (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I was half-tempted to indef based on them jumping into a new topic area and quickly running into issues -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[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 779: / Line 779: @@
 ====Statement by The Banner====
 Rather concerning is that The CurrencyGuy not only depicted the leader of the Easter Rising as criminals but also as war criminals (example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_who_were_executed&diff=prev&oldid=1114706761]) or just branded a fighter as a murderer (example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_who_were_executed&diff=next&oldid=1113965664]). <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
+:I also included persons who were victims of miscarriages of justice, marked "pardoned", Why are you upset at me categorising a person by the charge against them? [[User:TheCurrencyGuy|TheCurrencyGuy]] ([[User talk:TheCurrencyGuy|talk]]) 15:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Scolaire====

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