Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Hemantha

All editors are reminded that (1) various WP:DR processes exist to help resolve content dispute; (2) that it is best to come to AE only if you can demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior across multiple articles; and (3) WP:AGF --RegentsPark (comment) 17:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Hemantha

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RegentsPark, regarding the talk section #Removal of political role early in the dispute, the original editor took it to RSN, where, I don't think he found much support for including the New York Times information. As an editor from RSN phrased it, "was there a nuance missed by the NYT". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to CapnJackSp for reminding us about the Tek Fog article. There also, the content analyser shows zero content contributed by Hemantha, despite arguing intensely on the talk page. This seems to be a pattern with this editor. We need him to become a builder rather then a wrecker. Otherwise, he is just draining the energy of the content contributors.

In his long response he highlights my statement, "I understand". But the very next day, he started arguing for the New York Times, which didn't understand the very same point, in effect arguing against himself! What purpose is being served by this needless argumentation?

Even when he deletes content (which is about the only thing he does in the mainspace), it is not done in a manner keeping Wikipedia's interest in mind. For example, in Special:Diff/1072030378, he removed the names of two organisations (Campus Front of India and Social Democratic Front of India) being introduced, without any cognisance of the fact that those organisations appear in the rest of narrative. The same kind of insensitivity was repeated yesterday in removing "school management committees (SMCs) and college development committees (CDCs)" from the introductary paragraphs. The very next sentence mentions "CDCs", which is now without a reference! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every one, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemantha confidently asserts "there is nothing called school management committee". So, all these web pages would then be talking about non-existent things? This just shows the unhelpful, confrontationist approach that pervades all his work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion, all conduct issues ride on content issues to some extent (unless it is egregious misconduct). The point here is that the editor's tendency to do zero content work, but to engage in endless haranguing on the talk pages is in effect a WP:heckler's veto, and is obstructing other people's content work. The objection to "instigators" terminology is fine. I haven't contested it. But (a) adding tags like apparently^[vague] and (b) the example discussion I cited above (diff 4), which is covered in the last row of his table with this Discussion, where he says, instead of "most colleges have adopted uniforms", we should say "Deputy Director of PU department of the neighboring district said colleges have adopted them to aid in identifying students". This kind of nitpicking can go on endlessly, and completely lose sight of the fact that we are here actually to write an encyclopaedia, which the readers can read and learn something from.

I have worked on enough contentious pages for long enough that I know what disputes are. These are not "disputes". This is just mindless haranguing. He did it again this morning by the way, and he also deleted the content for which RegentsPark said "what the heck is Hemantha going on about". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Hemantha

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

Statement by Hemantha

About the diffs reported here:

DIFF	Issue in brief	Sources claimed to support the mainspace text I removed	My commentary
17:05, 15 February 2022	claims of "complicated picture" and "apparent" revelations		Filer later said "I understand". He reworded the text without those words, using the ref I'd added. The rewrite, while still a bit inaccurate, reflects what my original edit said.
16-Feb-2022, 09:48	Tag "Later" and "it was revealed" as CapnJackSp restored previous text
15-Feb-2022, 15:35	claims about CFI/SDPI	[2], [3] (or see this comparison in my sandbox for only relevant parts)	Text under dispute for three days before my involvement. I removed it as it was reproducing political leaders' claims in wiki-voice. The text is no longer present.
15-Feb-2022, 16:26	Partial mistake from my side		I was wrong to rm the statement about Ansar Ahmad. Combining two sentences on PFI wings into one seemed logical to me, but was reverted. I haven't insisted upon either anywhere again.
15:16, 15 February 2022	Insiders' claim about Udupi Muslim Federation	[4], [5] (or see this comparison)	Federation members' claims (sources for their membership in talk) are repeated in wiki-voice. I've argued this at length on talk (referred to by RegentSpark as well) because it's a self-serving claim that can't merit inclusion, especially in wiki-voice.
17-Feb-2022, 12:26	uniform adoption	[6] (see this comparison)	A quoted statement from the neighboring district's Pre-university department official and a claim attributed by journalist as "Sources said" are extrapolated and repeated in wiki-voice. Discussion after I was reverted by filer, where I suggested a modification with proper attribution, but have been stonewalled till now.

Rest of the screed by filer shows more about his own behavior than requiring any serious response from me. I note only that he is synthesizing two sources when he connects statistics about student numbers to the claim that "a rise required uniforms".

While I wouldn't see these as nitpicks, I agree with Tayi that these weren't major on Feb 15th. But then, I was reverted on each one of them with no basis at all. Apart from the one on CFI/SDPI, I had no idea that any of my edits touched the filer's contributions until I was reverted.

My vocalness on talk (though do note, filer himself had 40+ posts in the 4 days before my involvement) stems both from the stonewalling and from a previous discussion (possibly the roots of this filing) where the filer's disdain for Wikipedia sourcing policy and his attitude of making up his own rules was made evident to me(diff) The objection to NYT in this instance on flimsy basis also shows how he regards sources not aligned with his POV and the talk shows the lengths to which he will stonewall minor corrections. If I were to take an opportunity to present diffs (some samples) of filer's own (as well as WP:OWN) behavior in this instance, should I file a new report or can it be done here? Hemantha (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CapnJackSp has axes to grind. Nothing to reply in his bluster and fantasy filled tirade, so characteristic of the name. Hemantha (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Venkat and the incomprehensible reply above, it appears Kautilya3 is out to snipe somebody in this issue, no matter how daft he sounds. My statement is within the limit. New diff brought out shows how out of depth he is - there is nothing called a "School management committee". Moreover he has admitted that it is government's POV. It's rich to expect others to fix with 100% perfection his inaccuracies (especially when I'm certain I would've been reverted if it wasn't for this AR). I require more patronising "builder guidance" to grasp how his "I understand" reply in "later revelations" issue is related to my comments under NYT sentence issue.

I'll link a recent funny thread I'd stopped myself from before, out of, let's say, respect for the edit count. I have no idea what his contributions elsewhere are, but on current news events, I request Kautilya3 to look hard at his own edits to distinguish quality from rubbish. Hemantha (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, rewording - in the current context, 'school management committee' is a poor choice of words. But that had nothing at all to do with the diff you trotted out which was based on a different reason, which you yourself had admitted to. For somebody insisting on such perfection in talk page edits, your bile when others expect the same in mainspace smacks of hypocrisy. I won't respond anymore to content litigations. Hemantha (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Venkat TL

TLDR : Misuse of 'Arbitration Request' by OP to snipe an opponent of content dispute, instead of trying Dispute resolution.

I have been involved in multiple debates/discussions/disputes etc with Hemantha on article talk pages and Wikiproject pages. I have always found Hemantha to be a productive contributor who provides constructive feedback and engages in discussion in good faith with an aim to steer the discussion towards consensus.

The article being discussed in this dispute is a very controversial article that is still progressing as more facts are coming out as days progress. It is understandable that the participants will have objections and disputes. The discussions on its talk page are a clear indication of the controversial nature of the page.

On this article, Kautilya3 has not been acting as a saint either. Kautilya3 has already used Admin boards inappropriately in an attempt to snipe his opponents and get rid of them as a way out of content dispute. Few days back he had filed an inappropriate and made up Edit war report against me combining diffs of Copyvio reverts and already resolved disputes in trying to misrepresent the situation and painted a grim picture. Unfortunately for him the admins did not buy his claims and the report was closed as No action.

This Arbitration Request also appears to me as a second exercise with a similar goal to snipe a content dispute opponent. Instead of going for Dispute Resolution to resolve content disputes, Kautilya3 runs to admin boards and file complaints like this. Perhaps it has worked for him in past. I suggest the admins to also evaluate the behavior of Kautilya3 on this article before making any conclusion on his reports. Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemantha, in response to your Q. An admin might be able to better answer the question. I would have posted my diffs here itself. If an admin complains about word limit, you can split it into a new case. Documenting is more important than the bureaucracy. Venkat TL (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 who do you think you are, that you can call a fellow volunteer editor a "wrecker"? Who are you to tell others what they should edit and what not? May be you should read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service, if you have never read it. Users can edit whatever they like. He has already made some excellent contributions in Policy and guideline areas example WP:POI but it would not matter for you. For you what matters is getting the opponent of the content dispute out of the page by hook or by crook, as seen in this Arbitration request. Venkat TL (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion, indeed. It was conduct dispute to begin with but Kautilya3 decided he could utilize this to get some sanctions. The admins should not close this without warning to the filer Kautilya3. Venkat TL (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tayi Arajakate

I've headache by now and my interest in their dispute is mostly gone. Long story short, it started with a dispute over using an NYT article where Kautilya won't budge on using it which was followed by Hemantha essentially trying to nitpick some of Kautilya's other edits over which neither of them wants to budge. But yeah, this should just be kicked back to the article's talk pages considering there isn't any serious conduct issue from either of them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CapnJackSp

I’ll split my remarks into two separate sections, one for my opinions and one for some issues raised by editors.

Personally, I would by and large agree with Kautilya3 here. Hemantha has been arguing over minute differences in terminology, with suggested rewordings being rejected outright. To me, often it seems the case of “my way or the highway”. Rewordings of the source are tagged as OR, and if written in a manner similar to the source it’s CLOP. Leaves little space for editing, especially in an ongoing matter.

This pattern was experienced before as well, during the creation of the Tek Fog page, where Hemantha raised irrelevant issues and ground to a halt any attempts to make constructive edits, demanding a consensus on every edit and then stalling DR on the talk page with WP:BLUDGEONING ^[a]. Till the intervention of editor Kautilya3, the article maintained a version grossly violating NPOV, with OR and SYNTH encompassing large parts of the material.

As for the remarks made by Venkat TL, I find them rather distasteful. Instead of the issues at hand, Venkat has somehow dismissed them on account of his personal opinions. His statements here appear extremely misleading - The edit warring notice against him was closed on a technical point, since he had stopped edit warring post filing of the report. Edit warring is clearly visible from the diffs provided. Venkat falsely accuses the OP of filing illegitimate reports. Venkat’s own report on ANI against me as well as his repeated misleading statements can be accessed here^[b]

TLDR- Edits made are not generally aligned with the good faith expected of editors. Sanctions left to the discretion of the admins.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Objections stretched what should have taken a five minute cursory reading of RS, over a week to reach conclusion. First discussion,Second discussion
^ Venkat inserted duplicate templates into an article (Split page template, linking to an AFD. No idea how that works). When I came across the page a few days later, I removed one of them. Venkat dragged this to ANI, where his report can be accessed [here]. His statements [[1]] and his reply below it were made in a manner insinuating that both notices were removed, apart from unfounded allegations of edit warring

Statement by Aquillion

Unless I'm missing something, this just looks like a standard content dispute; AE isn't the venue to determine whether something is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH or not unless the situation is so clear-cut that one side is plainly WP:STONEWALLING, lacks WP:COMPETENCE, or is otherwise violating conduct policies. That doesn't seem to be the case here. In particular "instigators" is very WP:EXCEPTIONAL language (you're blaming the entire incident on those groups) which requires high-quality sources that unambiguously say the same thing. I'm not saying they're definitely correct, just that at a glance it's obviously not something so clear-cut as to be a conduct issue. Hash it out on talk, and if you're at loggerheads then have an RFC to call in additional opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

I also couldn't help but notice that this appears to be an almost pure content dispute with no evidence of anything AE-worthy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hemantha

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

Confusing. I read this and thought "what the heck is Hemantha going on about" but then I read this and was "what the heck is Kautilya3 going on about". Clearly, this is an issue that is inflaming passions in less than productive ways. I suppose we should hear what @Hemantha: has to say and what @Tayi Arajakate and CapnJackSp: and others have to say, but it looks like we should just kick this back to the article talk pages. I don't see wikipedia benefiting from topic bans or other AE action here. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3

Withdrawn by filer.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Kautilya3

Thinking more about this, while I still stand by my statement, since there is no possible scenario where a 70k+edits editor is going to be action-ed here on the basis of 5-6 contested diffs from someone like me, I do not want to waste others' time as he has done mine. I'd like to WITHDRAW the following report, with apologies for those who already did go through this. Hemantha (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

(all bolding in quotes mine)

2022-02-13T02:29:32, 2022-02-19T20:15:22 : BJP Govt's contested-in-court POV in wiki-voice

Added text - Govt has empowered SDMCs and CDCs to decide on uniforms

He has admitted that it's minister's POV. Now claims that an executive order (a primary text) is enough and removes attribution. This interpretation of the order is being litigated in court. He clearly is aware of that since he

2022-02-19T20:30:54 - Added a partial quote, eliding the previous line which showed that it's a litigant's claim.

2022-02-12T11:45:04, 2022-02-14T00:32:01 : Political claims about CFI/SDPI in wiki-voice

Added text - CFI and SDPI emerge as key instigators of the dispute.

Neither source says anything close. Both take care to qualify it as claims - by political leaders, anon sources and so on. He, OTOH has had the conviction since early on, that the students and CFI/SDPI were colluding from the beginning (despite WP:RS carrying denials). He stonewalled discussion for 3 days, objecting to and reverting attributions with claims like Neither they nor CFI have denied any of this. When I removed it, posted a baseless accusation of "batting for PFI" (note P, not C; PFI is classified as an extremist organisation)

2022-02-20T15:27:31‎ Continues to implicate SDPI/CFI based on claims of competing political leaders, but now has deigned to attribute partially. Previously added (and restored) their claims in wiki-voice and insisted on keeping them so.

2022-02-13T20:35:44 Removal of text showing BJP MLA's early involvement

Text removed - According to the New York Times, the college banned the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician.

Claimed that Yes, all information from NYT about the so-called "ban on hijab" at Udupi is to be rejected because NYT didn't go to Udupi and check anything.. Even after I showed local sources corroborating BJP politician's involvement, he claims that The MLA is ... given prominence only in the New York Fog. Stonewalling the discussion since Feb 13.

2022-02-13T02:29:32, 2022-02-17T10:50:54, 2022-02-20T12:25:29

Source text: (DPUE) website ... points out that some college principals and managements making uniform mandatory is a violation of rules. ... Jayanna C D, agreed the uniform is not mandatory, but said that colleges have made it mandatory ... Sources said almost all PU colleges in the state have made uniforms mandatory.

Text added - the majority of college CDCs have adopted them

Adds "majority adoption" as fact despite his own source putting the claim as a quote and carrying contradictory statements from PUE dept. Stonewalled my attempt to attribute it to the official, with more personal attacks

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Has given DS alerts extensively. For one just before the time of diffs reported above, see - 2022-02-06

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He has expressed his own novel interpretations of WP:RS previously to disregard sources he doesn't like. Above diffs show that lackadaisical (at best) attitude towards source-text integrity in mainspace edits. But since it is employed to push specific convictions, I believe they require scrutiny. The WP:OWN behavior shown by the bristling at corrections, minor or major, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of filing reports (two in the past week - on me, on Venkat) make civil attempts at countering the POV push unduly difficult. Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentSpark, I've worded my report as neutrally as possible keeping in mind that view. Seeing subsequent report as retaliatory is an advantage to the litigious ones. I needed to enter this evidence (as I said above in my reply) and I've entered it. Given Kautilya3's views about DS and AE, he's succeeded already by thoroughly poisoning the well in his report. Close it, lapse it, boomerang me, I have nothing more to say about this than what I've already said. Hemantha (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1073176500

Discussion concerning Kautilya3

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 Kautilya3

Please put this on hold for a couple of days as I am quite busy in RL at the moment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Everything that applies above applies here, too; this is basically a content dispute. Also, most of the time if you feel the filer is at fault for problems in the specific dispute they brought to AE, it makes more sense to suggest a WP:BOOMERANG than to start another section - but either way, this doesn't reach that point. Simply being wrong (assuming they are wrong) or having idiosyncratic views on how a source can be used isn't enough for something to be a conduct issue on its own; they have to be so obviously wrong that it either strains good faith or raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. None of that applies there - if we brought AE sanctions against users for stuff of this level, controversial topic areas would have almost no editors left. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Venkat TL

@Aquillion: With the 500 word limit to the response in place. I don't think it is possible to merge the two requests. --Venkat TL (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemantha this comment should go on the top of the request or below your last comment. Middle of the request is not the right place. Venkat TL (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kautilya3

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

@Hemantha: Are you sure you want to do this? It seems retaliatory to me. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobita456

The signal to noise ratio in this report is ridiculous, but there is enough evidence to show that Nobita456 is being disruptive, perhaps accidentally at at times but intentionally as well. I would remind Ekdalian that this isn't SPI. Under the authority of WP:ARBIPA, I'm going to impose a topic ban on Nobita456 for all things caste related, broadly construed, (ALL edits relating to castes and ethnic/social groups across all namespaces) for a period of 90 days. This is getting close to General Sanctions territory WP:CASTE, but is done under Arb authority instead, ie: WP:ARBIPA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Nobita456

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ekdalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nobita456 (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:CASTE

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

08Feb22_1 & 08Feb22_2 Edit warring with neutral trusted editor, attempting POV pushing
14Feb22 continued with edit warring
09Feb22 Another one, incorrect edit summary, LukeEmily who added the tag was okay with it's removal, please check 06Feb22
21Feb22 Misinformation; in spite of having discussion with Sitush, misrepresenting the fact saying I only opposed their proposed section; please check conversation with Sitush here
22Feb22 Raising duplicate discussion at WP:RSN as pointed out by LukeEmily just in order to push caste agenda

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15Feb22 Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring at Brahmin

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

Please check 25Jan22 & 01Feb22 for discretionary sanctions notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nobita456 is a suspected sock of Bengaliwikipro & their sockfarm, meant for POV pushing related to Baidya/Vaidya. CU has used the term 'Possilikely'; please check here. Admins are literally frustrated; please check here as well as here and even suggested topic ban here. Suggestion by senior editor e.g. this. IMO, Nobita456, whether a sock or not, is not here to build an encyclopedia; rather active only in order to push caste related personal agenda.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning Nobita456

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 Nobita456

Ekdalian almost tried every admin to block me but failed and now this.First he tried me to block for socking but failed. just because I exposed his POV in caste related articles he is getting frustrated with me. that guy using old sources to push his POV in wikipedia. I try to do conversation with other users before doing my edis. many users even thanked me for my edits. admins even warned Ekdalian for filing complain against me everyday,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further Ekdalin reverted my sourced edits see. LukeEmily said it was well sourced see. other Editors Satnam and Chanchaldm also agreed with me see 1 2. I even initiated a RFC after that. Nobita456 (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown this guy Ekdalian almost in every discussion try to represent me as a sockpuppet and do personal attacks on me like I am POV pusher. Nobita456 (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please see this how Ekdalian presented me to a senior user who has been absent for a long.is that not a attack on me and misinterpretation? please take some action regarding this if you find it necessary,Thanks.Nobita456 (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Trangabellam who also accused me of socking filing another case against me. Please note I already identified and fixed his faulty edits in Badiya article (like citing a direct census in a caste article and giving half information), Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He even told me this , even after Roysmith's comments on me in that sockpuppet investigation.is this not a violation of wikipedia good faith edits? and a attack on me? Nobita456 (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another user edited the Baidya article but Trangabellam except him thinks everyone is a POV pusher.how can he revert sourced content by saying this?

It is all Wikipedia editor's right including me to verify sourced content, That's why I enquired about Hag nothing else. I even said if the source is reliable then I have no problem with that. Wikipedia is a platform that asks every editor to contribute, If Trangabellam reverts everyone's sourced content like this, then it is very hard for editors like us to contribute. Nobita456 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde the block I got for edit war was really unintentional, though I should not have done that, after getting some experience and advice by Admins I really think edit war is a foolish thing to do. I promised it will not happen again and I will definitely follow it. and regarding the primary source any senior admin could have advised me not to put that as you advised me. but editors were too busy to complain against me. anyway I apologize for those actions, I really beg your pardon as a new editor who is still learning the rules of Wikipedia. and why my edits are limited to a subject I explained to Regendspark park on his talk page. please see it. I will definitely try to broaden my edit range, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ekdalian you are again cherry-picking Sitush comments, admins please see what Sitush actually said, He said I don't understand why a separate section would be required does that mean Rejecting? again a misinterpretation by Ekdalian? Further Sitush Said @Nobita456 :I am not interested. As I have said on a few occasions recently, I am using the app at the moment and it isn't great for tracking pings, reading convoluted discussions, or checking diffs. what does that mean? he is not able to judge it for his technical issues. After that I even initiated a talk section to gain consensus, LukeEmily did a great job there. The content-related dispute should not be taken here unless I edit war Or proven misinterpretation or use unreliable sources But He is trying to divert the admin's concentration from this. and regarding Socks, I cant see every intention of them, and defend myself one by one against it. Every editor do some grammar or spelling mistakes so what does that mean? Everyone is a sockpuppet? I already gave my comments at Sockpuppet Investigation before. Ekdalian is not talking about contents in the article's talk page as well But busy complaining here Trying their best to prove me shocking Which is already rejected. I can completely delete Hutton for which he doesn't have consensus WP:RSN See. But I did not remove it completely. Because it is essential. I am here to contribute to Wikipedia. It is very hard for me to defend myself every day against your repeated allegations. Nobita456 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I discuss every edit with senior editor.even said you can correct me if I was wrong. I corrected many errors in caste related articles, contributed and edited many caste related articles,which I have a good knowledge. Please see my good faith edits. Nobita456 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my last edit about Adisura, the cited source itself mentions the same about Adisura see, not only this but some other reliable sources also give same information.thats why I added that.The whole thing is a myth see History section. I never had enough discussion with Trangabellam regarding that. See my edit summary " I said please correct me If I am wrong" Nobita456 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The case filer Ekdalin himself defends a certain community. see his contribution, HE even added some racist Aryan theories in Bengali Kayastha article ( Which Trangabellam removed). but all rules are only for me? I even edited many more caste articles not only Baidya, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I was accused of putting The book of U. A. B. Razia Akter Banu a couple of times to achieve opposition on it. and now see what TB said "How is U. A. B. Razia Akter Banu an expert on ancient Bengal and demographic movements? Her book is an ethnographic work about a topic that is not linked to our subject". he even opposed this book. Nobita456 (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors including TrangaBellam have expressed concern about the src., but still Ekdalian is pushing his POV to prove Kayastha as alpine Aryan see and doing racism. how this information see is relevant to the Bengali Brahmin article? Bengali Kayastha bore the surname of Nagara Brahmin, how it is relevant to the Bengali Brahmins article? Kayasthas are not Bengali Brahmins. Nidhapur and Dubi inscriptions are found in Assam and Nagara Brahmin who are not Bengali Brahmins, All are irrelevant But He needs to push his pov to include Kayasthas in this article. TrangaBellam also regarded this source as not reliable see. Ekdalian even judged scholars with their surname and caste see. admins should definitely need some actions to take against this racist and POV pusher Ekdalian, he can't get the shield of seniority every time. Nobita456 (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LukeEmily

Based on the pattern I have seen, I am in agreement with TrangaBellam when he says Nobita456 is a notorious POV-pusher (see block-logs, t/p, AE etc.) and I am quite certain that this RfC is a backhanded way to insert a POV-slant. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC) On evaluating the section inserted by OP, I stand by my guesses. here and here. I always assume good faith but now I feel he is only here for promoting Baidya(and probably demoting any rival community). I can come up with many more examples (given the time), but here is the latest for a backhanded promotion: There was a discussion started by Nobita456 with TrangaBellam about inserting Baidya caste for the mythological king Adisura in Talk:Kulin_Brahmin (I was not involved in the discussion). TrangaBellam gave plenty of reasons, quotes etc. and the discussion was not continued after 16th Feb. Thus the "baidya" caste was not inserted for Adisura in that article. Just recently, Nobita456 inserted Baidya caste for King Adisura in a related article on "Bengali Brahmins" here with the defense "If I am doing something wrong then please correct me" in the summary. His grammar and sentence construction on talk pages also seems to match talk of some banned Baidya POV pusher editors but since CU cleared him, will not comment on that. I reverted it but we could have easily missed this edit. TB rightly said The energy expended in these pointless discussions is a strain on the few editors who patrol these topics. I don't know why this rivalry is going on between the communities - maybe it is some political situation in Bengal. LukeEmily (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ekdalian

I have said "Nobita456 is a suspected sock of Bengaliwikipro & their sockfarm, meant for POV pushing related to Baidya/Vaidya. CU has used the term 'Possilikely'." Dennis Brown, I have never claimed that the CU linked Nobita456 with a sockmaster. How do you say, "I find your representation of that SPI report to be very misleading and a real problem. That is the kind of misrepresentation that can backfire on you at WP:AE, and can even get YOU sanctioned." Did I misrepresent what CU said? They used the term 'Possilikely', that's the reason I used the term 'suspected sock'. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam

Please keep this open for a couple of days. I have a case to make against Nobita456. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite busy in RL but let me draw your attention to the latest antic of Nobita456 to have a source declared as unreliable, as emblematic of their worrying levels of incompetency:

A cursory Google search should have led Nobita456 to Haag's faculty-profile at one of the most prestigious grandes écoles of social sciences in France, which has —
Chaire : Psychologie et linguistique dans le monde indien:
[..] Une reprise d’études l’a amenée à un doctorat en Études indiennes (2002) et ses recherches ont porté principalement, jusqu’en 2011, sur la grammaire sanskrite, la philosophie du langage et l’histoire des théories linguistique indiennes [..]
The publisher (D.K. Printworld) is mentioned in our citations in the proper format but yet Nobita456 requests that we provide the name of publisher. Sealioning?
Anyway, LukeEmily gave a decent reply and emphasized that a monograph written by a UPenn faculty and published by University of Chicago Press (Mukharji) had explicitly urged readers to consult Haag's work for a detailed discussion of Baidya mobility, thus being an obvious indicator of Haag's reliability. Nobita456's reply is borderline incoherent wherein one of the claims is that Haag's book was not published by a publisher.

The energy expended in these pointless discussions is a strain on the few editors who patrol these topics. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I do not consider myself INVOLVED here, but I'm posting in this section as I'm contributing evidence, and I don't have the time to evaluate all of Nobita's conduct. I have had two exchanges with Nobita about their use of sources; 1, 2. In both instances, they were not being sufficiently careful to avoid original research, and more importantly, did not at any point acknowledge that they had overstepped. I would not impose a sanction for those instances alone, but some editors participating here may wish to read those conversations. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ekdalian (additional behavioral evidence)

RegentsPark, Bishonen, I am posting here once again considering RegentsPark's remarks on behavioural evidence, and keeping this open for further comments. I would like to highlight some conclusive (IMO) behavioral pattern since as per CU as well, "Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)". Admins may not have the time to devote in order to dig deeper into behavioral evidence. I am thankful that RegentsPark pointed out the same & mentioned about the cursory look by the admin concerned, not just looking at the last statement by CU & drawing conclusions! Thanks Bishonen for your continuous support! Coming to the behavioral evidence: Bengaliwikipro and their socks showed unusual interest on Baidya, and another article Bengali Kayastha since they had inter caste rivalry during medieval times (regarding who ranks higher after Brahmins in Bengal); agenda is to promote Baidya (puffery) & demote Kayasthas (caste war in 2022)![reply]

1 as rightly pointed out by TrangaBellam while rejecting Nobita's proposed section.
2 Comments by Sitush clearly rejecting the proposed section, but misinterpreted (seems intentional) by Nobita. Sitush mentioned he could not submit his opinion on Bengali Kayastha talk page through his app, having trouble with pings, diffs & viewing convoluted discussions, and Nobita's interpretation is this on Talk:Bengali Kayastha.
3 comments by Gorezka46 (another sock of Bengaliwikipro), who similarly showed interest on Bengali Kayastha apart from Baidya.
Behavioural evidence, random comments by Nobita, 1, 2, same pattern be it talk page comments or edit summary; just have a look at the sentences; none of the sentence begin with Caps after full stop. Same is evident for Bengaliwikipro & their socks e.g. Miller110's edit summary 3, Biplop4568's edit summary 4, in fact the sockmaster Bengaliwikipro's edit summary 5, also Nobita's edit summary 6, Miller110's talk page comments 7, Nobita's comments on RegentsPark's talk page 8 all follow the same behavioral pattern; no Caps even after full stop! It is actually difficult to hide your writing pattern (equivalent to signature); next time they would be cautious though.

Also, namimg convention as pointed out by TrangaBellam during the recent CU discussions, almost all the socks have similar naming convention, please check TB:s comments, "Another interesting similarity lies in the user names: 6 alphabets concatenated to 3 numbers. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)".

I guess it's too lengthy (since behavioral pattern requires details); can cite more, but I believe this is enough! Admins, you may remove/archive my comments after going through the same. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nobita456

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

Let's take it point by point, using your numbering system.

1. I see a little revert jockeying, in the article as a whole, including some self-reverts by Nabita and others. I don't see this as edit warring at this stage, although several editors need to be careful.

2. A single revert, putting existing material back into the article. For the most part, that content is still in the article now.

3. You are kind of misrepresenting what LukeEmily said here. He didn't say he was ok with removal, he qualified it with a condition. It's a bit in the eye of the beholder, but it isn't a clear cut declaration or misprepresentation.

4. You're just linking your own comment, which doesn't provide any info.

5. As for raising issues at WP:RSN that have already been answered, I don't see how that is so disruptive, unless it was massive amounts.

The article is very active, lots of bumping here and there, but I'm not seeing the kind of activity that rises to the level that requires strong sanctions at WP:AE. It is normal in caste articles to have strong opinions and disagreement, but the talk page is being used, and while there is a little sparring with the revert button, it's doesn't seem to be genuinely disruptive. While sometimes heated, I don't see what is outside the norm here. Is there something I'm missing? Something bigger than what is here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking around and seeing lots of prior episodes with Nabita, but I may just have a higher tolerance than some admin on articles like this. I'm of the mind set that if you over-enforce, you only encourage the passive aggressive POV pushers and you lose balance in the article. This isn't saying Nabita is a model editor. Still, it looks like other admin have blocked them already, so I'm still not sure if WP:AE is the right answer if other methods are being used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I forgot to point out, Ekdalian, is the claim that the CU linked Nobita456 with a sockmaster. You focus on this initial possible link but completely dismiss the actually finding by the CU: "I came back to this and took another look at Nobita456. I don't see anything that convinces me they're a sock,..." I find your representation of that SPI report to be very misleading and a real problem. That is the kind of misrepresentation that can backfire on you at WP:AE, and can even get YOU sanctioned. CU is difficult on SE Asia topics for technical reasons, which is why Roy was so careful and came back after doing some extra homework. I don't fault him, particularly since he didn't do a hit and run on the CU, but dug deeper. I'm more inclined to follow his last sentence in that report, rather than his first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian, you need to read more carefully, for your own benefit. In the end, the CU said that a link is unlikely. For you to come here and try to use the first half of a report to cast aspersions against another editor is unacceptable. I don't suggest you take this line of action again, or it will result in sanctions against you. Don't cherry pick parts of a report just to make someone look bad. This whole report is starting to look like an attempt by you to take out an opponent. Nabita is no saint and needs to be more careful, but your own actions are suspect enough that you would be best to listen to what is being said, and like the CU report, not just hear what you want to hear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bit more light on the subject. This wasn't helped by the exaggerations by Ekdalian, which hurts their own argument and makes it look as if you are trying to take out an opponent, something we see too often here. One person who has been around the topic area a great deal and is experienced (and who I am familiar with and trust), is Sitush. I would like to hear his perspective, if he would be so generous with his time. There are obviously problems here, that was obvious from the start, but I'm not sure how deep these problems run. It is one thing to ask the same things twice because you forgot or didn't understand, and another to do it solely to bog things down, and that is one of the things I'm trying to determine: which is it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - - So much vitriol in this topic area. Looking at new evidence and digging around, I'm ok with a topic ban at this point. The sockpuppet claims are more distraction than anything, and don't matter here since there is a tenacious editing style that isn't conductive to collaboration. I can see and indef, with review after 6 months if he chooses, and see how he does in other areas for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobita456, I strongly advise you to cool it with the incremental posting here. You have 500 words, which you may need later. Don't waste them with stuff like complaining about a comment from TrangaBellam that doesn't even exist yet..! Please note that it will not be welcome if you later blank your own previous comments to make space for new, as that would wrongfoot people who have already commented on your comments. So please think before you post, and weigh your words. (I'll have more to say later, I hope.) Bishonen | tålk 12:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I'm looking at the SPI report linked to by Ekdalian and it seems to me that there was no behavioral evaluation (except for a cursory look by Ed). Add the poss/likely and I'm willing to cut Ekdalian some slack in quoting that report. Nobita456 has edited almost exclusively in the Baidya caste sphere and appears to be a constant fixture on Talk:Baidya and that is concerning (both Bishonen and I did advise them to broaden their interests but that hasn't really happened). I think we should wait and see what other editors (@LukeEmily and TrangaBellam:) have to say before drawing any conclusions. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter329

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 Baxter329

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Baxter329 (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

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

23:33, 23 February 2022 At Patrisse Cullors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), adds text In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist." They had been informed here and here of the Rfc at Talk:Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?, and after saying here that I am considering adding the Politifact quote of her saying she's a "trained Marxist" to the Patrisse Cullors article they were also told here that I would strongly recommend against adding the quote at Patrisse Cullors. But they went ahead and did it anyway.
23:15, 21 February 2022 Adds WP:LEAD violation at Black Lives Matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
22:03, 22 February 2022 Re-adds material from diff#2 without consensus (I'd probably give them a pass on that since it was removed without any explanation, just including it for thoroughness)
22:52, 22 February 2022 Re-adds material from diff#2 despite it being specifically challenged on WP:LEAD, lack of consensus from previous talk page discussions and WP:ONUS. See also talk page post made prior to that revert detailing more discussions about that particular quote.

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)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There's a general cluelessness and failure to listen at Talk:Black Lives Matter in general. FDW777 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently demonstrating the general cluelessness and failure to listen I mentioned, they twice say here that no one has given any valid explanation as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless. FDW777 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 15 minutes, Baxter329 has restored disputed content relating to Black politician Winsome Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) accusing her of being a white supremacist, with one of the references being Fox News. This is despite their November attempt to add the same content being reverted. I remain speechless. FDW777 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: At 23:20, 26 February 2022 Baxter329 was still claiming they haven't been given an explanation as to why the content shouldn't have been added. Either they are being intentionally disruptive or they don't have the competence to edit. FDW777 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Baxter329

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 Baxter329

I stand by all of my additions to Black Lives Matter. My additions to Black Lives Matter are relevant and reliably sourced.

At the same time, I also respect the consensus to not include the content. I will not add any of those things to Black Lives Matter again. I disagree with the consensus. But I will obey it.

I also stand by my addition of the following to Patrisse Cullors, in the section titled "Ideology and policy positions."

In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist."^[1] In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.^[2]

No one has given me any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" of Patrisse Cullors.

I added that content to Patrisse Cullors exactly one time. After someone removed it, I never put it back.

And again, no one has given any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors.

My only defense of any of my additions to either Black Lives Matter or Patrisse Cullors is the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."

Given that Patrisse Cullors has a section called, "Ideology and policy positions," why should that content not be included in the article?

Baxter329 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I was not allowed to add that content to my sandbox.

On 23:08, 23 February 2022, at Talk:Black Lives Matter, I said:

"while I still think both quotes should be included in this article, I will not bring up that subject in any new talk page discussions for this article. I acknowledge that the consensus is against including them in this article. I don't agree with that consensus, but I must respect it."

But this arbitration section was created on 23:43, 23 February 2022.

In other words, this arbitration section was created 35 minutes after I promised to respect the consensus regarding Black Lives Matter. So that issue had already been solved before this arbitration was created.

Thus, the only remaining issue is my addition of the following to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors:

In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist."^[3] In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.^[4]

I added that content to Patrisse Cullors one time. Someone removed it. I never put it back in.

No one has given a legitimate explanation for why the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors should not include that content.

I still maintain the following as my only justification for adding that content to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."

Baxter329 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to show that Winsome Sears was a white supremacist. Instead, I was trying to show that some of her opponents had accused her of being a white supremacist. I stand by my edit.

My edit to food desert is relevant, notable, and reliably sourced. Numerous reliable sources have reported that shoplifting and rioting are major causes of food deserts. Before I added this content, the article made zero mention of shoplifting and rioting as causes of food deserts. I stand by my edit.

The video that I cited gives an extensive explanation by Patrisse Cullors, in her own words, of what she meant when she called herself a "trained Marxist." I stand by my edit. And I stand by my comment that no one has given a legitimate reason why this content should not be included in the section of her article titled, "‎Ideology and policy positions."

Baxter329 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:FDW777 just said, "Conveniently demonstrating the "general cluelessness and failure to listen" I mentioned, they twice say here that "no one has given any valid explanation" as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless."

That's the problem - you're "speechless."

I have repeatedly asked for a reason why Patrisse Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in the "‎Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. It is precisely your being "speechless" that I am objecting to. I have repeatedly asked why this content should not be included in "‎Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. And you have not given a legitimate reason. You are indeed being "speechless," and that is the problem. Please "speak." Please give a legitimate reason why Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in "‎Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors.

Baxter329 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with me citing two different New York Times articles which blamed Joe Biden for creating a policy of institutional racism that was ALREADY mentioned in the wikipedia article?

What's wrong me citing info on the recall of George Gascón?

The New York Times wrote extensively about the overcrowded housing where the Philadelphia fire occurred. According to the New York Times, three mothers and their 11 children (no fathers were mentioned in the New York Times article) were all living together in a 4 bedroom home. This is relevant because it's what led to the death count being as high as it was.

Without fossil fuels, we'd still have an average life expectancy of about 30 years.

The New York Times reported that it was racist to give a literacy test to prospective teachers, so the test was abolished. That's what it said in the New York Times. I even quoted the New York Times word-for-word to make sure I was getting the meaning of the article accurate. Are you saying the New York Times is not a reliable source?

You posted the wrong diff for my edit on voter ID laws. This is my actual edit. I stand by that edit as well.

(talk) 23:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?, Politifact, July 21, 2020
^ Am I A Marxist?, Patrisse Cullors, YouTube, December 14, 2020
^ Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?, Politifact, July 21, 2020
^ Am I A Marxist?, Patrisse Cullors, YouTube, December 14, 2020

Statement by EvergreenFir

I am WP:INVOLVED but I was thinking of bring an AE request against Baxter if they continued their disruption. I support an AP2 topic ban. I will add some more diffs in a couple hours to demonstrate the pattern of disruption by this user. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ANI report - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Baxter_329_WP:GREATWRONGS_WP:NOTFORUM

POV against liberals, solely negative edits

Rebecca Watson - "Defending shoplifting" (with a dash of SYNTH)
Winsome Sears - Accused of white supremacy by liberals
George Gascón - [7] and [8] about recall vote
Institutional racism - Joe Biden sponsored crime bill
Leon Cooperman - Criticism from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
Sonia Sotomayor - Fact check 1 and 2
Alvin Bragg - Armed robbery sentencing
Neil Young - Hypocrisy on GMOs (and on The Monsanto Years)
Leonardo DiCaprio - Hypocrisy
Elizabeth Warren - Solitary confinement

Black Lives Matter

Perseveration on looting - deserts&oldid= , [9], [10], [11], [12]
Donations investigations - [13]
Family structure - [14], [15]
Antisemitism - [16], [17], [18]

Racial antagonism?

2022 Philadelphia apartment fire - Somehow the fire is related to African-American family structure?
Literacy test scores (multiple pages) - Education in New York (state), New York (state), Standardized test, Institutional racism
Voter identification laws in the United States - Some video about race and IDs

Other SYNTH and CIR

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Baxter329, please only comment in your section. Unlike talk pages, this board is set up to have each user/commenter use only their own section and not reply in others' sections. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:Rebecca Watson#Defending shoplifting?. I think we may have a broader pattern of problematic POV editing where they are constantly trying to spin sources (see Talk:Food desert#Shoplifting) or just confect complete non-issues (e.g. the issue on Watson's article) into something to support obvious POV narratives and possibly even grudges against BLP subjects. I suspect that this is indicative a general WP:NOTHERE attitude but, if it is not, then WP:CIR becomes the issue. What I don't see is much editing outside of these problematic areas. If they were doing good work in other areas then I'd be happy let them continue with that but, as they are not, I wonder whether there is any point in any sanction other than a block.

As for the "trained Marxist" thing, I think it is a pretty much meaningless phrase with very unclear implications and I suspect that that is the intent. I also find it funny because it makes Marxism sound like some sort of martial art and inadvertently makes it sound way cooler than it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Baxter329

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

This all seems centered around Baxter329 continually adding "marxist" or "trained marxist" against a well established consensus. I'm a bit confused over how that consensus developed, and could see how the term could be used in a very limited circumstance, but it doesn't matter what I think. The RFC was valid and very clear that the threshold to use that term hasn't been met, not by a lack of sources, but from a lack of the term being properly defined in those sources, as "Marxist" is a bit of a catchall phrase that could mean many things. It seem that Baxter329 was aware of it before inserting it in the article multiple times. So Baxter329, the ball is kind of in your court. Please shed some light on this so we don't have to assume the worst. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that saying "trained Marxist" in Wiki voice would be a no no, but this is how they described themselves in a reliable interview, so this is a reliable primary source. I don't even know what a "trained Marxist" is supposed to mean. If they refuse to come and discuss, I would be inclined to say a 30 day tban from the topic to start, simply because they knew there was an RFC and they ignored it. You can't just ignore an RFC in contentious areas. If you disagree, you have to take the long way and see it overturned. I prefer to hear from them, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC really bugs me. If someone claims their idiology is $x, and you are making a section on idiology of that person, but you get a consensus to NOT put in that fact, a "trained Marxist", that doesn't make sense. It is almost like a bunch of editors are trying to protect her from herself in this article by voting to exclude information that you would THINK is relevant, sourced, and clearly material to the section. We don't have the authority to override the RFC here, but something stinks. That said, Baxter, you MUST abide by a consensus. You can work to get it in front of a bigger audience and form a new consensus, but you can't ignore it. All that said, I'm hard pressed to sanction because something just feels very wrong about this situation. We're being asked to sanction for activity that is usually considered normal. I don't feel I can do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dennis with the caveat that I can see why "trained Marxist" could be a POV statement. If we fail to hear from Baxter329 some sort of action (a tban from AP2, which is pretty much the only area they edit in?). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without that RfC, these edits would be within the bounds of normal content editing; given that Baxter329 was aware of that RfC, though, the first diff appears disruptive. I note they have also added the same content to their sandbox after being told of the RfC. I'd like to hear from Baxter329 here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ObtuseAngles

Rendered moot when Ponyo used her Checkuser voodoo and blocked ObtuseAngles --> SlideAndSlip as a CU action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning ObtuseAngles

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ObtuseAngles (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

10:40, 25 February 2022 At Violet-Anne Wynne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adds extended content regarding a rent arrears dispute
11:21, 25 February 2022 At same article replaces a referenced year of birth with a completely unreferenced full date of birth, one that's also a different year from the referenced one
11:55, 25 February 2022 Restores content from diff#1 despite it being removed with a clear edit summary of WP:UNDUE, see WP:ONUS this should not be added back without consensus
11:58, 25 February 2022 Repeats diff #2
11:57, 25 February 2022 Posts to my talk page saying Please do not remove well sourced information from articles. It can be considered vandalism. If you have any issue with any content please raise it on the talk page. Thank you.

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)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See also the repeated attampts to issue me with a DS warning, despite me clearly being aware already.

I would dearly love to know how I could possibly have followed ObtuseAngles to an aritlce I have edited numerous times since February 2020. As for the claim to be inexperienced, see diff#5 with the post to my talk page. People with no experience of Wikipedia don't say things like that, in my experience. FDW777 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notifed

Discussion concerning ObtuseAngles

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 ObtuseAngles

This editor is obviously much more experienced than I am and knows how to game the system (I see they have reported multiple editors to this page) and try and trick new editors into making procedural mistakes and get them into bother.

This editor tried to get the article Dungiven landmine and gun attack deleted at AfD. But when that did not succeed they tried to Merge the article and has had an issue with me ever since I disagreed with their position on the talk page.

Obviously they didn't like that and since then has started spamming my talk page with warning notices. I consider this unfriendly and aggressive but it looks like they were potentially goading me to try to set my up to bring me here.

Then today they followed me to the Violet-Anne Wynne article. This lady is in the news today as they resigned from their party today. So it was my intention to expend the article today.

I have started that by adding material to every section of the article until this editor stopped me in my tracks.

This editor seems to have an issue with two particular parts of my editing. 1. The date of birth. 2. The rent arrears section.

I'm not sure what is controversial about these edit? The date of birth is outlined here and the rent arrears issue was national news with multiple media outlets covering the story and this story is the reason most people in Ireland ever heard of Wynne. I don't think anyone is disputing anything I added.

I tried to discuss the matter with this editor but they obviously didn't want to know. My guess is because discussing the matter would have stopped them walking me into this trap. So they just deleted my message.

I am not saying I am a perfect editor. I am not saying I know all the rules and regulations here. I am learning. But this editor is acting in a very sneaky way and trying to trap and inexperienced editor that they disagree with in an attempt to shut them up.

Again every edit I made was backed up by sources, no one is disagreeing with any of the content I added it just looks to me like this editor loves causing trouble and throwing their superior knowledge of the system around. Poor form.--ObtuseAngles (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serial Number 54129

ObtuseAngles suggests that FDW777 has had an issue with me ever since I disagreed with their position on the talk page, and "unfriendly" and "aggressive". But. OA's comments at the talk page merge discussion started off telling FDW777 to Stop wasting everyone's time ([19]) and then telling another editor that they had a boring and negative approach, whose edits would all be rolled back ([20]). Pretty robust language for a new editor who took no part in the original AfD, but I think it's becoming clear who has the "unfriendly and aggressive" WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. SN54129 15:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 86.4.163.59

I agree with FDW as far as the content dispute is concerned, but do not see why they brought it here. It is not a BLP/AE issue. 86.4.163.59 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ObtuseAngles

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

Note that I have blocked ObtuseAngles per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SlideAndSlip.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ypatch

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

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

Appealing user: Ypatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ypatch (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed [21]

Administrator imposing the sanction: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Ypatch

I am requesting my topic-ban to be lifted or modified.

I was given a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page, where I’m currently taking part in 3 different content disputes:

In the first content dispute, I’m primarily at a disagreement with User:Iskandar323, where some editors are supporting the inclusion of other names to the article and other editors are supporting the exclusion of those names. Since this seems to be a content dispute, I have proposed a RFC to solve this.

In the second content dispute, I’m at a disagreement with User:Vice regent about how a section in that article should be organized. Since we are at a disagreement, I have proposed that we get others to vote about which version should remain in the article.

In the third content dispute, I am in agreement with all the other editors there.

My topic ban concerns “stalling out the consensus-building process”, but I have proposed alternative solutions that have at times been met with violations of the article's Consensus Required Restriction. Nevertheless I have tried to steer arguments towards WP:DR (what I thought we were supposed to be doing in such cases).

Statement by Vanamonde93

I believe that Ypatch's recent contributions to People's Mujahedin of Iran and its talk page are aimed at preventing content they dislike from being included by any means necessary, rather than at discussing disagreement in good faith. This isn't based on any single diff, but on the totality of their recent behavior. I am happy to answer questions from uninvolved admins, but I doubt I will change my mind about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ypatch

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Ypatch

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

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

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

[3] Objections stretched what should have taken a five minute cursory reading of RS, over a week to reach conclusion. First discussion,Second discussion

[4] Venkat inserted duplicate templates into an article (Split page template, linking to an AFD. No idea how that works). When I came across the page a few days later, I removed one of them. Venkat dragged this to ANI, where his report can be accessed [here]. His statements [[1]] and his reply below it were made in a manner insinuating that both notices were removed, apart from unfounded allegations of edit warring

[5] Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?, Politifact, July 21, 2020

[6] Am I A Marxist?, Patrisse Cullors, YouTube, December 14, 2020

[7] Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?, Politifact, July 21, 2020

[8] Am I A Marxist?, Patrisse Cullors, YouTube, December 14, 2020

[a]

[b]

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

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