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	333	334	335

Pranesh Ravikumar

Pranesh Ravikumar is topic banned indefinitely from the subjects of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 13 September 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 Pranesh Ravikumar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

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

04:17, 28 August 2022 Removes a reliably sourced addition claiming it's RGW. (1st revert)
Follows it up with this intimidation/accusatory message to the editor who added it over what's essentially a comment dispute at this stage. Warned for disruption. They copypaste the warning message, claim that I'm hounding them and other things in retaliation (diff).
05:13, 30 August 2022 Removes it again. (2nd revert) Warned for edit warring.
[13:28, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Removes it again and replaces it with a cherrypicked copypaste while citing a different source. (3rd revert)
[15:39, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Same as above but this time they cite the real source. (4th revert) Warned for copyright violation.
In the meantime we have a long winded discussion on my talk page which ends with them insisting on a personal standard that for "verification doesn't guarantee inclusion" to apply, one must present a refutation to the source.
13:10, 2 September 2022‎ Partial restoration of their addition which includes similar close paraphrasing (Compare with source) and without any attempts to gain consensus through a third opinion or an RFC for it. They are well aware of ONUS due to the above discussion but they simply dismiss the dispute by claiming that it "wasn't sensibly disputed". (5th revert)

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 15:43, 29 August 2022 and 13:01, 27 May 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Discussing something with them itself is a pain due to the fact that they just tend to double down whenever a mistake is pointed out, argue against straw men and it's ultimately fruitless when they just go IDHT. In addition note that this behavior may be motivated by the nature of the content itself, the initial addition reflected negatively on the Premiership of Narendra Modi which they first tried to remove and then tried to minimise/distract from by adding tangential material. They have also previously been blocked for POV pushing and warned for copyright violations.

Overall a particularly frustrating combination of uncollaborative combative behavior, edit warring, copyright violations and a general refusal and/or inability to understand and follow policies and guidelines. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just lying. I didn't admit to anything, all I accepted was that there was minor error, a difference between "15 out of 16" and "16 out of 16". The content you were trying to remove is much more than that. Neither Libreravi nor TrangaBellam who introduced and restored the section seem to agree that it included "misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims". No one else supported your position, you clearly didn't have a consensus and you were arguing against things no one said. Case in point saying that "Claims like Indian government is operating a Gestapo would require peer-reviewed scholarly sources" (diff) when there was no mention of any gestapo in the addition.

And the objection against your addition is simple, that it deviates from the subject of the article. You can't wish that away by claiming that "there can be no sensible objection". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding D4iNa4's statement, I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022, the evidence is linked in the messages themselves for anyone to see what's what.

I should point out though, the discussion had 5 editors who all opposed inclusion at the time when D4iNa4 decided to comment at 16:17, 3 September 2022 (after reinstating the disputed content) and pinged 4 different editor of their choice while seeking support for inclusion; not an RfC, 3O, Wikiproject or noticeboard. Even then I gave it quite a bit of latitude. It's also irrelevant whether those being canvassed are in good standing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, do you consider any of my messages to D4iNa4 unjustified? I try my best to discuss content disputes but it becomes a problem if all I get is a complete dismissal of policy based concerns and forceful insertion of disputed material without seeking appropriate venues of dispute resolution, which is something both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 did and continue to do so.

For instance, Ravikumar's present response to something being undue or coatracking is that it's just JDL, earlier it was "not sensible", Di4Ni4 argument was an unfounded accusation of stonewalling and followed by a comment saying that there was no "actual explaination". Both of them tried to restore the material while the discussion was ongoing and largely against inclusion.Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark, to see what they think about this. I should also add, since both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 keep bandying them around claiming that they support inclusion (as if it takes away from the conduct issues), as far as I can tell all they have said is that there may be scope for inclusion which is not something I even disagree with, rather my position is that it isn't due at the present state of the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I said "now you're just lying" because Ravikumar said "Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources." What am I supposed to say if someone puts words in my mouth? And where's the evidence that I was stonewalling? This is not battleground behavior, throwing accusations over a content dispute is. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, fine, I understand. Wasn't my greatest moment. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
D4iNa4, 2 of those reverts are of copyrighted material and "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (see WP:ONUS). It wasn't my responsibility to open the talk page discussion in the first place but on those who want to include it, yet I did. And yeah I'll stand by the message because you made a serious conduct accusation sans any evidence which is a personal attack and used it as a justification to restore content that was removed on policy based objections. This was your very first action in the dispute and you didn't even bother to join the talk page discussion until the material was removed again.

And just because something is sourced does not mean it has to included, the same policy linked above clearly states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, this has already been stated in the discussion. It's ironic that you are talking about CIR and IDHT. This conduct pretty much mimics that of Ravikumar's. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And "Conflict between India and Pakistan" does have a lot to do with "Indian government", both also fall under ARBIPA. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Pranesh Ravikumar

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 Pranesh Ravikumar

Why this report is being filed when the content dispute has been already resolved? I am saying this in the sense that there can be no sensible objection to the content that exists in the present version.

The content which I had removed included misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims.

But the content which I wrote was in fact expansion and was based on quality sources like Christophe Jaffrelot.

I admit I had to focus more on rewriting, but I haven't breached copyrights since.

Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources.[2]

After this, I discussed reliably sourced content backed with multiple sources with Tayi Arajakte on their talk page, but only to see them failing to provide a sensible reason to remove the reliably sourced information. After nearly 3 days of discussion I restored the content.[3]

I was following WP:BRD here and gave every opportunity to Tayi Arajakte to provide a good explanation behind the removal of the content backed with quality sources. I also told Tayi Arajakte how they can justify the removal.

If the community was consulted over this content then I am sure it will favor my position that the reliably sourced content should not be removed. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Depends on the claims that are being made but scholarly sources are more ideal supporting the text which is exceptional, though the dispute was not just about the use of news sources but also the misrepresentation of the existing sources. I had 3 DS alerts this year, 1 was about ARBIPA, 1 was about BLP and 1 was about South Asian social groups. But that is clearly not indicative of any 'disruption' because alerts are notifications, not warnings, the message box of DS alert clearly notes "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: I wanted to address the reverts and warning on my talk page this is why I made the message on user's talk page to address all this together but from next time I will ensure addressing content-related issues on the talk page of the article. I am not brushing off the copyright violation but stating how it could be avoided. Isn't it more important to show how one has recognised what went wrong and try to avoid making the same mistake next time? I had a reading of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE and I promise not to violate copyrights again. You should see Talk:Premiership of Narendra Modi#Use of investigative agencies where Tayi Arajakte is aggressively relying on his WP:JDL-based explanations to get rid of the content reliably sourced to the best available source of this subject after edit warring to remove it here without gaining consensus. At least 3 far more experienced users (including 2 admins) have agreed with my position. You shouldn't be topic banning a user who is on the correct side in this dispute. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC) was[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: You can trust me with another chance. I read the new inputs provided here, especially that of Vanamonde93. Once again I am reassuring you that I will be more careful and the problems that have been highlighted about my editing with regard to handling content dispute and copyrights won't emerge again because I am capable to avoid any further issues with my editing. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: It could be because I got reported for the first time but I can avoid any issues with my editing from occurring again. I edit a good number of articles related to India where I have been productive. I would reiterate that you can trust me with another chance. Thanks Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade and Deepfriedokra: The report was filed nearly 2 weeks ago and I have been able to bring constructive edits in this topic area since. The sanction would seem punitive. Two more admins have commented here of which one had no comment on sanctioning me and one admin said I should be at least warned. This shows that it is not urgent to topic ban me. I have provided my assurances with full understanding not to engage in any form of disruption again and explained how I will avoid the issues from reoccurring. I am just saying I should be given one last chance failing which I won't be opposed to any sanction. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I would insist that I am sincere with the assurances I have made here and I am already showing extra caution with my editing and avoiding any disruption. I am assuring you that the issues won't be reoccurring again. I hope you will give me one last chance. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: TylerBurden is wrong with saying that "Ravikumar seems to have a POV" because if I had POV then I wouldn't be making edits like this (creation of Premiership_of_Narendra_Modi#Democratic_backsliding section) on this same article. "TBAN from WP:ARBIPA areas of indefinite duration" covers Pakistan, Afghanistan and India and a topic ban from anything related to these 3 countries would be too much. At broadest, the mentioned problems with me only concern the topic area of "Indian politics". Note that I have been safeguarding List of Brahmins, List of Jains, List of Yadav people, List of Indian Christians, List of Mudaliars, List of Bunts, List of Nairs and other pages from frequent vandalism and BLP policy violations for long. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Making my statement here because of 2 frivolous warnings I received from Tayi Arajakate right after I made my comment on talk page.

First warning falsely claims that I violated WP:NPA because of the word "WP:STONEWALLING" I used here, followed by the false claim of having a "rough consensus", despite no consensus is developed in less than 2 hours for removing reliably sourced content. No evidence of WP:NPA violation was ever provided.

Second warning falsely claims that I violated WP:CANVASSING by notifying the long term contributors in good standing who have edited this article for years.

Either this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or a WP:CIR issue, or a combination of both. You can't go around spamming frivolous warnings just to get discourage your opponent in a content dispute. Admins need to take a look at this misconduct of Tayi Arajakte. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tayi Arajakte adds in response to my comment above that "I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022", and this is after being already told how they are wrong with their battleground mentality. This shows there is not only a competence issue with Tayi Arajakte but also IDHT. You don't hold high ground when you have yourself made 3 reverts[4][5][6] to remove reliably sourced content just before you are starting the discussion on talk page.[7] D4iNa4 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: "Conflict between India and Pakistan". Though it has nothing to do with this particular subject. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam

It is ridiculous that Tayi —who is one of the most competent and cooperative editors about Indian topics— is being considered for a TBan. That too, based on flimsy evidence from someone who is under an indefinite AE sanction (since 2018) and has since commited less than 500 edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

(I had intended to sit this one out *sigh*). I read the section of Jaffrelot's book that's under dispute. That source is indeed the best on the topic that I am aware of. It constitutes three substantial paragraphs discussing how the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used its investigative agencies to intimidate and/or harass political opponents. The section begins with a passing mention of a historical instance when a politician of the opposing party used the same tactics. If I were interested in genuinely improving that section, I would summarize what the source had to say about the Modi administration. Instead, PraneshRavikumar has decided to lead with the single sentence that's critical of a different politician. This was after he first tried blanking the section. His edit-summary was dreadful, too. I can't help but believe PR has an axe to grind here, and would benefit from some time away from this dispute. A logged warning is the minimum I'd recommend: South Asian politics requires more collaboration and less belligerence, and his attitude toward the copyvio situation was...cavalier. I see no substantive evidence here against Tayi Arajakate. The templated warning wasn't necessary; no attacks were made; but I don't think highly of D4iNa4's choice to jump right into an edit-war after 2+ years of not touching the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I haven't followed all this carefully (RL busyness) but I don't think a tban for Tayi Arajakate is a good idea. No comment on Pranesh Ravikumar. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden

I think a topic ban is reasonable here, poor behaviour went on for far too long and only seems to have turned into remorse now that consequenses look likely. The topic area is complicated enough without editing like this and Pranesh Ravikumar seems to have a POV that is strong enough to get in the way of constructively editing the topic. --TylerBurden (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Pranesh Ravikumar

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

Since when do we require peer reviewed scholarly sources? What we require is content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Pranesh Ravikumar needs a TBAN from ARBPIA. Notice they have three(?) DS alerts. Will await further input. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for more input. Noting @Seraphimblade:'s comment. Is Pranesh Ravikumar's counter argument sufficient? However, I now wonder if Tayi Arajakte does not need a TBAN, based on D4iNa4's statement. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pranesh Ravikumar's comment on my talk is germane here -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like enough battle behavior to go around. I will say that, "Now you're just lying," falls below my expectations for the conduct of members of the Community. So, I'd like another admin to unravel this knot of naughtiness. Maybe TBANs for Pranesh Ravikumar and Tayi Arajakat? Yes, Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark will offer the needed insight. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@D4iNa4: Are you under an indefinite AE sanction? For what area? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Vanamonde93, for bringing light where there was darkness. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, with that, the false trails of the red herrings have been cleared away and I am back to my original impression-- that Pranesh Ravikumar needs "some time away from the subject area" . I apologize to @Tayi Arajakate: to whom the false trail had led. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I do not find Pranesh Ravikumar's assurances very reassuring. It is a pity this awakening of awareness did not occur sooner. Assuming the TBAN is enacted, we can hope this new-found awareness will help them appeal it in the future. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted Pranesh Ravikumar's latest and am not fully persuaded to go with just a warning unless @Seraphimblade: is in agreement. (Or any admin who has not yet opined in this section.) Though other admins have commented, they commented as regular users, and not in the result section. Vanamonde93 felt a warning is a minimal response to these problems and did not oppose a TBAN. Frankly, being on one's best behavior for a couple of weeks is a good thing, but is it good enough? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Johnuniq. You are the tie-beaker in my mental deadlock. TylerBurden has summed up my feelings. Tayi Arajakate's contrition, while belated, is noted and appreciated. Pranesh Ravikumar's belated contrition is noted. While belated, it offers hope for removal of the TBAN further along. A TBAN from WP:ARBIPA areas of indefinite duration (not infinite) and appealable in six months. (It's a big encyclopedia, and you might find something you enjoy that is less contentious.) And please do not go a long period of time w/o appealing unless it is your wish to eschew this area for a long period of time. On the other hand, please don't assume the TBAN is expired after a length of time. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impressed with Pranesh Ravikumar here. I'm not sure why they brought the content discussion to a user talk page rather than the article talk page; that's generally unproductive. And I'm even less impressed with repeated copyright violations, and then characterizing that with a brushoff I admit I had to focus more on rewriting.... I'm inclined to agree with a topic ban here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, then, that there are no further objections to resolving this with the aforementioned topic ban against Pranesh Ravikumar. Unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, I'm similarly not terribly convinced, as I should think one might be on one's best behavior while an AE request regarding that behavior is open. Of course, I've seen people unable to manage even that, but that's pretty minimal. Still, I suppose some improvement is better than none. If I were to agree to a warning, it would be a formal logged warning, with a clear understanding that any more trouble is almost certain to result in sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through the comments above, particularly those of Vanamonde93, I support the topic ban of Pranesh Ravikumar with no other action.
@Tayi Arajakate: Regarding "now you're just lying", the policies are WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you are unable or unwilling to comply with those policies you should not work in topics under discretionary sanctions. If someone puts words in your mouth, you politely but firmly say that the claim [brief outline here] is not correct—you said nothing like that. You might also ask the person to strike their comment as it was not correct. If a polite request to do that does not lead to what you regard as a desirable outcome, you might try one more time by politely but firmly repeating your request on the person's talk. Their response or lack of response will be available for others to see if a report such as this subsequently occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carter00000

Carter00000 is indefinitely topic banned from Xinjiang, broadly construed --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:42, 6 September 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 Carter00000

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Carter00000 (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:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

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

At WP:ITNC, the user has bludgeoned arguments for excluding any link to Uyghur genocide in the blurb, essentially resulting the same argument being restated about 8 times. These include:

08:41, 1 September 2022 The relevance of the bolded article is also in question, given the scope of the report and the fact that the report make no mention of genocide.
12:43, 1 September 2022 The word "genocide" does not appear anywhere in the report and the allegations don't come close to that either
13:29, 1 September 2022 I think that the link to the article is already questionable, given that the reports scope is on counter-terrorism strategies, while "Uyghur genocide" implies much more serious actions.
14:59, 1 September 2022 the scope of the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism related operations of the government, and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all,
15:59, 1 September 2022 I would like to reiterate that the report makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all.
15:13, 2 September 2022 the scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism & extremism related operations of the government, making no references to genocide, or include the word "genocide" at all. ... Given the above, it seem to be a significant exaggeration of the facts for the link featured in the blurb to be "Uyghur genocide".
16:55, 2 September 2022 Given that background information already exists in the report article as previously noted, suggest to remove the link to the now redundant Uyghur genocide article, as per my previous concerns on the accurate reflection and the fact that genocide in not alleged or mentioned in the report.
09:01, 3 September 2022 Given that background information exists in the bolded article, the link to the Uyghur genocide article is now redundant. Per my previous concerns on accurate reflection of the report contents, and the fact that no genocide is alleged or mentioned in the report, the link to the article makes the blurb WP:SYNTH, as it combines material in a way which is not reflected by the report. Furthermore the blurb is WP:SENSATIONALISM, as it effectively presents allgations of potential actions as a genocide, which is a very large escalation in magnitude.

After being cautioned about bludgeoning on their talk page and about beating a dead horse in the discussion itself, the user continued to bludgeon the discussion and then pinged a bunch of editors who were involved at a discussion on another page:

12:29, 4 September 2022‎ wall of text
16:07, 4 September 2022‎ pings to 5 editors

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)

Alerted about generalsanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see this diff.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff and diff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe that the above shows that the editor has bludgeoned, has been warned about bludgeoning, and has no interest in stopping bludgeoning. I'd ask that the user be blocked under general sanctions for 72 hours for repeatedly bludgeoning at WP:ITNC with respect to the Uyghur genocide article. I believe this will allow time for the user to calm down and will prevent further disruption in this thread. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: In the past, the user has gone to WP:ERRORS when the ITNC discussion was briefly closed and again made the same sort of argument for why they didn't like the blurb in an effort to get it pulled (i.e. The scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism and counter-extremism related operations of the government and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all). A partial block from ITNC would likely just push the bludgeoning back to WP:ERRORS based off of the user's past behavior in the thread. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for 72 hours is that it's the standard first-offense edit warring sanction; I think that bludgeoning is somewhat akin to talk page analogue of edit warring (i.e. using brute numbers of edits to try to get one's way). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: A topic ban would also work to prevent disruption and, given that the editor doesn't really edit articles in that topic area anyway, I don't have concerns about it unduly impacting the editor's editing. It might even be more narrowly tailored than the block. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carter00000: Is there a reason you canvassed ITNC about this AE thread? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Carter00000

Statement by Carter00000

On the initial edits, I would like to note that the edits linked were made at different stages of the ITN nomination. I felt that given that the discussion had entered into new stages, it was reasonable to address the same concerns again, given that each stage was for a separate action.

I would like to note that I stopped making the above argument after being warned. The two subsequent edits made related to the nomination in general, and was to address issues with the process of the nomination, given the number of concerns raised by other editors. The concerns were cited to editors who had raised those issues in brackets, pinging them at the same time as a means to request their comments on the discussion. The pings to the five editors in the second comment was to request comments from all participants of a concurrent discussion on the subject on a different page. Carter00000 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please find my clarifications on the points mentioned.

I would like to note that I don't edit much in ITN, with only occasional contributions. I have also mostly limited myself to a few comments for each nomination commented on in the past.

I have previously not made any edits relating to this DS topic, these were my first edits to this topic.

As per my previous comment, I would like to re-iterate that I did stop making the point which I was warned for, after I had been warned. My understanding is that sanctions are only imposed for continued disruption after being warned.

Given the reaction here at AE, it has been made clear that I have overstepped in a topic of contention, which should have been apparent to me given the topic DS. I would like to signal my willingness to take a step back, re-assess my actions, and to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. Carter00000 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Please note that the previous cases relate to actions initiated by myself against the conduct of other editors which I felt was against policy.

In this case, my actions are in relation to content issues on an article. I feel that these issues are of a different nature, and that it is obvious that I would be more proactive in the former case.

I further note that this noticeboard is for enforcement of DS's on specific topics, so it seems unreasonable to constantly bring up my actions in other parts of WP not related to this topic area. Carter00000 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Noted on your further comments and understand your concern on my recidivism. FWIW, I do want to note again that upon being warned on the initial set of eight comments I made on the nomination, I did not bring up that point on the nomination again. I feel that this shows that I am in fact capable of heeding warnings. As explained earlier the subsequent posts I made were an attempt at summarizing other editors concerns on the nomination and to ask for further discussion on those concerns, which I felt was separate from my previous point. As per the above, I am similarly willing to re-assess my actions and to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards.

@InvadingInvader Noting that (1) this is our first interaction on WP and (2) you were not a participant in the main nomination, it is my opinion that your suggested sanction may be too extensive, given your limited background knowledge (as you yourself noted) on the situation.

I would like to emphasize again that this is the AE board. I note that I previously have not edited in the topic area of concern, nor have I received any sanction in the topic area (or received any sanctions at all). I feel that as a matter of due process, I should receive only a formal warning for this filing, given my limited and clean record in this topic area. As I have mentioned above, I am capable of heeding warnings and am willing to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. Carter00000 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Whatever sanction that is deemed necessary, I'll support, ncluding a topic ban from WP:ITN/C for extraordinarily disruptive conduct, even after being asked to stop. Yes, I recognize I may have partially prompted this by closing the discussion here, but these closures are not atypical on ITN/C once a consensus is reached, as it had been, and the proper thing to do then is discuss any changes to the blurb at WP:ERRORS. Even when he is the sole voice of opposition, Carter00000 has been dominating the discussion both on WP:ERRORS and WP:ITN/C in a way that represents battleground mentality.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: My only other encounter with Carter00000 was on WP:ANI when he opened up two threads: once against Citobun and again against Alsoriano97. In the latter case, there was a great deal of suspicion regarding his own conduct. It seems he also opened up an ArbCom request which was also quickly shut down. I'm not sure if that means he also needs to be topic banned from WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, but it's clear he is overzealous and quick to instigate drama in areas where it would be more prudent to disengage and mediate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the declined ArbCom request to refresh my memory, and given what took place there, I now believe his disruptive conduct was and is such that an indef WP:NOTHERE block may be more appropriate.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

After filing multiple Arb cases and ANI cases, I think it's time for a topic ban from ITN. This is just ridiculous. Since they dragged me to Arb (which was immediately declined for not having merit), I will comment in this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by InvadingInvader

I have not had any direct interactions with Carter outside of this most recent debacle on Xinjiang, but I'm not hearing happy notes about this guy. I do think he frequently disrupts consensus, and if he/she/they had spent more time on Talk:2022 with regard to Xinjiang, I believe many arguments he would bring up would be redundant and unproductive.
Most people seem to be suggesting a TBAN or Block; my recommendation would be to TBAN Carter from Xinjiang permanently and a block of at least 9 months followed by a permanent "probation" period. He's caused problems before, but I'm one who believes in reform. If he's able to prove himself after he/she/they block to be a constructive editor who respects consensus, I think he could be an awesome contributor, but if more stuff pops up about him disrupting consensus, "playing Karen" and dragging people to arbitration, acting in a manner in which he demonstrates behavior contrary to WP:OWN, or anything else that would show he's WP:NOTHERE, the permablock may be needed. What I'm personally worried about is if he does get permablocked too early, he's gonna IP sock vandalize since a permablock could be interpreted by Carter that he can't go lower on Wikipedia, giving him motivation to have a grudge against us forever. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Carter00000

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

Statement by Deepfriedokra A 72 hour block seems like a milder sanction than is usually doled out here. Would a WP:partial block of 72 hours duration for that page (WP:ITNC) not serve as well?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Welp, I'll go one better as a partial block would not work. How 'bout a WP:TOPICBAN on anything to do with the Uyghur genocide, anywhere at all on Wikipedia, broadly construed, of ~~three months~~ indefinite duration persuaded by my colleagues.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Perhaps Carter can find a constructive way to contribute apart from that area. I'll support almost anything. I'm easy to get along with. 😀 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that it's the overall content here that is in question. Changing focus not withstanding. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @WaltCip: If I remember correctly, Carter00000 mostly edits mostly in the ITN area. Hast here been other disruption not about the Uyghur's? If so, that should be the focus of any TBAN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think if we accept Cart0000's assurances and do not impose a TBAN now, we will just find ourselves back here again. Past experience with three ANI's and two ArbCom requests tells me Carter0000 just cannot recognize when to stop without more structure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 72 hour block is going to do very little in my opinion. It appears that Carter has a bee in their bonnet about this issue outwith ITN (e.g. here) and therefore I think that a TBAN from the topic area of some duration is what we should be looking at. No real opinion on the duration, but I'd happily support DFO's suggestion of three months. firefly ( t · c ) 18:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is going to be a tban, it should be indef -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Carter0000 just cannot recognize when to stop without more structure opines DFO above - I tend to agree. And I also agree with my colleagues here that a TBAN should probably be indefinite - on further thought a definite TBAN can lead to it being "waited out" with little resultant change. firefly ( t · c ) 16:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think an indefinite TBAN is warranted given Deepfriedokra's valid concerns. Indefinite is not infinite--or the other way around, whatever it was. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef TBAN. Which is still permitted, though the new changes to AE, mercifully, may not encompass WP:GS (i.e. gonna suck, ARBCOM disconnect). El_C 16:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku

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

Request concerning Bookku

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA or whichever applies

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict (diff, diff)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Bookku, My body my choice and Mera Jism Meri Marzi was another case of WP:UNDUE from you since MJMM was an Urdu slogan with no history or usage outside Pakistan while Mbmc had a global usage where that was best suited. I explained that on talkpage before removal. And that redirect discussion was not a humorous essay but a serious discussion and there was no joke happening there. USaamo ^(t@lk) 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Bookku

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

Statement by Bookku

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

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

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

Statement by TB

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

Statement by Robert McClenon

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

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel

@Deepfriedokra and Johnuniq USaamo remains topic banned from conflicts related to India and Pakistan,[8] and has violated that topic ban as recently as May 2022.[9] USaamo treated allegations as facts on this diff and wrote it in wikivoice. That was a BLP violation. On talk page, USaamo tells Bookku to "be concise in discussions as your comments are bludgeoning the process by creating walls of text and are a cause of exhaustion for editors"[10] but USaamo himself wrote walls of texts.[11][12]

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

Bookku is not understanding about the nature of their POV pushing. He has been already warned over WP:UNDUE, NotAForum, bludgeoning in the recent months. However, the activity of Bookku on Public Space,[13] and 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault[14][15] shows he has ignored these warnings and above message confirms great chances of similar disruption.

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bookku

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

Awaiting statement by TG. Noted Robert's statement. Hopefully, this can be resolved without AE action.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to go with a logged warning per TG, and in hopes of dispute resolution with Robert. Unless someone has a better idea. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku I'm afraid it is glaringly obvious you've brought a personal point of view and possibly an 0ff-Wiki agenda into the encyclopedia. Your latest post makes me feel that while you are capable of leaving that agenda out of your editing, you have at times chosen to include it. I'm willing to "admonish only" if it is clear you will cease and desist from the POV pushing moving forward. USaamo, it looks like your edits have been unfortunate as well. I echo what Johnuniq has said below. More concise and clear information is always useful. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku added a section on Pakistan at Public space (diff). That was totally WP:UNDUE in that article and indicative of someone seeking to right great wrongs. However, USaamo's edit at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault (diff) with claims of "alleged audiotapes" (with a handy ^dubious tag!) in the lead is worse (yes, the sources said that but don't add "dubious" material to the lead merely to repeat gossip—how likely is it that someone has an audio recording of a conversation showing criminal intent on their phone?). I would like to see if there is further commentary that might enlighten us regarding whether something stronger than a logged warning is needed. I agree that other editors need relief from walls of text. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of points: Aman.kumar.goel, does raise some interesting questions, that this may be the pot calling the kettle black, but more importantly, I want to point out that writing one or two TLDR comments is not the same thing as WP:BLUDGEONing (itself a subset of WP:DE), as bludgeoning is a pattern of doing so, usually in the same thread or topic. From what I see, this looks like someone trying to Right Great Wrongs, and while a logged warning is ok, I guess, I get the feeling we will be back here soon enough. This is where I differ from my compatriots, and think timed tbans can be effective, as a month off a subject but with the promise of being able to return may provide incentive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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