Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:57, 21 June 2022

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Seggallion

No violation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Seggallion

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Seggallion (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Here, the response also indicates awareness about reverts

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor when initially requested to self revert expressed confusion about how one edit was a breach of 1RR. When eventually explained here the response was to blank the page. When given a final chance to self revert here the response was again to blank with edit summary "Did not breach anything. Why threaten like this?".

This pattern may by now be familiar, an editor reaches 500 edits and immediately jumps into the middle of an ongoing content dispute.

Re single revert, my understanding is that a revert undoes the actions of an editor and that if a single edit undoes the actions of two editors/edits then that is two reverts. Admittedly, Wikipedia:Reverting is an essay but it does say "A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions." If that could be confirmed as wrong, please.

Shrike, I did not make a frivolous filing, I made a mistake in my interpretation of Wikipedia:Reverting, nothing more. I even linked and quoted it to Seggallion before I filed. I now stand corrected on that point and Segallion has my apologies for making an incorrect 1R allegation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Seggallion

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 Seggallion

Why was my name wrong in some sections here?

I made one edit to the article and one edit is just one revert.

I was told by Selfstudier on April 9th to wait until I had 500 edits before more Arab-Israel edits. I had around 400 edits then. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1081780290&oldid=1081732694

I followed instructions and waited. At the end of May I saw a requested move advertised on the al-Aqsa article and I voted on it, just like I voted on other advertised moves. I checked before voting that I met the rule.

The changes to the naming have been opposed by other users too, I have been watching this pair of articles since the requested move.

I didn't wait until 500 to edit the topic. I was told to wait by Selfstudier after I edited a church in April that he thought was in the topic.

I also made a request in January to edit an article in topic I was blocked from. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramla&diff=prev&oldid=1065377343

In this month I saw the Aqsa move advertised.

Also fixing errors like

novellist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marie_Linde&diff=prev&oldid=1065211857

scheluded https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_Antonio_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1065794748

Borwn https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_Mississippi&diff=prev&oldid=1072564164

Mississipi, not p but pp, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nate_Dogg&diff=prev&oldid=1072762154

Is not a game.

Can someone scrutinize Selfstudier's reverts and threat on my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092010968&oldid=1092010433

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092012794&oldid=1092012058

I felt under the gun with last one.

Statement by Nableezy

That's a single revert, it does not matter how many edits were reverted if it happened in a single revert. However there is blatant extended confirmed permissions gaming, with the overwhelming majority of their first 500 edits being single byte additions and removals. Then their 501st edit is to a restricted topic's requested move here. Curiously, the single byte changes started to pick up steam right around when this happened. nableezy - 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier your understanding is wrong. A single edit, or a single set of contiguous edits, is by definition no more than one revert. A single revert can undo multiple edits by multiple contributors. nableezy - 19:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323

It is a single reversion, but by undoing the work of two other editors, it is also in essence a restoration of a prior version. The basic requirement with any revert, not least a restoration effectively rollbacking edits by multiple other editors, is a fairly fulsome explanation of the reasons why it is being done, and "not neutral" does not really cut it. Reversions of non-vandalistic edits need decent comments. And yes, an editor barely off their 500/30 training wheels wading into this particular domain and immediately boldly reverting with laconic edit comments is of course somewhat eyebrow raising. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: Hypothetically speaking, imagining a scenario if you were a WP gamer, would it not make total sense, and in fact be gaming 101, to continue to edit in the areas in which you have built up your first 500 edits, to provide precisely that cause for the pretense of your own innocence? Gaming doesn't stop at 500 edits; on the contrary; that is when the 'game' truly begins. The behaviour is not typified by what it does not include, but as Nableezy noted, what it does include, such as mass single or zero character edits up to 500 and then a launch straight into conflict area disputes. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Onceinawhile

I would also like to discuss what can be done about 500/30 gaming. Coming up to 500 edits through mass automated / semi-automated / very minor edits is not consistent with the spirit of the rule. This editor made >350 edits in Jan/Feb this year, by finding and replacing common typos. A useful job of course, but the interest in clean-up edits disappears at 500. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

First of all the premise of this filing is frivolous the filer is experienced enough to understand what revert is. Regrading the gaming it seems that users has continued to do minor edits in other topics contrary to what claimed here so it doesn't seem like gaming to me --Shrike (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Seggallion, could you explain why you didn't sign your comments above and you formatted the links so poorly? You displayed a deep knowlege of the links formating (note "here" added) back in February [1] and you also nicely signed your comment. What happened? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Seggallion

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

Selfstudier, while I can accept your explanation that you didn't understand what did and did not constitute multiple reverts, editors are permitted to remove pretty much anything from their user talk page if they wish to do so. When they do, it is considered an acknowledgement that they have read and understood whatever they removed, but you should absolutely not be edit warring to restore it there. I do not beyond that see any actionable violations here—I will say that I am not thrilled to see an editor jumping into one of our most difficult and contentious areas right at the 500/30 mark, but as it stands there is no rule against that. If Seggallion plans to continue to edit within that topic, I would advise them to tread very lightly indeed before gaining more experience. But other than those general cautions, I do not see cause to apply any sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zusty001

Two edits with the discretionary sanctions alert issued after the first does not warrant a sanction. Zusty001 is advised to discuss issues on article talk and not repeat challenged edits in a topic under discretionary sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Zusty001

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Zusty001 (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:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM

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

[2] Violates WP:PSCI through removing all or most WP:RS which discuss Steiner's pseudoscience.

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. [3]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

From the edit summary at [4] they knew they are fighting against WP:CONSENSUS, nevertheless chose to put consensus and experts between scare quotes and chose to claim that the experts have a particular philosophy (So-called). I cannot read the rest of their reasoning since it has been omitted from public record. Anyway, speaking of their summaries from other articles, those are hard to parse and to make sense of. And I have read Western esotericism books in English, I have read parts of Heidegger's Being and Time in English, so it cannot be said that I don't understand obscurantist prose. E.g. I fail to understand what sort of action or message 'pseudoscience' (A term whose meaning remains oblique and occulted, yet treated as monolithic here) is supposed to convey. Seems to be a deepity. Or a Gish gallop.

What does it mean that the meaning of pseudoscience is oblique? What does it mean that it is occulted? Who treated pseudoscience as monolithic and what's the evidence that they did so?

The talk page of the article is crammed with explanations about WP:PSCI, so I felt no need of adding extra explanations. The problem with Steiner's fans is that they have a thoroughly in-universe view and no longer know how mainstream science views Steiner. But I once met an important Anthroposophist who was fully aware that the Institute for Beautiful Sciences (Schöne Wissenschaften) sounds completely ridiculous to outsiders. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

Discussion concerning Zusty001

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 Zusty001

SeraphimBlade, my reasons were explained essentially in the comments of the relevant edits. If this is not deemed sufficient, and if these comments can be viewed anywhere (It appears cut off in the public view of the edit), then I do not think I should try strenuously to achieve some victory in a litigatory struggle against a user of this site far more prolific and powerful than myself. I would explain myself more elsewhere outside of this context, but here I will, for the most part, simply note that in the wide array of citations attached to the section initially removed by myself, there are a great many in which 'expertise' or authority is simply not there, even in some academic sense. (The latter part may be the more considerable here. I noted the use of Dan Dugan in my original comment as a particularly striking example, whom is also used as a main and positive, or encyclopedic, source for another section of the article which I have not edited.) I do not regret noting such 'expertise' in quotations, here or in my edit. As for the 'anonymous' edits you note, I should say that they are not my own.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zusty001

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

Zusty001, a statement from you would probably be helpful here, explaining why you continued to make the edit even if you were aware it lacked consensus. Also, it does appear to me that you edited while logged out to make similar edits ([6])—I realize that can happen by accident, but it's something to be very careful of, as it can have the appearance of an attempt at sock puppetry. If you would not like to comment here, we'll have to proceed with resolving this without your input or explanation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LearnIndology

LearnIndology is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed (WP:ARBIPA). Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning LearnIndology

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: LearnIndology (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

Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy#Opinion_of_Dutch_politician - 11 June 2022
Edit-warring in violation of WP:ONUS.
Talk:Nupur_Sharma_(politician)#Notability - 7 June 2022
Edit-wars to remove certain content despite opposition by multiple editors (and only one in favor); at last, a longstanding admin had to aware LI, LearnIndology, blanking a relevant and cited section from this article isn't acceptable and Kautilya was entitled to restore them.
Redirecting a longstanding article - 28 March 2022
I have no qualms against editors unilaterally redirecting articles, as permitted by policy. However I am opposed to misrepresentations in the process; contrary to the edit summary, the article had a news article from Reuters. A cursory search in GBooks or GScholar evidence that the topic has attracted substantial scholarship. The redirect fits to pro-Hindutva POV which deems Cow-belt to be a slang - indeed LI had once sought for speedy deletion on the same grounds.
User_talk:LearnIndology/Archive_4#Serious_warning - 14 January 2022
Misquotes an author to push POV. Shifts the blame to GSnippets etc.
Talk:Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus/Archive_3#The_Pandit_population - 11 January 2022
Uses some fringe journal to challenge multiple famed scholars who have been published by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press etc. When there ain't any wiggle-room left, comes a strange reply. His shenanigans continue till March '22; see the t/p.
Talk:Raksha_Bandhan#Reason - 25 August 2021
Uses ridiculously poor sources — an astrologer and a school-level text-book — to edit-war against two editors including me. Their strange replies only compound the issue.
Talk:Religion_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilization#Attribution - 8 August 2021
Copy content from different articles to start a new article. Nothing objectionable in such acts except that their copying had selectively omitted all critical remarks which did not pander to a pro-Hindutva POV. My accusations were (later) supported by Joshua Jonathan, a longstanding editor, at Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Merger_proposal.
Talk:Religion_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilization#Particular_issues - 9 August 2021
Claim Jonathan Mark Kenoyer (an expert in the field) to support a particular POV about IVC Swastika being linkable with the Hindu Swastika. I inquire about how exactly Kenoyer supports that claim but they do not expand upon it. As the particular section shows (redrafted by me), Kenoyer states something very different - frankly, the precise opposite.
Diff1 - 8 August 2021
Choose to insert a POV factoid which is rejected by almost all scholars (see this section). Summarily reverted by Johnbod for failing WP:BALANCE.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive437#User:LearnIndology_reported_by_User:Joshua_Jonathan_(Result:_) - 18 July 2021
Aggressive behavior, dubious usage of sources, and violation of BLP including breaching 3RR. Links provided in the complaint. Upon being brought to the noticeboard, they claimed of a serious misunderstanding! Once again, pushing of a pro-Hindutva POV.
Diff2 - 16 July 2021
Create a fresh article filled with pro-author (pro-Hindutva) POV. Claims of the book being widely praised are uncritically reproduced from the author himself. More space is allotted for the author's response to various reviewers than for what the reviewers said in the first place!

See the current version of the article to understand the extent of POV that was pushed in.
Talk:Romila_Thapar#Marxist - 1 February 2021
WP:POINT, misrepresentation of sources, using poor sources - you name it and you will find it being called out by multiple editors.
Talk:Rigvedic_deities#Vedic_period - 7 December 2020
Pro-Hindutva POV pushing.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

LearnIndology (LI) is not a prolific editor: they are often inactive for weeks and engages in routine anti-vandalism, maintenance tasks etc. This necessitates a scrutiny into their activities across a long span of time, which might be unnecessary otherwise.

The evidence presented above supports that the losses accrued by letting LI edit in this area — reduction in content accuracy as well as waste of editorial resources in combating his POV-laden activities — outweighs the positives. I wish to emphasize that LI is cautious enough to not run afoul of any bright-line rule but nonetheless, tests the boundaries as evident from the 3RRN example. Multiple established editors — me, Kautilya3, Fowler&Fowler, RegentsPark, Joshua Jonathan, and maybe others — have warned him about NPOV violations but they show little effect.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning LearnIndology

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 LearnIndology

Nearly all of the diffs are dating back to 2020 and 2021 and concern some usual content disputes and some include misleading claims such that I created this article. I find this reporting to be lacking any sense. Though I would still comment on the recent diffs.

2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy was created[7] over 28 hours after Nupur Sharma (politician) was created.[8] It was being redirected to Nupur Sharma because it was a complete POVFORK created in violation of copyrights per WP:CWW. Just compare these two versions: [9],[10]. Only difference was the creation of more sub-sections and some quotefarming, but that was also insignificant.

The discussion on Talk:2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy#Opinion of Dutch politician and Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability shows that I am regularly responsive and abiding by the consensus. My edits aren't even violating WP:SYNTH like your recent edits on this page, let alone justifying them like you are doing.

ARE shouldn't be misused just because you disagree with some of my edits. LearnIndology (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't consider any of my edit to be a 'substantial' only when it is made anywhere in your topics. Anyway, I was not engaging in misrepresentation of sources in January as I described here but only interpreted a snippet without having access but I got the access later and no misrepresentation was found. I haven't used snippets since. My last edit to this subject was in March 2022 where I was only providing information that could be backed with other reliable sources. There was no policy violation there.

As for your objection to my attempts to redirect a content fork two times, I think you will understand my position better now because you have also attempted to redirect Gyanvapi Mosque controversy [11] two times in a row. I don't disagree with you reverting but the point is that sometimes there are editors who ignore policies on article creation and only care about retaining the article. But I usually let it go and wait for the consensus when others don't agree. LearnIndology (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: With this message I was saying that either we should keep statements like that of Dutch politicians and others, or we should only keep statements related to the foreign ministry and the main administration. At that time there was no particular criteria set, and selective removal was not helping in setting consensus this is why I only restored the stable version with that regard. This is not mind-boggling because ultimately the consensus supported my view, contrary to the view of those who wanted to only remove the statement of the Dutch politician but keep statements of politicians who are not even notable.

@Bishonen: There is clearly no doubt that I did a number of mistakes at Romila Thapar dispute in Feb 2021 but I learned a lot from that and have made more than 1,300 edits since. By saying "per discussion" on this edit summary I was talking about this discussion where I had mentioned the sources. While there was a content dispute at the Religion of the IVC article, I was correct with each of my messages there as it can be read here but TrangaBellam's main objection was that the article is a POV fork and should be a redirect.[12] The ultimate consensus was against this view. LearnIndology (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note severe misrepresentation of sources by TrangaBellam here. TB cited a diff where I debunked TB's misrepresentation of Hiltebeitel and TB never recognized this misrepresentation. On this discussion, I cited this source which said "seal in the shape of a stepped cross has a swastika motif in the center combining both the stepped cross motif and the well-known swastika design", and Trangabellam asks me "How is Kenoyer supporting your hypothesis?" That means TB never read the source. TrangaBellam has failed to cite this discussion where he was answered with this source and he made no response to that message. Yet TB cites this outdated dispute on this report and pushes the same false claim as if TB was never introduced to the contradictory.

TrangaBellam is also misrepresenting the writings of Behera when the quote clearly says that "Census figures are quoted to indicate that the community is facing virtual extinction: in 1947 the Pandits constituted 15 percent of the Valley’s population, which fell to 5 percent by 1981, and after the exodus to 0.1 percent." To use this quotation to claim it to be "KP's representation of their own history" but not the existence of a Census figure is just a misrepresenation of source. This misrepresentation comes after another additional verification cited on the same discussion which said "The NHRC reported that the Pandit population in Jammu and Kashmir dropped from 15 percent in 1941 to 0.1 percent during the year."

Given these 2 instances alone, I am sure that TrangaBellam is clearly not in position to accurately interpret the sources. LearnIndology (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam you never talked about how "Kenoyer supports a link between Hindu swastika and IVC swastika". You are doing it for the first time on this noticeboard. Your actual message on the talk page was asking "If sources draw distinct links between Hindu Swastika and IVC Swastika", after which I cited this source along with p.10 because it said "Based on comparisons with later uses in South Asia in Buddhist, Jain and Brahmanical rituals, the symbol of the swastika represent order out of chaos. The chaos of the world is divided into four quarters and turned either to the right or the left. Where there is order, there is wealth and profit, and in South Asia, the swastika is associated with good luck and various deities that bring wealth, such as Ganesha and Saraswati." Drawing a link is not the same as being supportive of the hypothesis. LearnIndology (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are quoting now is nothing new since this information already exists on the main article's section since that same day.[13] Can you show me where I objected to this wording? Your recent message still doesn't change that we were talking about sources that are drawing a connection, instead of supporting the specific connection. You can't claim the latter to misrepresent my response. LearnIndology (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-filing statements and responses by TrangaBellam

LI, I see that you have not chosen to discuss your mis-representation of sources about the Kashmir Exodus etc., which happened as late as March '22.
You stake in about one substantial edit per month, excluding vandalism and routine maintenance; that invokes the necessity to examine your edits from a year ago. Every time you get a warning — Kautilya3 noted in March that he will take you to AE, shall such misrepresentation of source reoccur — you take a break from volatile areas for a couple of months and then start a new mess. Once that becomes too hot to manage, you remain low for another couple of months. This is an obvious gaming of the system because by the time, someone can get substantial evidence of disruption against you, they have become too old.
You reverted Onel's redirect of the article and added content. Technically, not a creation but practically it is.
My invocation of the content-deletion from 2022 Muhammad controversy concerns your edit-warring under what appears to be quite-spurious grounds, as rightfully held by a completely uninvolved admin. Even if you are right on the specifics, that does not excuse your edit-warring etc.
This thread is not about me; if you have issues with my editing, please raise them at an appropriate venue (ANI/AE/..). Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare:

Re 8:

On 9 August 2021, LI claims that Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, an expert on Indus Valley civilization supports that IVC swastikas became Hindu swastikas, an argument commonly found in Hindutva circles. [Kenoyer is the first of the links cited by him: the pdf.]
I critique his other sources and ask him to explain how the particular source of Kenoyer supported LI's conclusion. Because the cited pdf did not have anything to such effects.
LI's reply is evasive.
I knew for certain that this was a fringe argument and doubted that Kenoyer was gullible enough to lend his support to such a fringe claim. Not very surprisingly, I found a source where Kenoyer expressly held that IVC swastikas were appropriated by political and religious leaders of the subcontinent to [claim ties with Hinduism.

All in all, again the same pattern of misrepresenting sources until being called out.

Re 5:

I have not mentioned another aspect.
LI's second source is a trade-book of considerable repute (Behera; BUP) but once again, LI misrepresents the content. The passage in the book (p. 125) goes:
The Kashmiri Pandits provide an important illustration of a community’s attempts to reconstruct history in view of its present political interests. Describing themselves as the original inhabitants of the Valley with a distinct subculture of the purest class of Aryans, the Pandits recount episodes of religious, linguistic, and political persecution by Muslim rulers over the past 650 years. Census figures are quoted to indicate that the community is facing virtual extinction: in 1947 the Pandits constituted 15 percent of the Valley’s population, which fell to 5 percent by 1981, and after the exodus to 0.1 percent. [Endnote 126]
[Endnote 126] (p. 312): Rasgotra argues that 1941 marks the beginning of a statistical assault on the Pandit numbers by the junior local Muslim officials, who underestimated the strength of the Pandits by nearly 10–15 percent [..] For a good account of the politics of numbers, see Alexander Evans, “A Departure from History: Kashmiri Pandits, 1999–2001,” Contemporary South Asia 11, no. 1 (2002): 23–27
As is obvious, Behera does not claim that KPs constituted 15% of the population; she notes these observations in the context of KP's representation of their own history.

All in all, we have usage of a very poor source + misrepresentation of source. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LI's latest justification of his usage of Behera only proves my point - I leave it to Bish/Abecedare to determine whether my accusations hold merit or not.

LI, you didn't debunk anything; I had cited Hiltebeitel (2017). Your insistence that Kenoyer supports a link between Hindu swastika and IVC swastika is amazing - once again, I leave it to Bish/Abecedare to determine whether the quoted line supports such an extrapolation. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LI, you continue to misrepresent Kenoyer by selectively quoting him, misunderstanding him, and engaging in semantic gymnastics. How is "[does] Kenoyer support a link between Hindu swastika and IVC swastika" different to "[do] sources draw distinct links between Hindu Swastika and IVC Swastika"?

The very preceding line goes, [h]owever, its specific meaning may have been quite different in each world region. The very next paragraph has, The swastika is not associated with any single religious tradition and was widely used by many different cultures which are in no way linked to Aryan traditions or religion. [..] These examples should be taken as a cautionary note to avoid projecting modern meaning onto ancient symbols without taking into account cultural, ideological and social contexts. In the lines you quote, Kenoyer speculates a possible meaning of Swastika in the IVC culture based on its meanings in later S. Asian traditions but also warns several times about the pitfalls of such an approach; obviously he does not "draw any distinct links between them". More interestingly, as currently cited in the article, Kenoyer notes Hindu politicians of having appropriated IVC artefacts which evidences that your conclusions were obviously wrong.

Have the last word but remember the law of holes. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare:, if you need more evidence, see this edit at Lohri during Jan' 22. A factoid about Lohri being dedicated to gods Indra, Agni, Surya and Lakshmi was introduced at the second line (!) of the lead sourced from a NON-HISTRS. This used to have a surreptitious presence at the infobox before LI jumped in.

Coincidentally or otherwise, scholars (Berti et al; consult works on ABISY) have documented Hindutva-tinted historians to have made efforts in appropriating all sorts of folk-festivals under a pan-Hindu banner and reify a Brahminic origin story while rejecting the multiplicity of subaltern legends that usually surround them. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, if LI is T-Banned from India, that will not allow him to edit nine out of the ten articles. Culture of Kashmir, Srinagar, Kalash People, Kashmiris, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization, Religion in the Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Rohit Sardana - everything will be off limit. Himalayas will be a borderline case depending on the content of edits.

Even if a narrow topic ban concerning "politics, history, and culture of S. Asia" (or something like that) is imposed, the same situation prevails roughly. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

Responding to Abecedare's ping. I do not recall whether I have interacted with LI in a non-administrative capacity. I'm traveling and have limited internet, so I cannot research it either; so I'm posting here, out of an abundance of caution. I find numerous diffs here to be seriously concerning. This diff (The Mughal Harem) is appalling; in an experienced editor, that alone would be something I'd recommend sanctions for. The double standards on display here (Nupur Sharma's remarks) equally so. I recall some of the dispute about links between the IVC and Hinduism; the diffs here substantiate my memory that LI was more interested in digging up any source that supported what he wanted to see, rather than dispassionately summarizing the sources. A similar problem is evident here (Raksha Bandhan); I would guess, though I cannot be sure, that LI began be googling the sentence he wished to add to the article, rather than by reading the best sources about the subject.

Given that this is a long-term issue, with innumerable warnings along the way, a TBAN seems very necessary. I see the crux of the issue being the application of the labels "Hindu" and "Indian" to various aspects of culture and history; but I don't see a clean way to delineate a TBAN around those. I believe any of the proposed TBANs ought to work, but my recommendation would be "history and politics within ARBIPA". I don't think the line around history is very fuzzy in this case; conversely, the Indian-not-Indian debate has been a problem area, and I suspect it'd lead to more wikilawyering. 22:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LearnIndology

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

I'll comment on some stuff from 2021, acknowledging TrangaBellam's point that LearnIndology edits with so many gaps that it's reasonable to collect diffs from a longish time period to show a pattern. I find TB's links at 11 (July 2021) and 12 (February 2021) very egregious, but unfortunately I'd better leave analysis of the more recent examples to, hopefully, some admin or admins better read in Indian history. They're too wide-ranging for me to be sure of my footing. Anyway.

Re point 11: LearnIndology's editing in July 2021 of The Mughal Harem, a book by historian K. S. Lal, is eye-popping. (Actual diff, as opposed to revision, is here.) LI points out above that they didn't create the article — no, technically not. Somebody else (an IP) wrote most of the text back in 2017. But LI re-created it by reverting the redirect to K. S. Lal, stating "Per discussion, will expand more" in the edit summary. Per what discussion, one wonders - there was nothing on talk at the time, unless LI refers to this post from 2007 by a sock. Was that indeed the discussion, LI? Nor did any further expansion happen. The thus recreated article is an obnoxious piece of promotion. In it, the author, K. S. Lal, gets to (alone) describe the books reception — and describe it how? By quoting "touching" letters the author has received from other scholars. To me, as somebody who works in academe, those letters sound more like standard polite thank-you notes for a gift copy of a book that one can't really praise: "I am quite aware of the years of research that has gone into your work". Then a "dismissive" review of the book is briefly mentioned without specifics (why and how did the reviewer dismiss it?), only to be dismissed in turn by K.S Lal, who again has the floor and says what he thinks of the review. Amazing. Nobody except Lal himself is actually quoted in the article, in the state LI left it in. It's crude pro-Hindutva POV at its finest, and I'd be interested to see LI defend it.
Re point 12: It's very interesting to compare LI's efforts to remove "right wing Hindutva" from the lead of Koenraad Elst, a Hindutva promoter, (with edit warring) while simultaneously insisting (with edit warring) on adding "left wing Marxist" to the lead of Romila Thapar, a much-awarded Indian historian.[14][15] (And don't call Joshua Jonathan "honey", LI, do you mind??) In the discussions re Elst [16], and Thapar [17], LI defends his removals in Elst's article with "it is best to discuss the nature of an author's work in the article rather than declaring them as some ist in the very first line" at 12:11 UTC, and six hours later he argues for adding leftist and Marxist to the very first line of Romila Thapar. It's the very definition of tendentiousness and WP:POINT trolling. Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

My review of evidence presented by TrangaBellam. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I am reviewing the evidence listed by TB and jotting down my notes. Will weigh in on the need for any AE action once I have finished the review, which may not be in the current session. Here goes:

Re point 1: Edit warring to retain a Dutch politician's statement while arguing that statements of this sort should be removed is mind-boggling. Similar to the pointy and tendentious editing issue Bishonen mentions above.
re point 2: Discussing the extent to which a recent controversy should be discussed in a biography versus a separate article is reasonable. Blanking the new article and, later, most of the related summary from the bio (twice) is not. The admonishment by Amakuru is on point.
re point 3: Given that nobody has reverted their redirect, or otherwise objected to it, in over two months, I wouldn't hold this edit against LI and would regard it just as the B in WP:BRD
re point 4: Indefensible and this is not an isolated instance of misrepresentation of scholarly sources (see my note re point 12).
re point 5: Yes, the source LI was citing was of poor quality compared to the ones already used in the article but since they dropped the issue once this was pointed to them, I wouldn't make too big a deal of this in itself. Caveats: (1) I have only reviewed "The Pandit population" section of the discussion, and (2) I can understand that even relatively minor annoyances can add up to be disruptive if page regulars have to address them at length each time a wrong-minded objection to the article is raised. So, if there are other specific diffs or (short) discussion segment related to this article that i should look at, let me know.
Update: Agree with TB that LI misinterpreted and saw/provided insufficient context when citing Behara in this edit. Again, by itself, this could be explained by genuine misunderstanding or non-nuanced reading of the source.
re point 6: The use of generic Google Book finds to support content one wishes to add is not good, but far too common to be sanctionable by itself.
re point 7: As Joshua Jonathan noted It's telling that this page is (was) not an elaborated version of the info found at t he IVC-page, but a selective choice of bits and pieces which seem to support IVC-origins of Hinduism. This is pure POV-pushing!
re point 8: @TrangaBellam: can you provide the specific diff where LI claims Kenoyer supports the particular POV? I read the "Particular issues" section of the talkpage but possibly missed the LI edit in the mass of words and links.
Update: Setting aside later works that LI may not have seen, in the cited source Kenoyer (p. 12) is, at best, non-committal about the whether IVC-Vedic swastika use were linked, and LI stretches what the source says in citing it here.
re point 9: The addition would not be a big deal in itself. Less innocuous when added to the accumulating evidence of LI pushing a particular POV, particularly considering the contents placement in the lede.
re point 10: TK
Update: The edits linked at the ANEW report are clear POV-pushing BLP violations and this response to the warning about edit-warring is clear trolling... only leavened by LI's admission of fault, albeit when facing a threat of a block.
re point 11: covered by Bishonen, whose analysis I concur with.
re point 12: covered by Bishonen, whose analysis I concur with. But I'll note that I checked the first source cited by LI to label Romila Thapar a "left wing Marxist" and found that it does no such thing! The article does not even include the word "left" or "wing" and the only place it talks about Marxist history is when it says, She [Thapar] also examines critically D. D. Kosambi's contribution to Indian history. She praises, on the one hand, Kosambi's successful attempt to change the paradigm of writing Indian history by adding Marxist economic and social dimensions to it. On the other hand, she exposes the limitations of his anthropological and historical assumptions and, more importantly, the inadequacy of his Marxist theory. I read the whole article to make sure I was not missing some nuance but can only conclude that LI blatantly misrepresented Wagle to push a POV at the BLP.
re point 13: TK
Update: Routine POV pushing that is not too uncommon at these pages; not too surprising to see LI, who was at that point a (relatively) new editor, make the arguments they did. But the last comment is noteworthy since it explicitly lays out the POV that we see reflected in several of the more recent problematic edits discussed above, Maybe you aren't a practicing Hindu, but I am. I recite Gayatri mantra (Rig Vedic mantra) every day, I chant the mantra of Mitra every morning. Yajna and Homa are performed periodically in our home. Maybe you don't follow these simple Vedic practices but the majority of Hindus do.... And about Lingam, I am proud to follow the culture of the Indus Valley civilization as well.

I'll cover the remaining evidence in a later session (may take me a day to get to it) and add my concluding remarks at that point. Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Finished review of the remaining pieces of evidence and responses by TB and LI. My updates (marked as such) have been added to the original list. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to LI's coment above: tit-for-tat battleground arguments of the sort "if you call X right-wing, I'll label Y left-wing Marxist" or "if you include the Afghan spokesperson's statement, I'll include the Dutch politician's" is exactly what WP:POINT warns against.
Based on my review of the evidence, I see (usually) polite but persistent POV pushing, sometime involving (possibly good faith) misjudgment of source quality and content, and sometime outright misrepresentation. While individually, several of the transgressions are excusable (note the number of times I ended up using the qualifier "in itself" in my notes above), the overall pattern and the BLP violations are not. At a minimum, I would suggest a topic ban from all articles and discussions related to Indian religions, history and politics, which would still leave LI free to edit 7 of the 10 articles they have edited most often. Note though, that on a spot check of the first article on the list, I found this edit which changed the lede sentence from The culture of Kashmir is a diverse blend and highly influenced by Indian, Persian as well as Central Asian cultures to The culture of Kashmir is part of Indian culture..., which reflects a similar nationalistic POV pushing; see also [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] etc. So possibly a TBan from all India-related topics may be needed. Pinging @Bishonen, RegentsPark, Doug Weller, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff, and El C: who admin in this subject area for input. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a sanction is needed. Limiting it to religion, history and politics is the kind of specificity that invites edge cases and arguments about grey zones. To be constantly asking oneself 'What exactly is politics?', or 'Where does religion end and discussion of the architecture of a temple begin?' would make for difficult and anxiety-provoking editing for LearnIndology. For admins, it would be harder and more timeconsuming to watch and adjudicate. Also, it's apparent from your diffs from Culture of Kashmir, Abecedare, that nationalist[23] and anti-Islam[24] edits can be inserted just fine in, as it might be, an article about culture. For those reasons, I lean towards making it simply a T-ban from Indian topics. Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Abecedare, thanks very much for your comprehensive and clear review. I would tend to agree that a topic ban is necessary here, and very much agree that making it too narrow is likely to lead to bickering over what exactly is covered by it. I would more lean toward a ban from Indian topics, or the ARBIPA topic area in general. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we wait for further input, I just want to ask that nobody come in to close this with an (IMO useless) three-month T-ban. It needs to be indefinite, so that LI can't just wait it out and start editing again without having learned anything. The advantage of an indef isn't that it would necessarily be very long, but that the editor would have to demonstrate competence and good will in other areas/other projects, and to write an appeal that makes some undertakings for the future. Do other people agree? Bishonen | tålk 08:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

73.158.47.129

Blocked; nothing more to do --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:41, 16 June 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 73.158.47.129

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 73.158.47.129 (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: Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole

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

12 June 2022 This IP claimed to be HazelBasil and to be aware of their being blocked, but participated in an AfD about Ashley Gjøvik.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11 February 2022 for comments and conduct made both on- and off-wiki, HazelBasil is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia (see also: block log)

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

Mentioned by name and sanctioned in the Arbitration Committee's motion linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The IP editor claims to be the article subject, but the article subject is blocked from using Wikipedia. This appears to be a case of block evasion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thank you for your note. While I did not include this on my initial report, I think there's evidence that we can rule out this being an imposter. Her disclosed Twitter account has tweeted (archive link) about the incident in a way that confirms that the IP's claim to be the ArbCom-blocked Wikipedia user is authentic. I don't know that this is actionable in any way, but I'm noting this here for posterity sake as it's basically confirmed sockpuppetry at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

19:17, 12 June 2022

Discussion concerning 73.158.47.129

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 73.158.47.129

Hello, I posted on a discussion page that was directly about me, and immediately identified myself and the ban. As for the ban, I was never told why I was banned other than "offline & online conduct." I was never even told I was even being investigated. I had no notice negative action would be taken against me. In fact i had reported misconduct against me, and the investigation apparently pivoted to *me* at some point. I was given no warnings, ever. My account was in use for over a decade with no prior warnings & only praise. There was no specific ban/block before a wider ban/block, there was no temporary ban before an indefinite ban. was never provided an explanation of why I was banned or how to appeal, or if I could appeal. I was told I was banned from editing, but it was unclear if that meant only editing articles or if that also applied to administrative matters, like an article deletion discussion. The order was vague and overbroad, and I've struggled to interpret it. It does seem quite unfair to prevent me from weighing in on a deletion discussion about the article about me, without explicitly telling me the ban applies to administration discussions as well as articles. In fact, I was given notice and this text box to edit as part of this enforcement notice, which is confusing if I'm supposed to be banned. Why would I get notice or an opportunity to provide input, if i was prohibited from providing input? I worry that I'm violating the ban again by even responding now here. 73.158.47.129 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 73.158.47.129

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

IP blocked 1 week for either block evasion or impersonation. Can be reblocked for longer if it proves static. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10: Yeah, the "or impersonation" was mostly to save myself the time of investigating when it was blockable either way. I agree that that off-wiki statement is dispositive here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Спидвагона

Blocked as a sock --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:24, 16 June 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 Спидвагона

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Спидвагона (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:A/I/PIA

Extended confirmed restriction

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

00:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC) ""
21:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC) ""
18:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC) ""
17:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Shut up"
16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Unrelated. Sources don't mention Kook even once. This is not an article on Kahane. Also bad grammar in caption and unexplained removal of picture. Daveout already took responsibility for edit but Nableezy reverted him with some incoherent edit summary that appears to agree with him anyway. Stop disrupting."

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)

N/A as a general sanction, but informed here. pretty obviously a sock account, but no matter, should be blocked as an account whose single purpose is to violate an arbitration restriction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Every single edit by this user since registering has been a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Спидвагона

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 Спидвагона

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Спидвагона

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

Blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/יניב הורון (Yaniv Horon). Both IPs blocked 3mo as proxies. Page ECP'd indef and logged at WP:DSLOG/2022. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abrvagl

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 Abrvagl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abrvagl (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:ARBAA2

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

29 May 2022 - WP:HOUNDING and "jumping" into a discussion between me and another user
20 June 2022 - WP:HOUNDING hours after my edit
21 June 2022 - Possible WP:PACT and WP:GAMING violations, further explanation below

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 26 January 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm following up on this as I find Abrvagl is still being problematic and needs AE's attention. The first diff is a WP:HOUNDING by them, where they randomly "jumped" into a discussion between me and another user. This confused me at the time but I tried to not pay attention to it. However, because of their recent repeated hounding, I couldn't just restrain myself and ignore it; after my edits yesterday in Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, made this edit in the article among others, hours after me. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language [25], which isn't an improvement and shouldn't have been added. This kind of behavior with hounding is unpleasant to me and discourages me as an editor.

Third diff; some time after the previous AE case, they left this comment in the same discussion, which I believe breaches WP:PACT and WP:GAMING and I'll explain why shortly; considering the fact that Talk:2020_Ganja_missile_attacks#The_missile_attacks_happened_one_week_after_Azerbaijan_began discussion was linked in that previous AE case and Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;

"Saying that bombardments of civilian areas of Ganja, which resulted in the death of civilians, was in response to Stepanakert civilian areas bombardment, which also resulted in the death of civilians, is an unsourced attempt to justify war crimes and insert of the wartime ethnic retribution logic into article. It is gross violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral and there no place for that in Wikipedia."

And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.. Please also keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me on the talk page ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) How convenient to "jump" into the middle of a discussion with me and another user, despite never editing on that article, and now claim the "page was on my watchlist".

2) The specific diff I linked isn't an improvement, you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article, hence it is hounding. And you did so hours after my edit despite hardly editing through 13-20 June. And again, you didn't have a single edit on that article prior.

3) I didn't cut anything from your conclusion segment, I included it as a whole, it's a publicly available diff. It's also convenient that you link your own comment judging what's "sufficiently substantiate" by a third-party editor, but didn't link my reply to you [26]. Considering all of this and the above, pretty sure your demanding good faith from me at this point could be considered WP:GAMING and perhaps WP:PACT. I'll leave that to admins to decide. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Perhaps I should've provided more diffs/context, but I didn't want this to get long. This isn't the first time Abrvagl is hounding someone, their hounding against a different user was brought up on this ANI report, which I happened to take part in. From that thread, there are quite a few other examples;

[27], [28], [29], [30] [31] (these specifically show them hounding the user and edit-warring over an info cited by a partisan source, see discussion).

So this isn't the first time Abrvagl hounds someone, and the articles are very niche for them to randomly stumble upon, such things cannot happen repeatedly.

Regarding Ganja attacks, BBC reports that it was a response, attributing it to Artsakh. Eurasianet reports that it was a response with no attribution. Talk consensus is also against Abrvagl, as even the third-party user still disagrees with them. I honestly don't know what else I should do, it's not on me at this point to reach anything with Abrvagl. They could've used any mechanisms necessary like RfC, third opinion, etc. instead of dragging me every time to the talk page, since clearly as of now, talk consensus is against them. Bottom line is, I would kindly ask you to evaluate your opinion regarding hounding, since clearly this isn't the first time from them. And regarding Ganja strikes, I have nothing else to say. It's been enough already, I'm not planning to waste months of time just to appease this user. They know all the necessary tools, they should've already used them if they didn't like the talk consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obliged to read through a 4000byte+ wall of text, so I'll address the diffs you brought up against me. I also think some of these were already brought up by Abrvagl in the previous AE, it's just repetition all over again;

1) Had it watchilsted way before you, proof? I'm not just going to say "I have it watchlisted" like you did, here my edit. Also, not a personal attack.

2) Same scenario as the first [32]. And what's the personal attack?

3) You probably found that discussion on my talk page User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Golden, so you should've seen just below that I, in good faith, also asked about it in the TeaHouse User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Your_thread_has_been_archived ([33]) because it was still unclear to me whether discussing user conduct on article talk pages should always be prohibited. I'm certainly more careful about this now, and I make sure just for good measure to raise complex conduct issues on user pages instead or appropriate noticeboards like I'm doing now.

You say I brought up 2-month-old diffs (which I only brought up as backup to my current accusation of your hounding and only after Rosguill's comment), but what are these then, and why are you bringing up these irrelevant even older diffs in AE case regarding your hounding; 26 March 2022, 10 April 2022?

And why are you discussing Kadyrova here? Have you forgotten the extensive talk page discussion? I thought we reached that RfC conclusion which you still have to launch, I'm so confused. Rosguill please tell me if I need to address anything here regarding Kadyrova or if this should be discussed on talk instead, I'm not sure about this essay comment and the purpose of it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Abrvagl

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 Abrvagl

Seriously Zani, you could have at least tried to talk to me before dragging me into this unnecessary AE only 9 days after your last report.

1. 29 May 2022 This page and talk page are in my watchlist. I saw a conversation between two editors and shared my own view on the conversation. How is it Hounding? WP:HOUNDING clearly states: if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behaviour, my comment did not mean any of that. it was aimed to help conversation. It is really strange to hear such concerns. If my comment is hounding, what is this then, where you jumped into a discussion with +1,879 bytes of text and raising personal remarks about me? I believed you did that with good intentions because I assumed good faith every time you joined discussions like this and expected the same from you. But it seems I shouldn't have.

2. 20 June 2022 No hounding or else here. Page is on my watch list. It brought my attention because there were recent changes. I actually expanded and improved the article. Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, - as I mentioned earlier[34], I had emergency surgery and was having a rest. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language - [35] is the official webpage of State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, which is perfectly fine for statistical information about missing persons, especially considering that I correctly attributed it in the article. If you believe that source is not RS for that information, you could have talked to me or at least raise it to RS board.

3. 21 June 2022 - not sure how me asking you to stop writing personal remarks on the talk pages and informing you that we need to take this case to the dispute resolution is WP:PACT and WP:GAMING. Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that; I never said that Eurasianet is not reliable. You actually cut the conclusion out of the context which may lead to misunderstanding. Here is the full comment[36] read the paragraphs 9 and 11 about Euroasianet. And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else. - Zani, making personal remarks on the article talk page is not appropriate, I and other editors[37][38] already told you that many times. If you want to discuss anything unrelated to the article you are always welcome to use the editor's talk page. keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me - this third-party editor did not sufficiently substantiate his comment[39], as I already told him[40].

Reply 2

Rosguill I am not sure why Zani brought up diffs which are more than 2 months old and was not even related to him to say that I am hounding.

Diffs mentioned by Zani were a case when I noted that one of the editors was going through the Azerbaijan-related articles and removing tons of information(sometimes obvious information) from the articles with "unsourced" comments. At first look, it may look like edit warring, but in reality, I was reinstating removed material and adding sources. For example: Revert[41] and added source[42]. Revert[43] and adding source[44]. Revert[45] and added source[46] and so on.

ZaniGiovanni, didn't link my reply to you [26]. - I did not, because I did not want to show you in a bad light as you were making personal remarks about me there [47].

Zani, we shall always judge other people as we judge ourselves. If you saying that my good faith edits are Hounding, then can you please explain a few examples listed below? Do you think that they can be considered as hounding? I personally don't, as I assume good faith, but looks like you have a different view on what the hounding is.

[48] - you jumped into conversation writing personal remarks.
[49] - 17:21 I made a revert as consensus was not reached. 9 minutes later, you, who was uninvolved created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text again with personal remarks.
[50] - here you jumped into the conversation and made personal remarks about other editor's behaviours by bringing up eight 1-2 years old diffs.

you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article - I agree that the source generally not reliable as it is not this party source, however official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Not sure how it is hounding, but you could talk to me if you had concerns or at least take it to the RS board.

Zani, again, we shall judge others such as we judge ourselves. Here[51] you added two sources about the living person(WP:BLP). One of the sources is the Russian search engine Rambler.ru[52], which refers to not existing webpage Kdpconsulting.ru. When you click to open Kdpconsulting.ru, it actually opens an unknown yellow pages website runews.biz. The second source[53], which seems to be personal blog[54] focusing on IT from France perspective, does not even know if Kadyrova is male or female, and wrongly says that she is male, and focuses on her nationality calling her Azerbaijani journalist, while not mentioning that she is actually Russian journalist ...Azerbaijani journalist Saadat Kadyrova revealed to the Russian TV... He compared the residents to terrorists. Do you believe that sources are reliable for information about the living person?

Long story short - I never hounded anyone or had intentions to hound anyone, don't have anything else to add.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Abrvagl

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

Noting first for the record that both ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl contacted me on my talk page to ask for advice related to this dispute, reviewing the evidence here, I don't think that the HOUNDING accusation holds water. Having compared both editors' contributions on and immediately prior to June 20 and May 29, this looks like coincidental overlap on topics of mutual interest and don't see any clear-cut evidence of hounding. Reading through the entirety of the discussion at Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks, while Abrvagl's conclusions cited here in ZaniGiovanni's additional comments (with additional emphasis add by ZG) are hyperbolic, I don't think that the argumentation is tendentious overall: they acknowledge Eurasianet as an RS and make an argument that the reference in question does not fully support the claims made, then provide an analysis of other sources. While one need not agree with Abrvagl's argument, I don't think it's sanctionable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, the additional diffs you provide are certainly edit warring and possibly hounding, but they're also around 2 months old. I'm open to hearing disagreement from uninvolved editors as far as my initial assessment on hounding, but at the moment I stand by my initial assessment of the recent edits. As far as the continued discussion regarding the Ganja strikes, you have no obligation to continue responding to Abrvagl's arguments; it appears that the stable status quo is your preferred version, so the ball is in Abrvagl's court to call for an RfC, since a third party has already weighed in and you're clearly not interested in taking it to DRN. Given that the state of discussion on the talk page is an extensive back-and-forth between you and Abrvagl, plus a single-sentence affirmation in favor of your perspective from another editor (we can also count Kevo's revert as another voice in favor), I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhorg

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 Mhorg

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mhorg (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: Eastern Europe

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

[55]– Mhorg inserts the following text: “Rada member Pavlo Frolov suggested that she "failed to gather enough evidence", which made it sound like the Rada determined that Denisova was lying or spreading misinformation about the nature of sexual violence, rather than simply diverting attention.” However, this is a misinterpretation of the in-line reference [56]. The source does not say “which made it sounds like the Rada determined that Denisova was lying or spreading misinformation”. Yes, her dismissal was controversial, and she was criticized, but she was not found in RS to promote any specific “lies” or misinformation.
[57] [58],[59] [60],[61] - placing negative claims about Denisova to multiple pages where such claims do not belong.
[62], [63], – Mhorg removes statements made by Denisova in her official capacity as Ukrainian Ombundswoman . Well, even if an official would be found to promote multiple falsehoods (she was not!), such blanket removals of all his statements just “because he is a liar” would not be appropriate.
(edit summary). This is an inventive approach. Mhorg combines “everything by Denisova” in her section “even if it contains content by other people” (!) to discredit all such claims altogether by discrediting Denisova. [64] - this is highly misleading because Mhorg incorrectly attributes some claim by other people (or claims made also by other people) to Denisova.
[65] [66]. A highly damaging claim (one in the beginning of this section [67]) was attributed to a Ukrainian politician. The politician publicly denied he ever said it; there is no documented proof he said it, and his multiple rebuttals are well sourced. Mhorg removes his rebuttals.
[68]. Mhorg implies that Ukrainian president Zelenskiy is associated with Neo-Nazi based on unreliable sources. He uses this ref: [69], but the link includes a reference to Russia RT on the bottom. Mhorg says he would rather not include such content, but still posts the suggestion on article talk page.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them - see User_talk:Mhorg#Azov)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Based on the diffs above, Mhorg does not like certain people and therefore present them as negatively as possible. These people are usually Ukrainian officials or politicians, but there are other examples. More diffs can be provided if needed.

A number of BLP violations or highly POV edits by Mhorg have been mostly fixed by other participants, but the contributors wasted a lot of their time to do it.

P.S. Speaking about the bias by Mhorg, I think this his posting is telling. Many sources he refers to (you can follow his links for #1,2,3,etc.) is WP:PRIMARY, and Mhorg interprets these sources according to his bias in this posting. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User notified [70]

Discussion concerning Mhorg

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 Mhorg

Dear colleagues, unfortunately I have to defend myself against the slanders that are part of a WP:Battleground mentality that MVBW has never definitively abandoned, such as when years ago (when he was called Biophys) was part of a political 'battle squad' that coordinated off-wiki[71] with a mailing list to fight his 'enemies'. This AE request comes after he was warned by an admin for wikihounding behaviour against me,[72] and after he made an absurd and inconcludent SPI against me and other 5 users[73], and after he was warned by an administrator for massively removing sourced content[74], following a comment from me. I ask you for the opportunity to exceed 500 words so that I can fully defend myself against this user, who has practically harassed me on every possible occasion in recent days. While waiting for your reply, I will in the meantime reply to the accusations:

Denisova

1. That part was inserted by user Cononsense (with another source).[75] Unfortunately, MVBW has a habit of removing massive chunks of text, or heavily altering the content, to make it difficult for other users to edit. To see how I had organised that section (later disrupted by MVBW), read this[76]. Otherwise, this is the list with all the sourced accusations against her:[77]

2. I opened a discussion to talk about this.[78] Perhaps the user intends to resolve the discussion by means of an AE Request?

3. As I have shown in point 1 (all material removed from MVBW) Denisova has been accused by members of parliament, journalists, academics, of being highly unreliable with her rape reports. Somehow we will have to deal with her statements, either by deleting them, giving them less weight, or adding parts of text explaining to the reader what happened. MVBW, on the other hand, would like to minimise everything.

4. Yes, I still think that any statement she made should be grouped in a section to give the reader important information about the accusations made against her.

Other

5. MVBW speaks of 'A highly damaging claim', yet we are talking about the same politician that wrote: "the writer argued that human races are divided into higher and lower. He considered the White race to be the highest, and Neanderthals, N_gro_s, and Papuans to be the "lowest." Other races occupied an intermediate position. According to Frank, the "lower races" first differed from the monkeys. And from them ("lower races") stood out higher, more perfect forms. By the way, in modern science, this is one of the main hypotheses of anthropogenesis. [...] I would like to wish our "real" friends to read "uncircumcised" censored classics."?[79] But if you want to know more, read this discussion full of first-class sources.[80]

6. You are mystifying what I wrote. I was just saying that for both cases the importance was zero. I never included that part in Zelensky's article, and in fact for me that nonsense should be avoided for both presidents.

I hope with all my heart that other users who have had a bad experience with MVBW will intervene in this AE request.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mhorg

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

I checked several sources, translated, and it does seem pretty clear that Mhorg is misrepresenting the sources, exaggerating the claims against Denisova. Topic ban is likely the only solution. I can only guess, but my best guess is there is a serious bias at play here, one that Mhorg can't overcome and be neutral about in this topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dennis, I answered above. Please also see this list.[81] Do you still think what you wrote? Mhorg (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 580: / Line 580: @@
 ''Denisova''
-:1. That part '''was inserted by user Cononsense'''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyudmyla_Denisova&type=revision&diff=1093739119&oldid=1093641586] Unfortunately, MVBW has a habit of removing massive chunks of text, or heavily altering the content, to make it difficult for other users to edit. To see how I had organised that section (later disrupted by MVBW), read this[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyudmyla_Denisova&diff=next&oldid=1093560325]. Otherwise, this is the list with all the '''sourced accusations against her''':[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALyudmyla_Denisova&type=revision&diff=1094320104&oldid=1094158948]
+:1. That part '''was inserted by user Cononsense''' (with another source).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyudmyla_Denisova&type=revision&diff=1093739119&oldid=1093641586] Unfortunately, MVBW has a habit of removing massive chunks of text, or heavily altering the content, to make it difficult for other users to edit. To see how I had organised that section (later disrupted by MVBW), read this[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyudmyla_Denisova&diff=next&oldid=1093560325]. Otherwise, this is the list with all the '''sourced accusations against her''':[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALyudmyla_Denisova&type=revision&diff=1094320104&oldid=1094158948]
 :2. I opened a discussion to talk about this.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASexual_violence_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&type=revision&diff=1093616781&oldid=1090409818] Perhaps the user intends to resolve the discussion by means of an AE Request?
 :3. As I have shown in point 1 (all material removed from MVBW) Denisova has been accused by members of parliament, journalists, academics, of being highly unreliable with her rape reports. Somehow we will have to deal with her statements, either by deleting them, giving them less weight, or adding parts of text explaining to the reader what happened. MVBW, on the other hand, would like to minimise everything.

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