Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:08, 4 January 2019

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

FkpCascais

Blocked for a week.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 21:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning FkpCascais

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FkpCascais (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

[1]
[2] Topic ban from everything related to the Balkans

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

20:00, 26 December 2018 FkpCascais edits a Balkan article violating his topic ban
20:02, 26 December 2018 FkpCascais edits a Balkan article violating his topic ban
21:09, 24 December 2018 FkpCascais makes a Balkans-related edit violating his topic ban

Diffs of previous re

levant sanctions, if any :

[3] FkpCascais is currently topic banned from everything related to the Balkans

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

FkpCascais is currently topic banned from from everything related to the Balkans [4]. They are trying to have their topic ban modified (in order to be able to edit Balkan football articles) but there is no decision for modification yet [5]. A few days ago he was blocked for the same thing [6]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning FkpCascais

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 FkpCascais

OK, I really expect the worst now, like being banned forever or similar... Yes, some time ago I found out József Lakatos was a Hungarian footballer who played in Spain as well, and he was not Romanian as initially sugested as some Yugoslav sites. I have a passion for these first sportsman that played in different countries and I love to make them their articles with their complete story. I thought moving him from Romanian to Hungarian list want be a "Balkans issue" and I though no one will find it hurtfull...

The first and second edits are just moving him to a right list. The third edit is inside my sandbox (am I banned from editing my sandboxes?). Anyway, it is nothing political or controversial. I really think the admins should start questioning why these few editors are so commited to get me eliminated from Wikipedia? I was recognised as awesome Wikipedian just a couple of month earlier. Now I am finding myself in this extremelly uncomfortable situation just because I was alone asking an unpleasent question in a historical article and I backed my claims with sources (at time I was in process of bringing more RS to the table). Wouldn´t proper Wikipedia protocolo just procede to a kind of RfC and bring a neutral editor to decide it, and we would be moving on? I want touch anything until a decition is made, I promise, cause I see otherwise i will be block and I am currently unabled from contributing to my area of speciallty. FkpCascais (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 89.164.154.220

@Salvio giuliano and Sandstein:. I think that he is still violating TB by posting opinions like this [7]. I had to ping him so other editors can see that I pinged everyone who participated in the discussion. Then he went to put his opinion on the matter by trying to camouflage it as an "I can't respond" post. Were will we come if he will each time he is pinged leave an opinionated comment and say "I shouldn't respond." 89.164.154.220 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FkpCascais

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

Because this is an apparent violation of my topic ban that is in the process of being appealed at WP:AN, I'll let other admins make the decision about how to proceed here, but I'll note that I consider it very bad form to violate a topic ban during an ongoing appeal and after being blocked once already for the same kind of violation. Sandstein 21:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is clearly a case of FkpCascais violating their Balkans TBAN, I mean the first two diffs are from pages about football in Serbia. They clearly couldn't wait to find out the result of their appeal, and just edited in the TBAN space regardless, which shows a disregard for proper process. I think a block is justified, say, a fortnight to a month. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this a clear violation of the topic ban; so I support a block. However, the latest AE block was for a day and, so, I think the duration of this one should not exceed a week. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

أمين

Blocked for one week by GoldenRing (talk · contribs). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning أمين

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: أمين (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/CASENAME#SECTION :

ARBPIA 30/500 Editors need to have 500 edits.

Sampling of diffs from today: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

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)

User was warned by Huldra
User was warned by Shrike

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning أمين

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 أمين

Statement by (username)

Result concerning أمين

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

@Sir Joseph: You should be capable of filling in a template and providing working diffs.
The violations of the general prohibition are clear cut. It has been explained to them repeatedly, but the user shows no sign of having ever read their own talk page. Blocked for 1 week to enforce the general prohibition, but any admin is welcome to unblock if they reasonably believe that this editor understand the general prohibition and will abide by it. GoldenRing (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray

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 DBigXray

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GenuineArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DBigXray (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

Noting that there is a limit of "20 diffs", I am presenting recent diffs where DBigXray has falsely accused editors of paid editing, socking and violated other forms of WP:NPA/WP:BATTLE:

2 December 2018: "!voters at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and here, the PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev and the members of the Friends and Fan club of Jaggi Vasudev have been mobilised enmasse to filibuster and bludgeon the move process"[9]
2 December: "that sort of statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum"[10]
5 December: ""Lot of crap has existed for many years on an article" is not a justification to restore crap back to the article."[11]
5 December: "Revert mindless tagging by POV Pusher"[12]
7 December: "discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts".[13]
7 December: "your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here"[14]
16 December: "this AfD was SOCK and MEAT infested"[15]
16 December: "Blocked user now on IP"[16]
18 December: "one can see several of these nationalistic editors... cannot possibly participate in these India-Pak deletion discussion, and hence the need to mobilize other editors (or SOCK) from the larger groups who are not (yet) sanctioned by Arbcom"[17]
18 December: "responded above with the evidence of clique based voting"[18]
18 December: "If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you ae forcing your lack of knowledge onto others."[19]
18 December: "No I cant help you to read"[20]
23 December: "This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve".[21]
24 December: "even the DRV has not been spared by the puppet masters."[22] (despite no blocked editor participated here)
24 December: "Talk about sock and more socks appear"[23]
29 December: "This is clearly not a new user and a sock of someone....block this account Special:Contributions/FreeKashmiri for disruption and WP:NOTHERE, the sooner the better."[24]
29 December: "reminds me of another banned editor User:Towns Hill. recommend a WP:NOTHERE block"[25]

All of these incidents came after a warning from ANI that this sort of behavior will result in block.[26]

I believe that these diffs qualifies as the clear evidence to establish that there is a recurring pattern of disruption. While there are issues with use of poor sources, wikihounding contributors, copyvio, and other problems, I decided to leave them due to limit of diffs. GenuineArt (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:: DBigXray has been already warned about possibility of topic ban under WP:ARBIPA.[27] Before that he was warned for his 1RR violation.[28] More recently, DBigXray was warned after drawing enough complaints for his overall behavior on ANI from November. This warning was also posted on DBigXray's talk page.[29] The reported misconduct came after all these warnings.

There has not been one editor who was convicted of COI in both of these discussions (1, 2). But DBigXray, just like here, has been adamant with his unsubstantiated claims that both of these discussions involve paid/COI editors. He had been told by Amakuru (an administrator) to stop labelling editors as COI editors without proper investigation on an appropriate noticeboard but DBigXray refused (User talk:DBigXray/Archive2018 2#Jaggi Vasudev).

The claims of sock puppetry against users made by DBigXray have been misleading because there hasn't been any example that was referred as "sock" by DBigXray and they later ended up getting blocked as sock in the cited examples. DBigXray made 7 reverts in only 4 days on Rafale deal controversy against 5 editors in total. Pattern also includes engagement in non-neutral editing and use of very poor sources [30] despite being told to do otherwise.[31] Due to diff limit I can't provide more evidence of problematic editing including misrepresentation of sources, deliberate wikihounding of opponents, but bottom line is that DBigXray behavior has only worsened even after those many warnings by admins. I don't think one more warning will create any difference.

One can also take a clue from this report where AGK asked DBigXray to trim down the statement, yet DBigXray refused to trim. DBigXray only does what he wants and same thing happens everywhere else, no mater what is being said to him. GenuineArt (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [32]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff

Discussion concerning DBigXray

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 DBigXray

Relevant threads for the Dispute at Jaggi Vasudev

diffs have been copied and response inline for ease of reading.

2 December 2018: the PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev [33]

The exact comment was "Note to admin It is clear to me that based on the !voters at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and here, the PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev and the members of the Friends and Fan club of Jaggi Vasudev have been mobilised enmasse to filibuster and bludgeon the move process. What is more interesting is that some of them are even tag teaming and edit warring [34][35][36] to hat !votes that are against their POV."

In my comment at MRV I had not taken any names and by the phrase "PR machinery" and "fan club" I was referring to the 3 editors who I had tagged in the RM discussion. In my comment at MRV I had also noted that I was annoyed by the reverts of the other set of 3 editors who were taking turns, to hat and hide an MRV comment, that disagreed with their own opinion. After getting reverted a second time by this set of editors at MRV, I made this comment as a note to the closing editor to not discount the hatted comment, and also made a thread at the MRV talk page to bring this disruptive hatting to the notice of other MRV participants to revert it. After a while another editor Erik, expressed his concern at this biased hatting calling it totally wrong and the hatting was removed by another editor here, Strangely, this time no tag-teamer reverted him to hat it again or protested against unhatting.

My note above at Move review was responded [37] by Rzvas. saying "No one here is paid by Sadhguru."

2 December: "that sort of statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum"[38]

The actual comment was my response to Rzvas.

"Although I did not claim so, but your statement that "none of them are paid by Sadhguru" is interesting. I assume that sort of statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum that in my opinion, seems to be going on. It would be interesting to know what else is mentioned over there. Knowing that one of these participants on the talk page User:Regstuff has already been site banned for Paid editing."

As I explained above I had given my reasons to believe that "The RM discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts,". Another editor at the MRV discussion had expressed concern at the passionate comments [39] by an MRV participant, who did not disclose it in his first comment but later on admitted on the same thread that he was "influenced" by the teaching of Jaggi Vasudev. I take this admission further vindication of my comment above.

7 December: "Consensus is not counting of the heads but on the weight of the argument. The RM discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts, so the number game should not be used to claim a consensus here.".[40]

I have already explained above why I said this and the three COI/SPA accounts [41] of RM discussion

18 December: "If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you are forcing your lack of knowledge onto others."[42]
18 December: "No I cant help you to read"[43]

The relevant thread for this discussion is at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev#Hatnote

This was a discussion about a hatnote that ErikHaugen had added and B2C had removed. "Sadhguru" redirects here. For other uses, see Satguru. should be restored. The removal of this obviously useful hatnote is non constructive and misleading users (looking for Satguru) and leading them to this page with no alternative route to the article they may be looking for. Sat/Sad/Sadh are phonetically same for Indian languages. a discssion on this B2C stated that "I know nothing about this subject other than what I've learned from looking at usage in English sources." and claimed that he did not believe any reader looking for Satguru would type Sadhguru on english wiki. To this comment I had replied that "If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you are forcing your lack of knowledge onto others. A large population of Indian population writes Satguru as Sadhguru in english" After which I gave multiple examples[44] of people using variants of the word Satguru/Sadhguru/Sadguru.

The list of 20 examples was provided, yet B2C asked[45] me to reduce the list to only those using Sadhguru, as well as Notable enough for wikipedia [46]. My response [47] "No, I cant help you to read. Remember, Notability is for Topic, RS is for content, dont mix the two."

5 December: ""Lot of crap has existed for many years on an article" is not a justification to restore crap back to the article."[48]

This is related to the ongoing content dispute at Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots Where Orientls has added [49] controversial content into the infobox of the article that I had objected to. Orientls responded falsely claiming consensus, to quote, [50] "People have reached a consensus here. Show us where was consensus for edit because it existed here for many years "

I responded to his claim of many years and clarified that the dispute was still not resolved.[51]

5 December: "Revert mindless tagging by POV Pusher"[52]
7 December: "your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here"[53]

Relevant thread for context Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots

In my comment responding to the controversial and highly inflated casualty figures in Sikh riots, being added into the infobox with poor sources,

quoting myself from the talk page discussion " it appears as though your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is very poor. In link 1 the author says Sikhs have "said" 20,000 were killed. Here in 2nd link [54] you are quoting the numbers stated by the "president of Khalistan council" as a reliable source. in the third link you are trying to pass the belief of the blogger as fact, to quote the blog "It is widely believed that at least 20,000"... As has been already called what you have been doing here is a clear cherry picking of biased and unreliable source that has printed wild allegations on the numbers, in an obvious attempt to inflate the casualty figures of the infobox and the article lead. This is a blatant disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:RS to push your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here."

16 December: "this AfD was SOCK and MEAT infested"[55]
18 December: "one can see several of these nationalistic editors... cannot possibly participate in these India-Pak deletion discussion, and hence the need to mobilize other editors (or SOCK) from the larger groups who are not (yet) sanctioned by Arbcom"[56]
18 December: "responded above with the evidence of clique based voting"[57]
24 December: "even the DRV has not been spared by the puppet masters."[58] (despite no blocked editor participated here)
24 December: "Talk about sock .."[59]

Relevant thread for context of the above 5 diffs.

At the DRV Cunard had first raised the point about the possibility of nationalistic editors participating in the AfD based on his own observation from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Sockpuppets, and the "India-Pakistan" logs at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. another editor had asked evidence for sock/meat so I responded with the evidence that I had collected that had made me to suspect the sock/meat puppetry in this AfD. I added my own observation and evidence. So I see myself as suspecting an obvious problem and sharing my viewpoint along with the evidence that I collected.

Later on after a few days of the closure of AfD 2 of the AfD participants were blocked as Socks [60] while the DRV was ongoing.

Joe Roe, who had closed the DRV had noted in his closing statement [61] that "The original AfD was affected by sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry"

16 December: "Blocked user now on IP"[62]

Special:Contributions/Bassem.gergess was already blocked for the same edits after which he returned with an IP [63]

23 December: "This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve".[64]

Relevant thread for this dispute

This topic is currently in the news, I started editing this on 23 December, immediately after my first revert, I joined the talk page discussion, and to resolve the issues if any.

MBlaze Lighting had made blanket reverts of my article improvements without adequately explaining his objections about the content. On the talk page, he added 5 diffs with personal attacks without explaining his real objections to the content he reverted, to this I responded "Instead of having a confrontational attitude against fellow editors that got you banned indefinitely from India pakistan articles by ArbCom [65] why don't you edit in a collaborative manner. This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve. I have explained my edits in the edit summary. you say you have succinctly outlined your concerns, but all I see above is your accusations and my diffs above, I need you to explain what you think is the problem with those edits (with evidence for your position) so that I can respond to it."

29 December: "This is clearly not a new user and a sock of someone....block this account Special:Contributions/FreeKashmiri for disruption and WP:NOTHERE, the sooner the better."[66]

Relevant thread User talk:cyberpower678#DBigXray

This new editor was making disruptive AfD nominations, He was aware of a month old thread at ANI closed by Cyberpower and was asking for my block for that. I noted [67] that this editor was engaging in disruptive edits and based on his edits appeared to me as a sock of someone. I suggested Cyberpower to block this account Special:Contributions/FreeKashmiri for disruption and WP:NOTHERE.

cyberpower agreed with my observation [68] saying this editor indeed appeared as a sock of someone.

29 December: "reminds me of another banned editor User:Towns Hill. recommend a WP:NOTHERE block"[69]

Relevant thread User talk:Kautilya3#Copyvio

This editor had been editing India Pakistan related articles with a Pro Pakistani bias. The editor also noted that they were in touch with others via emails [70] [71], which is an admission of edits based on offline mails. Based on their edit history they made similar edits (that were made previously by a banned editor) and filing complaints against users they did not even interact. Some example diffs diff, diff, diff, diff, so I had noted that there was a similarity in their editing patterns.

To conclude my response on the above allegations, I never had any disputes with GenuineArts so far. He had made a complaint against me few days back at ANI with intentions to get me sanctioned. I am not sure, but based on the recent multiple threads that had been started against me at ANI by a particular set of editors, I see that as a part of a concerted effort by this set of editors with whom I am having ongoing content disputes on articles. All these attacks against me have begun since 29 October when I participated in the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and voted oppose against the proposal. I regularly participate at WP:RMT amd WP:RM discussions, I had never edited the page Jaggi Vasudev before my participation at its RM discussion. The content dispute with some of "these editors" are still ongoing at Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots. "These editors", I am having disputes currently include Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, D4iNa4, Orientls, I note that 4 of these are also under indefinite India-Pakistan topic ban [72]. This thread at ARE is fifth such attempt (after 4 threads at ANI in a short period) in the ongoing efforts by participants of these content disputes, to bypass these content disputes by getting me sanctioned. --DBig Xrayᗙ 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I have made some more prunings, I have tried my best to be brief, but there are 20 diffs (400+ words) from multiple content disputes that I had to respond to and I also had to copy each diff so as to clarify which diff, I am responding to. 500 words ÷ 20 = 25 words per diff. I cannot possibly explain a diff in just 25 words so I would request the admins to accept this response.--DBig Xrayᗙ 00:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DBigXray

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

@DBigXray: At 2,100+ words, your response is over 4 times the allowed length. Would you please replace it with a clearer, shorter rebuttal of the principal concerns raised by this enforcement request? AGK ■ 23:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. While it's still over, your submission is now more manageable. Thank you. AGK ■ 11:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find a lot of this report underwhelming at first, especially since a lot of the socking / COI claims have since been vindicated. I do see a bit of a problem with DBigXray throwing these accusations around without requesting administrative action; if you're accusing someone of socking, you should really be making use of SPI or not making the accusation at all. And the more I see of DBigXray's TP style, the less I like it. The AfD linked above, the related DRV and various talk page threads I've come across have a distinct element of BLUDGEON to them. And this is a particularly fine example of stonewalling. I'm not sure whether any of this rises to the level of sanctions, but a logged warning here is going to be a minimum, IMO. I'm still thinking on it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not be taking action here because the request does not contain evidence that these were, in fact, false accusations of disruption, or explain how exactly the reported diffs violate any applicable Wikipedia conduct policy or guideline. Sandstein 12:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

أمين

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 أمين

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: أمين (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_Prohibition :

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

04 Jan Creating article that dealt with the conflict mentioning "Israeli Occupation"
Date Explanation
Date Explanation
Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

30 Dec 2018 Was blocked by User:GoldenRing and unblocked by User:TonyBallioni
Date Explanation

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Its clear that user can't differentiate what belongs to the conflict and what is not

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning أمين

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 أمين

Statement by (username)

Result concerning أمين

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 263: / Line 263: @@
 *I find a lot of this report underwhelming at first, especially since a lot of the socking / COI claims have since been vindicated. I do see a bit of a problem with DBigXray throwing these accusations around without requesting administrative action; if you're accusing someone of socking, you should really be making use of SPI or not making the accusation at all. And the more I see of DBigXray's TP style, the less I like it. The AfD linked above, the related DRV and various talk page threads I've come across have a distinct element of BLUDGEON to them.  And [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rafale_deal_controversy#Supreme_Court_section this] is a particularly fine example of stonewalling. I'm not sure whether any of this rises to the level of sanctions, but a logged warning here is going to be a minimum, IMO. I'm still thinking on it. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 09:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 *I'll not be taking action here because the request does not contain evidence that these were, in fact, ''false'' accusations of disruption, or explain how exactly the reported diffs violate any applicable Wikipedia conduct policy or guideline. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 12:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
+==أمين==
+<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
+===Request concerning أمين===
+; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Shrike}} 13:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
+; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|أمين}}<p>{{ds/log|أمين}}
+<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_Prohibition]] :
+<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
+; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_Medical_Relief_Society&oldid=876780701 04 Jan] Creating article that dealt with the conflict mentioning "Israeli Occupation"
+#[http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation
+#[http://Difflink3 Date] Explanation
+#[http://Difflink4 Date] Explanation
+; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
+<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86&diff=875938790&oldid=875929622 30 Dec 2018] Was blocked by [[User:GoldenRing]] and unblocked by [[User:TonyBallioni]]
+#[http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation
+;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
+<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
+*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
+; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
+<!-- Add any further comment here -->
+Its clear that user can't differentiate what belongs to the conflict and what is not
+; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
+<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
+<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+===Discussion concerning أمين===
+<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
+====Statement by أمين====
+====Statement by (username)====
+<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+===Result concerning أمين===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
+*

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards