Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:02, 15 July 2016

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ranze

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

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

Appealing user: Ranze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ranze (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 1 May 2015 Gamergate topic ban:; I am imposing for an indefinite period the standard Gamergate topic ban, which prohibits you from editing "All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."

Discussion related to (not sure about resulting in) this sanction was a 2 week overall block I received by @EdJohnston: earlier the same day

special:diff/660255380 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171#Ranze

This was for allegedly violating a topic ban I received from Gamaliel on April 4:

special:diff/654927319

The cited reasons were redirecting Milo Y to Milo Yiannopoulous (presumably because he wrote some articles about Gamergate, as if that's all he does...) and special:diff/659243811 where I admittedly did include information about the Calgary Expo expelling a group of women who had gamergate related information. The reason I thought that was acceptable was because this was in no way connected to Zoe Quinn, which was the original concern of this whole GG topic ban thing. According to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate there are no general Gamergate sanctions anymore they are superceded by specific ArbCom sanctions. @HJ Mitchell: classified these as "obsolete" on 17 November 2015. It was demoted to historical status on 29 January 2015. So basically, when Gamaliel placed these sanctions on my in 2015 on April 4 / May 1, I did not take them seriously at the time because I was under the impression that Gamergate sanctions did not exist and he was trying to apply an undated policy. In the message left to me, Gamliel claimed that "This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision" linking to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision. The link given was not very specific and I was looking at the wrong section, got confused, and didn't get the further feedback I requested to explain the justification. I mostly just shrugged it off and strove not to edit the topic, go watch a bunch of TV, renew my love for pro wrestling, etc. I'd like to know if such broad restrictions are still justified. I've left the Zoe Quinn article alone and that was the crux of what led up to this. Should I have such harsh and broad sanctions when I've stayed away and not reintroduced the pseudonym? For those interested in what preceded the April 4 intervention by Gamaliel I believe that is covered beginning at Talk:Zoë_Quinn/Archive_2#Gamergate_Harassment_sub-section_under_Career. It's coming back now... what had happened was on the talk page, I used template:cite tweet and the number of a tweet made by an account verified by reliable sources to belong to her. I introduced the tweet for discussion for its use as a potential source in the article, regarding the comments the tweet made about a prior career. Given that what I posted has been redacted, I can't refresh my memory on the specific phrasing, though I expect admins have access to the redacted diffs to do so. My thoughts on the potential inclusion of the restraining order (a primary source legal document) was that secondary sources (maybe also Breitbart) had brought up this restraining order. WP:BLPPRIMARY does allow for the referencing of primary sources if they support details established as notable by secondary sources so I didn't understand the problem with doing this. I would very much like to make amends for anything I did wrong, if I did, but my requests for explanations about the specifics of it never got answered in detail enough for me to understand it, so I would like the opportunity to have this better explained to me so I can understand the rules I broke, apologize for doing so, and in knowing better the specifics, better avoid doing so in the future. Ranze (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of that administrator: special:diff/729012441 (page says retired)

Statements by Ranze

Best-case scenario I would like the sanction lifted altogether. Next-best, I would like it to be modified to only apply to Gamergate only, as in (a) but not (b) because "any gender-related dispute" is so vague that people can try to make anything relating to people seem like it falls under that.

I pinged Gamaliel but then realized on checking page the user is listed as retired so I would require a different administrator to modify or remove it.

Since it's been 14 months since this was put in place my memories on what led up to it aren't the clearest. As best I can recall I had brought up on Zoe Quinn's talk page a Breitbart article which I wanted to include as a reference which mentioned a modeling pseudonym, and this was construed as some kind of attack on her.

I'd also like to remind everyone that the tweet that spawned all this was relating information which the Tweeter explains she was 'open about' highlighted in secondary sources:

"Gamergate Zoe Quinn's statement in full as she drops harassment lawsuit against ex responsible for vile 'hate movement'".

Really all that should have come of that was a reply like "since a tweet is a primary source, the information in it should be mentioned in a secondary source to establish its notability for the article" on the talk page. I would have understood that and not pushed to include it in the article on the basis of just a primary source until I had found such verification. But instead got slapped with fuzzy sanctions about pretty much everything because I linked a public statement from a verified Twitter about a past career which the BLP topic maintains they have been open about. Ranze (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: Why the rush to close? Can't you leave it open long enough for a wide scope of people to give input? Like UNINVOLVED people, for example? I don't think conveniently timed enforcement requests should derail a request for reconsidering a block that was done on gray grounds to begin with. This all began because I linked a still-present tweet from the Twitter verified to belong to the article subject, information that I did not rephrase negatively as is wrongly implied above. Ranze (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: given that you said 'unblocked and/or' and I have been unblocked, does that mean this can now be opened without prejudice? I would imagine the validity of such a wide-scope restriction is worth discussion regardless of it's being enforced. Given that the justifying edit for the sanctions is mentioning on the talk page a career past which Zoe Quinn was open about at the time (and remains open about now) and is reported on by secondary sources, there was no valid basis for sanctions to be placed to begin with.

special:diff/654927319 4 April 2015 Gamaliel broke the rules when he afflicted a 'standard gamergate topic ban' which is illegal since the concept was disbanded in December 2014. When called out on this abuse, he tried to save face on May 1st: special:diff/660280525 by abusing the ArbCom sanctions process associated with this.

That was only to be done December 2014 for people who already had those bans, not to instate new ones.

Gamaliel misrepresented himself as an uninvolved administrator to get this done. You can see this at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranze&oldid=660280525#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction but it is not apparent through a direct diff since "This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision" was inserted via the substituted template.

Gamaliel had no authority to apply this since he was an involved administrator. This is why I basically shrugged it off as weightless, since it was fraudulent.

Prior to May or April 2015 on 1 September 2014 per special:diff/623722973 Gamaliel participated in editing Zoe Quinn's talk page. You can also see at Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_1 that Gamaliel was actively involved in discussing gamergate issues since 10 September 2014.

So why was a clearly involved administrator allowed to claim to speak for ArbCom as an UNinvolved administrator and apply generalized sanctions on April/May 2015 which were disbanded December 2014? Ranze (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongjam: regarding the two cases you brought up:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision#Gamaliel_reminded occurred January 2015. It was discussing actions prior to that. His having assessed as uninvolved at the time he made those prior edits would not automatically make him uninvolved as of May 2015. The bans he made which were endorsed and converted were the ones prior to that: keep in mind that this conversion happened as the concept was being retired in December 2014. It did not give him authority to continue making those decisions and receive automatic endorsement from the ArbCom as he claimed.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#GamerGate:_Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_2 from March 2015 is a closed discussion with no obvious answer in place even if I had been directed to read it in April 2015. Robert McClenon mentions 'resolved by the committee as noted' in the upper right, but doesn't specify where that's noted. The linked-to section has no obvious bolded answer at the start for understanding how thorough a consensus there was. @Euryalus: also mentions there that it can be done on a per-section rather than per-article basis, which @Dougweller: supports. Ranze (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PeterTheFourth: Do you have any proof that I alleged this? I can't check the editing diffs since they're crossed out but I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, as I have never considered ZQ to have done pornography. I think it was probably 'model' or something. The way I define porn does not encapsulate anything I am aware of from her.

What you claim is MY allegation on April 4 was simply citing a direct statement from the article subject. One which is still unredacted. Her words are actually a description of the work which I don't even agree with, but when quoting people I can't simply alter the quote= field to suit my taste, I have to use their own words. The 'title=' field is necessary using cite tweet because that's all tweets have as a title, the message itself.

You can see this very easily. In its present state the Zoë_Quinn article lists http://www.unburntwitch.com/ under 'Website'. If you visit there are 7 headings: WORK BLOG ABOUT CONTACT TWITTER SUPPORT MY WORK GUESTBOOK

If you click Twitter, it is a link to https://twitter.com/unburntwitch

What you call an allegation was simply using template:cite tweet for a tweet from that account, a statement posted 24 March 2015 and still present today. I didn't even do this on the article, I brought it up on the talk page and asked if it was something worth including. Ranze (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nblund: My making Milo Y a redirect really was no basis for a block. Articles are the conveyance of topics, not redirects. I only did that because the guy has a very difficult to spell last name and I kept forgetting it and I checked first at Milo (name) and no other Milos had a last name beginning with Y so it seemed like an innocent convenience. This was before I discovered auto-fill in the search bar, I don't know when that was introduced so obviously I wouldn't need a redirect like this now. This edit was not in any way related to Gamergate, it was simply related to me wanting to read about the journalist more easily because his surname felt impossible.

Nblund you mention "apparently" as if this was some discovery thrust upon me, you do realize I mentioned this above right?

The edits I made about BlackLivesMatter were not about GamerGate at all. Trying to call grounds for sanctions only supports the argument that the wording of the sanctions are incredibly vague and are leading to a bunch of people taking shots in the dark trying to say that completely unrelated events are suddenly Gamergate events. Ranze (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above responses moved to your section. Please comment only in your own section, threaded discussions are not allowed at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

Statement by PeterTheFourth

I don't believe that allegation that somebody featured in pornography is as innocent as you suggest when you express bafflement over it being 'construed as some kind of attack'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nblund

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place. I haven't interacted directly with this user, but one of his edits has caused a lot of consternation at several entries that I have edited recently. As it turns out, he was patient zero for a (really poorly sourced) paragraph about Milo Yiannopoulos that was added to four separate articles in June this year. Relevant diffs:

This user was apparently given a 2 week ban by EdJohnston for violating a topic ban by (among several other things) making an edit to Milo Yinnopoulos entry in May last year (diff). These don't deal directly with GamerGate, but, given that he was previously sanctioned specifically for edits related to this individual, it seems like this user has blatantly violated the topic ban in the very recent past. Nblund^talk 22:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam

Gamaliel's edits that Ranze links to where discussed during the ARBCOM case. He was not determined to be WP:INVOLVED and the topic bans he gave out were endorsed and converted to arbcom bans. — Strongjam (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

Ranze's last sanction for GamerGate and related topics were over a year ago. The conditions for having the topic ban rescinded were to demonstrate an ability to edit without violating BLP and related policies. Certainly a year of edits has demonstrated this. The Topic Ban is hardly related to gender. Rape is a crime and there is no gender based argument for rape. There are no groups that advocate for rape. "People vs. Turner" was controversial for the punishment imposed, not gender which is what would be required for a "gender related controversy." The Topic Ban should be lifted as no longer necessary and unduly punitive. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ranze

Result of the appeal by Ranze

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

Given the Enforcement Request below, I recommend closing this request without prejudice. If the enforcement request results in no action being taken, then it can be reopened. However, given the diffs below, this appeal is not likely to succeed anyway. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~I agree this section should be closed without prejudice. It can be reconsidered if Ranze is unblocked and/or it's determined they did not violate their sanctions.~~ --Laser brain (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I think this should remain open so we can evaluate the validity of the sanction. --Laser brain (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this appeal should be evaluated independently of the request below as to whether the topic ban was breached. Even if we find the original sanction to be invalid (not saying it is or isn't at this point, I'll have to review it further), it's still expected that the editor subject to a sanction will follow it until and unless it is lifted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed have some concerns about the validity of the sanction as of right now. Here's where Gamaliel imposed the original sanction, as a 12 month topic ban, on 4 April 2015: [1]. Somewhat later, Gamaliel makes an edit where he uses the AE template for clarity's sake. The template does say "indefinite", but Gamaliel says in that same edit "This is not a new sanction", and the ban is only logged as a 12-month restriction. No extension of the ban to indefinite was ever logged. I'm therefore led to believe that the use of "indefinite" was an error in use of the template, and that therefore this sanction wasn't intended to be indefinite and has already expired as of 4 April 2016. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at that particular angle, thank you for bringing it up. It does indeed seem to have been imposed as 12 months, and the "indefinite" part of it would appear to be just a template error and not backed by the force of Arbcom. Even if he had returned, Gamaliel is banned from administrative action here, so he can't reinterpret it for us (plus, many of his bans have needed multiple clarifications and modification anyway). Given the circumstances, I move that we declare the ban to have expired, and therefore the request below is void ab initio The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranze

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 Ranze

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ranze (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: 4 April 2015 Gamergate topic ban (elaborated on by enforcing administrator here.)

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

10 June 2016 People v. Turner, a criminal case regarding rape, is a 'gender-related dispute'. Ranze's edits to the article are not insubstantial.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1 May 2015 Block by EdJohnston for violating his topic ban.

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

User appealed a sanction on 9 July 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification.

Discussion concerning Ranze

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.

Statements by Ranze

The word 'gender' does not even appear on People v. Turner, alleging that this legal case is a 'gender-related dispute' is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:SYNTHESIS on the part of PeterTheFourth. All criminal cases are 'people-related disputes' but just because people have genders doesn't make all criminal cases gender-related disputes. Rape and/or sexual assault can be done by either gender and to either gender, as can murder or theft. Their presence does not make it a gender-based dispute. The sanctions are about gender-based not sex-based disputes. Sexual acts are not inherently tied to gender and this is a false conflation.

Am I to be limited to only corporation vs. corporation legal battles where the gender of all witnesses and lawyers and judges is kept unknown so as to be certain gender could not possibly be involved? Why are you trying to broaden the use of already excessively broad terms? How is this related to Zoe Quinn?

@Wordsmith: what violation are you talking about? None of my edits to PvT are a violation, it is a criminal case about assault not a gender-related dispute.

@Carwil: I have addressed your claims below in special:diff/729137899 but had to remove it to fit under the 500 character limit. I would like to request permission from a reviewing administrator to wave this limit since I am an involved party. Ranze (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathunder: thanks, although "here" in sense of the overall section since the bottom is for admins... I envy the convenience of threaded responses you guys enjoy below. As @Laser brain: suggests I strive to avoid editing PvT until a result is reached regarding whether over to block me on doing so or if sanctions apply to it. I hope to find some other recent and less-explored criminal cases which I can apply my efforts to which you might find less objectionable, any suggestions? Looking into this one has been an exercise in learning better referencing which could benefit the articling of assault cases where alleged assaulters and alleged victims are of identical sex and perhaps less likely to invoke the response I have seen here. Even though being limiting to same-sex crime cases seems like far too big a reaction for detailing open career statements on one person over a year ago. Ranze (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I would be happy to pre-empt Carwil on this as this is nothing I intend to hide. For 'repeatedly' to be true you'd need two times, which is true:

July 9 special:diff/729282614 I changed 'the victim remained unresponsive' (which is WP:SYNTHESIS) to "the woman remained unresponsive" because it was the wording used in Sue Dremann's article. Changing 'woman' to 'victim' by whoever introduced this was not being faithful to the source.
July 8 special:diff/728866550 I changed 'the victim remained unresponsive' to 'Emily remained unresponsive' (same line as above) because the reference used 'Emily' throughout and I believed that to be the most efficient way to refer to this person. Also in the interests of efficiency, in the same edit I changed "the victim was breathing" to "she was breathing", "he and the victim" to "he and Emily", "Turner stated that the victim" to "Turner stated that Emily" (in retrospect I think "Turner stated that she" would be better since Turner neither said 'victim' or 'Emily', obviously) and "Kianerci and the victim" to "Kianerci and Emily" and "The victim described" to "Emily described".

I stand by them because I believe they made the article more neutral and/or more concise. Carwil was accurate in describing my behavior, but I think inaccurate in implying it to be dismissive. Repeating 'the victim' throughout is not only not NPOV and cluttersome, but it also victimizes Emily Doe by stereotyping her in a way she has asked not to be. "I am not just a drunk victim" she reminds us in her victim impact statement, so calling her "Emily" avoids victimizing her by primarily referring to her as a victim and characterizing her in a single way which causes her distress. Ranze (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carwil

A summary of Ranze's recent BLP violating editing is offered here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#People_v._Turner. Ranze's has repeatedly objected to the characterization of "the victim" in the article text of a case on a rape conviction, inserted "false accusation of rape" as a keyword to describe the case, and sought out unrelated behavior of a sexual assault victim to add to the article. These are tendentious gender-related edits to a gender-related article.--Carwil (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me amplify my earlier comments slightly to note that not only is Ranze's editing problematic, but it demonstrates a refusal to engage with policy (for example, after multiple comments on the police report violating BLPPRIMARY, he added an extended chronology sourced entirely to the same police report; plus a complete incapacity to understand the ethical obligations under BLPNAME despite explanations on Talk:People v. Turner and User talk:Ranze), a refusal to accept consensus (on "victim" being a NPOV description, on the unconscious state of the woman assaulted as determined by multiple witnesses, police, and the jury), and a tendency to filibuster the talk page (notably through 31 of the last 80 diffs at Talk:People v. Turner, many of them excessively lengthy). These problems, plus the seemingly endless regress of "I don't understand how X policy applies to me" were the key problems I remember on my brief time editing Gamergate controversy.--Carwil (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes, @Laser brain::

Ranze objects that calling the person sexually assaulted "the victim" is POV: Special:Diff/724584068, Special:Diff/725651941, Special:Diff/725731738
Ranze objects that labeling victim "unconscious" is POV, despite it being an element of the conviction: (Discussion here: Talk:People_v._Turner#Does_not_seem_neutral_or_balanced) Ranze removed it here: Special:Diff/726305219 Special:Diff/725818752 Special:Diff/725651941 Special:Diff/725539304
OR, PRIMARY, and BLPPRIMARY warnings re: police report (Special:Diff/726700659 Special:Diff/728386039, Special:Diff/728386039, Special:Diff/728155148, Special:Diff/727865007) Ranze proceeds to add an entire section sourced entirely to the police report: Special:Diff/728557737.
Ranze adds "public urination" (a term for a misdemeanor crime) as a keyword for the case based on victim's behavior as reported in the police report Special:Diff/728719211
Ranze offers "false accusation of rape" as a keyword for the case — Special:Diff/728718689 — despite no RS describing it this way.

--Carwil (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey administrators (@Newyorkbrad:, @The Wordsmith:, @Laser brain:), could you please clarify whether Ranze's topic ban under Gamergate Arbitration will still apply to People v. Turner, only parts of People v. Turner "related to gender," or not at all. Ranze has never conceded that it does per his recent comments on his own talk page: Special:Diff/729455572.--Carwil (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kyohyi

Question for admins on this. This is an article about a court case. And there are a number of controversies over this court case. So what percentage does an article have to cover a controversy for the article in total to be about the controversy? I'm asking this in response to Laserbrain's comment about the lead referring to rape culture, and how broadly construed relates to articles. My understanding is that if an article is not largely about a topic, then only the sections relating to that topic apply to the ban. In this case "rape culture" is mentioned once in the lead, and once in the body. That's not a particularly large amount for the size of that article. So, is People vs. Turner a gender based controversy on the whole? Or does people vs. turner contain sections that describe the gender based controversy? Then again these questions might be moot if someone provided a dif of Ranze editing a section that specifically calls out a gender based controversy. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at this further I see that Jonathunder has participated in a move discussion over this topic [2] as well as edited the article removing content from secondary sources using the rationale "remove timeline--unencyclopedic, not prose" [3]. Jonathunder's warnings and postings here should be considered no different than if they were from any involved editor. I would like to further state that when Ranze has asked for diff's or explanations as to what people have issues with he has either been given nothing, or general directions to WP: OR. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Campus rape is not a good comparison to this article. The campus rape article has a lot of content that breaks down demographics by gender, and in turn has extensive analysis and theories about gender. To give an example the term "women" is only used in people v. Turner once in the article, whereas our campus rape article uses the term women approximately 90 times, and throughout the article. (I was going to compare the term men, but men shows up in words like statement and I didn't want to do an individual count.) --Kyohyi (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comparison to the campus rape decision appears to me to be a Fallacy of division. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sfarney

In my personal frank and blunt opinion, "gender based controversy" is a bogus category -- very difficult to apply. ("Gender" is really a grammar category, not a personal attribute.) Some here would stretch such wording to cover the current presidential election, while others would forbid mention of David Bowie, whose sex was somewhat controversial. I would say the sanction is not enforceable. Nevertheless, Ranze's endless wrangling (whether a person convicted of molesting is truly a molester, whether the woman was unconscious, whether she did anything that transgressed a law, whether the jury established the truth, whether Turner's defense story was given adequate weight and credibility, which fingers were used, how much each of the parties ate, how drunk was each party, ...) is exceptionally wearisome. One wonders what the final product would be if Ranze were given a free hand and had not been reverted by a half-dozen others. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...beyond cavil" -- Dumuzid's phrase is elegant and perfectly appropriate. This is one of the few cases in which it is not ambivalent. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

Regardless of scope, admin Jonathunder is clearly involved in the article (diffs in Kyohyi's section.) His warning should be seen as an editor warning, not an admin warning, and his indefinite block aside from being disproportionate and enacted while this request was ongoing is a violation of "involved" standards. It's preventing Ranze from addressing concerns here and in the appeal above. Sanctions should be decided here by uninvolved admins. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: after removing the SPA tags I left PeterTheFourth stalks me to an AfD discussion. He hadn't edited the discussion, the article itself or the article's talk page prior. His vote appears to be retaliatory. This request may be merited but I'd ask deciding admins to consider that it was brought by an aggressive SPA.

Question for admins or those more familiar with policy: were my SPA tags inappropriate and if so can you explain why (preferably on my talk page) so I don't repeat the mistake. Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam

A previous clarification request regarding whether campus rape was covered by the GG topic ban I think is relevant. The result of that discussion was that it is.— Strongjam (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dumuzid

I wanted to comment briefly on what really boil down to procedural points. First of all, I quite agree that the category of "gender-based controversy" is nebulous and subject to interpretation. There are certainly liminal examples on which reasonable minds might differ. People v. Turner is not such a case. It seems beyond cavil (to me) that the gendered "rape culture" aspect of the case is precisely what makes it so notable and the angle (either pro or con) almost all the reliable sources have taken. That a term might be ambiguous in some uses does not mean it is ambiguous in all. Secondly, as to a retroactive examination of the original ban, I think such a thing is fine, but I think it is inappropriate to do so here. Let people appeal bans when they think there is a reason to do so. Setting a precedent of "appeal by repeated violation of topic ban" strikes me as unwise. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

The edit to "People vs. Turner" was not a gender related dispute. Rape is a crime. The controversy was regarding punishment imposed for the conviction. To the extent that people extrapolate the case to "rape culture", Ranze didn't mention, add, or discuss rape culture. Also even for such an extrapolation, there are no advocates for "rape culture" just as there are no advocates for "murder." To get to a "gender-related dispute", the edit would necessarily have to include differences based on gender such as Title IX reporting and/or University policies that are gender biased/based. This case is very much beyond "gender-related dispute." It's rape. It's a crime notable for a light sentence. The criminal sentence was the dispute and Ranze did not edit anything about the sentence or about the controversy of the sentence. It's at least two large steps away from the sanction imposed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ranze

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

The fact that a violation occurred seems unarguable. Before I recommend an action to be taken, if any, I'll have to look more into the history here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In considering what action should be taken, it is relevant that Ranze continued to edit People v. Turner even after I left this this warning on his talk page, and even now I do not get the sense that he realizes his edits are a problem. Jonathunder (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a clear violation here, as an article about a sexual assault that has raised clear questions about rape culture (not my term; it's in the lead of the article) is clearly within the "gender-related dispute" part of Ranze's sanction. If Ranze was in any way unclear about this, they shouldn't have ignored the warning supplied by Jonathunder, and instead asked for clarification. @Ranze: I am OK with a concise statement addressing Carwil's concerns, but please keep it focused on why you believe this article has nothing to do with gender issues. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathunder: I really think it was a poor idea to apply a block while this request is open, and when you have edited the page in a substantive way. There are many completely uninvolved administrators who can apply such blocks, and I don't see what the hurry is—this discussion can run its course. I encourage you to unblock Ranze while this discussion is ongoing as I'd like to get additional input from others. @Ranze: If you are unblocked, I expect you to refrain from editing the article in question until this is settled. --Laser brain (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was a bad block. However, AE blocks must be assumed to be valid until consensus determines otherwise. I would be in favor of overturning it until the issue of what is covered by the sanctions is sorted out. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked him so he can comment here. Jonathunder (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carwil: Please provide diffs for your accusations, including "has repeatedly objected to the characterization of 'the victim'". Otherwise you are casting aspersions without evidence and you'll find that isn't much appreciated in this venue. --Laser brain (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, and especially taking into account the ARCA posted above, I stand by my statement that the violation was clear and obvious. I don't know if this is willful ignorance or a WP:CIR issue, but either way it needs to be handled. However, I find the indef block applied earlier to be excessively harsh, given that the previous one was just 2 weeks. I think 6 months would be more appropriate, and then if there are further violations we can look at indefinite blocks. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden: Your additions of the SPA tag were unnecessary and needlessly provocative. Anyone who has participated in AE for the Gamergate area knows who PeterTheFourth is. Unlike an AFD, AE is a very small crowd so we tend to know the major players in all the topic areas. Also, what he does outside of GG isn't actually relevant here. His Enforcement request is clear, concise, and shows an obvious violation. Whether he is an SPA or not is subject to interpretation, but there's no reason to tag his edits as such other than wanting to put a scarlet A on his chest. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, I realized that the original ban was put in place by Gamaliel, who had a lot of issues in this area and was almost certainly WP:INVOLVED. As such, we should review the ban itself to determine its validity (several of Gamaliel's sanctions have been overturned on appeal) and examine whether a regular editor would be sanctioned for these edits. That's just my opinion though, I'm welcome to hear from others whether we should reevaluate the original ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 08:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on both counts. I don't think there's much to debate in terms of whether campus rape falls under gender-related disputes. However, we should back up and discuss whether the sanction was valid. --Laser brain (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed the edits in detail at this point, but have a couple of general comments:
- With regard to the question of whether the original sanction was valid given subsequent developments re Gamaliel, I don't see that as a relevant issue. If we have a strong ethic of "an AE sanction, even if challenged, remains in effect unless overturned by a consensus" then it would seem to follow even more strongly that "an AE sanction cannot be invalidated retroactively". I can imagine an exception for "sanctions" that were absurd on their face, but this isn't that.
- I respectfully disagree with applying the concept of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" in the context of an editor not knowing about the outcome of an ARCA request. Consistent with my comments in the American Politics ARCA request now pending, if an editor genuinely isn't aware that his or her edits are improper, then he or she should be told so before being sanctioned for them. Of course I am speaking here of genuine or potentially genuine unawareness, not feigned ignorance or rules-lawyering game-playing. But we should not expect, or encourage, most editors to spend their lives studying the arbitration pages.
- I will take the credit and/or blame for the concept of a "gender-based dispute or controversy". The context was an original proposal to extend sanctions to "articles relating to gender", which I think we can agree that that was even broader and more nebulous. This wording was an attempt to narrow the scope to the articles where editing by sanctioned parties was most likely to be contentious or problematic. If someone has a better wording to suggest, I'm all ears, or at least I would be if I were still on the Committee.
- Although theoretically a violation of a topic-ban is a violation regardless or whether an edit is good or bad or debatable, in practice I'm a lot more upset when a topic-banned editor continues to edit improperly, as opposed to making innocuous or helpful edits. I don't know whether others agree with me on this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you've said, as usual. The concept of the scope is nebulous and hard to apply consistently. Perhaps that ARCA decision should be publicized somewhere so people are aware of how it applies? Regarding a better wording, maybe "gender politics and gender-related controversies" might be a bit more clear? The one point I'll disagree on is whether or not the original sanction is relevant. A sanction can be overturned with a consensus here, as you know. Ranze has also requested appeal of her sanction above. I do think Gamaliel had an itchy trigger finger in this topic area, and also in this case specifically. While the sanction is valid and in force by policy, the penalty is up to us uninvolved admins. Given your profession I'm sure you are familiar with the option to not punish, or give a mild sanction, if we believe the ban is unfair or should not apply to this. While this isn't something anybody wants to encourage, I think this might be one of the extremely rare instances where it might be applicable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that we have the option of giving an infraction a pass or imposing only a nominal sanction, where the facts warrant it. (In fact, I suspect I'd support such outcomes more often that you would, FWIW.) I'm just reluctant to see a situation in which everyone brought her for breaching a restriction disputes the validity of the restriction rather than whether it was breached. Speaking for myself only, I'm open to considering such arguments in an appropriate case. However, the mere fact that a particular administrator levied the sanction is not a strong argument, especially where the sanction was originally imposed more than a year ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. We don't want to set that sort of precedent, and yet we also need to be flexible enough to respond to unique situations. With that in mind, my recommendation is, in this order, a block of 16 hours (with credit for time served due to the 16+ hour bad block yesterday by Jonathunder) for the topic ban violation, proceed to the already-open appeal of the topic ban above to discuss its merits, its current usefulness in preventing disruption, and whether or not it should be overturned, and when its all done I suggest a trip to ARCA to see if we can make the scope of the DS somewhat clearer and more specific regarding gender. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the appeal above, I don't think this sanction is still in force, or was as of the date of the edit in question. The original notice of sanction by Gamaliel on 4 April 2015 specified that the ban was for 12 months: [4]. Gamaliel then followed up by using the formal AE sanction template with "indefinite" in it, but appears to only be attempting clarification and explicitly states "This is not a new sanction" in that edit, and seems to make clear he's only clarifying what he did before: [5]. Gamaliel logged the sanction as being for 12 months, and never logged any extension to indefinite. I'm therefore led to believe that "indefinite" in the sanction template was simply an error in template use, and that Gamaliel didn't intend to extend the ban to indefinite. If that's the case, this sanction expired as of 4 April 2016. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Furthermore, after thinking more about the issue, while the "gender-based controversies" is absurdly vague, I do not believe it applies here. This is an article about an court case prosecuting a rapist. Courts are not gendered, and rape is not a gendered crime. The fact that this one happened to involve a male and a female does not make it gender-based. Many in the public believe the judge is sexist (which has been picked up by some RS), but that is a very small part of the article and not, in my interpretation, sufficient to make the entire article a gender-related controversy. Ranze does not appear to have touched those parts. Given all of these procedural issues and holes in this request, plus the fact that Ranze has already been blocked and served time for it, I move to close this request and move to the appeal, followed by ARCA to clarify the scope. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TripWire

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 TripWire

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan: ARBIPA

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

9 July 2016 (History of Gilgit-Baltistan) Reinstates an edit , for which another editor just got topic-banned. The edit comes with a combative edit summary: "They dont become unreialble because you say so." Dismisses the extensive discussion at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan by the curt brushoff: "the sources are fine, it's your interpretation of them that is wrong."
9 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Deletes content attributed to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) comparing it to "Facebook". Repeats the revert the next day, ignoring the talk page discussion.
8 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Adds "separatist fighter" as a LABEL for the founder of the organization. This fails to be NPOV because the founder was not a separatist fighter at the time and plenty of other sources do not use the description. In the talk page discussion, doubles down on POV and starts comparing the founder to Osama Bin Laden.
4 July 2016 CANVASSing for an RfC at WP:WikiProject Pakistan without a parallel post to WP:WikiProject India. The subject at hand deals with alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan conflict. (The RfC itself is now closed because it was initiated by a banned user, but that doesn't mitigate the obvious attempt of canvassing.)
8 May 2016 (Balochistan conflict) Reverts well-sourced content of Bharatiya29and repeats the revert seven times further. The talk page discussion here and here is throroughly deadlocked due to TripWire's tendentious position and argumentation. The compromises I propose are obsturcted.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 July 2015 Future Perfect at Sunrise topic-banned the user from all edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts. FP's diagnosis: that you are a tendentious editor whose presence on Wikipedia is motivated almost entirely to a desire to push a certain national POV."

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 3 July 2015 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 10 April 2016 and 19 May 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user came back from a topic ban about 6 months ago and went back to the old ways soon after. At the previous AE request on 10 April, I argued against a sanction because I felt the user was showing improvement and a lot of the activity at that time centered on a sock (MBlaze Lightning). That is not the case any more. The user's talk page discussion is merely stonewalling. They constantly tell others to seek consensus, but never strive for consensus themselves. The POV that they push is not merely that of nationalism but of the State. Even AHRC's objections are brushed off.

The edit that breaks the camel's back is the latest edit on 9 July (diff 1). This one reinstates the edit of a user that just got topic-banned, deleting content sourced to scholarly sources and replacing it with OR. Two fake citations (one pointing to the last page of a book's index and another to a newspaper opinion column) appear, neither of which supports the claim that Gilgit-Baltistan "unconditionally acceded" to Pakistan. This is merely the State's propaganda that is being pushed on Wikipedia.

Most other users that have tried to reason with the user have given up in exasperation. I am at wit's end. I think it is time to take action again.

Responses: TripWire's long-winded, rambling response illustrates the same frivilous attitude that pervades all their discussions. This is not the place for content discussion anyway.

Reinstating the banned user's edit at 20:42, 9 July at History of Gilgit-Baltistan was their first edit ever on Gilgit-Baltistan topics. The second edit at 20:48, 9 July at Talk: Gilgit-Baltistan was the brushoff: the sources are fine, which completely ignores the preceding discussion. I see no effort to obtain consensus in this approach, or any regard to reliability of sources and Wikipedia policies. Which sources were fine? The last page of the index of a book? An op-ed that has no mention of "unconditional accesstion"? Why TripWire suddenly got interested in Gilgit-Baltistan at this time is another interesting question. (My own contributions to the articles can be seen on Xtools here and here.)
The explanation that TripWire came to the page because of a twitter feed of anonymous Pakistani edits, is not likely. The last such edit on History of Gilgit-Baltistan was six months ago. It is much more likely that they saw the posts of Saladin1987 on my talk page or SheriffIsInTown's talk page and decided to be the Robin Hood. Saladin's versions on Gilgit-Baltistan could not be reinstated because they had been revdel'ed. History of Gilgit-Baltistan was next.
TripWire also conveniently hides behind the screen of "defending Wikipedia against socks." But a sock has to be reported and blocked before we revert their edits. If, in fact, TripWire had known the sock's identity, why did they canvass at WikiProject Pakistan for the sock's RfC? Besides the sock, plenty of regular editors have also defended the content: Bharatiya29, myself, Kashmiri and Spartacus!.
The defense that TripWire didn't know the relevance of the topic to WikiProject India is also disingeneous, because they themselves mentioned "India" over a dozen times in the talk page discussion. And, they claimed to be well-versed with the CANVASSing policies as well.
TripWire claims unawareness of Saladin1987 being topic-banned; fair enough. But then the question remains what due diligence they did before reinstating content reverted by two experienced users: Thomas.W and me. Did they even look at the citations that were given?

Nationalistic POV: TripWire asks where they exhibited nationalistic POV. At Wikipedia, we aim to provide a fair representation of all the views expressed in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). TripWire's position in diff 1 is that of the Pakistani State, viz., Gilgit-Baltistan voluntarily acceded to Pakistan. Scholars disagree and they are dismissed. In diffs 2, 3, and 5, they support the State's views such as Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian spy and Baloch Students Organization is a terrorist organization. All contrary views are dismissed. Nuro Dragonfly, a neutral third-party editor that came to mediate on the Kulbhushan Yadav page, had this to say at an earlier ARE case: "All attempts to create a neutral POV consensus in the article have been rejected by either FreeatlastChitchat or TripWire on all occasions, especially once the subject matter turns to the fact that everything that Pakistan has said on the matter is just a claim, exactly the same as everything India says is just a claim."[6]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun comment: I am afraid TopGun throws up a number of red herrings to obfuscate and derail the case. All the reverts mentioned above are to the content contributed by me or Bharatiya29, not those of any socks. And, I am not raising content issues, but those of conduct. Yes, DRN is an appropriate venue when there is a genuine dispute. But if TripWire throws up nationalistic POV on a daily basis, DRN doesn't have the manpower to deal with it all. As for my taking responsibility for "sock edits," I only did so for MBlaze Lightning edits. I am sure TopGun would have done the same if people reverted Mar4d's edits when he got banned for socking. All this is irrelevant to the issues at hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown comment: SheriffIsInTown is absolutely right that I edit all South Asia topics with the same "state of mind," viz., NPOV. I am not sure why we are talking about me here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [7]

Discussion concerning TripWire

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 TripWire

Oh, so may WP:ASPERSIONS. Will humbly try to answer:

9 July 2016. This was a perfectly fine sourced edit by another editor which was reverted by Kautilya3. I, having found the edit legit, reverted him back (my only edit on that page). Per WP:BRD, this is the normal sequence of events, why jump the gun instead of discussing it at talk? Second, there was no 'extensive' discussion as claimed, just a WP:WALLOFTEXT by him. He should have discussed the dispute instead of bringing it here.

And how would I know that some user has been topic banned? And how could Kautilya3 ascertain that it was that particular edit which caused the ban?

9 July 2016. This Asian Human Rights Commission edit was neither RS nor encyclopedic. How can a petition/appeal posted anonymously at an 'Appeals Website' be reliable or encyclopedic? This was amply explained to Kautilya3 in the edit-summary and even at the talk page that AHRC isnt reliable nor official as the website itself states in its "About Us' that it is "non-governmental body" which he conveniently ignored.

I gave FOUR reasons for the revert in the edit-summary, all ignored by him.

It's strange that Kautilya3 himself deletes/reverts sourced content (attributed to three RS: Express Tribune, Dawn and even a Book) in the same article, and when I revert his deletion of sourced content, he uses the same against me here. But when his own poorly sourced edit gets reverted, he ironically uses the same too against me?

Moreover, Facebook example was used to make Kautilya3 understand that online appeals launched by random people cannot be used to build WP, or can it be?? How can an appeal launched at "FB Causes" be synthesized into saying that Facebook "severely" condemns the whatever action stated in the appeal? Especially when the appeal itself does not even use the word severely?? A classic example of WP:FAKE and WP:NPOV.

Last, the edit followed WP:BRD, no edit warring, dear Admins, what's wrong in that?

8 July 2016. This shows Kautilya3's bias. Kautilya3 used this Al Jazeera source and attributed it thrice in the article. But when I used Kautilya3's own source to add portion of info which was deliberately omitted (that the subject was a "separatist fighter"), I am projected as the bad guy?! I even mentioned this in the edit-summary and at the talk-discussion (ignoring of which was fine by Kautilya3, but he accuses me of ignoring talk discussions). How on earth can only Kautilya3 use portions of the source which suits his POV and omit, and then revert the portion of the SAME source (already used by HIMSELF) that does not line with his opinion? How can this be acceptable? Admins???

For clarity, Kuatiliya had made more than 19 edits at BSO in one day, and I made fol 4 edits (not reverts):

02:16, 9 July 2016. add. I removed Kuatilya3's WP:OR which was not supported by the given source and replaced it with what the source said. (The complainant to please remind me which policy did I violate by doing so?)
02:22, 9 July 2016. allegedly. I added the word allegedly which was supported by BBC. (yes, BBC! What's wrong in that when Kuatilya himself has used blogs and Baloch propaganda website frequently to build the article?)
02:28, 9 July 2016. expand per source already used. I added "separatist fighter" by REUSING the source already used by Kuatilya3 (wonder why would he miss it at the first place).
05:32, 9 July 2016. Got a blanket revert by Kuatilya3 alongwith a vague reason.
14:30, 9 July 2016. Removal of sourced content. Did you even read the source? Stop pushing your POV. The ONLY revert that I had made to Kuatilya3. Prior to this revert, I also commented on the talk page. How else does WP work?

Now, everybody is welcome to point out where did I go wrong so that I may improve myself. If not, WP:BOOMERANG will be in order.

Regarding this 4 July 2016. One, how can a post about an RfC concerning Pakistan at WP:WikiProject Pakistan be termed 'Canvassing'? I seriously object to Kautilya3's poor choice of words. Two, I had genuinely thought of posting the same to WP:WikiProject India but didnt do it as the issue related to Balochistan and Pakistan. A Pakistani province (unlike Kashmir which is disputed) had no direct link with India, but may be I should have done it because the discussion did involve India. This was my first such post at Country Project Pages so I was unaware of the procedures, and if the Admins think I should have posted the same to WP:WikiProject India, I apologise for not doing it as a genuine mistake.

8 May 2016. This is no diff. Just a facade. But allow me to explain what Kautilya3 wants to say:

Balochistan conflict has contentiously been infested with socks, particularly DarknessShines2, a notorious sockmaster. Just see how his socks have made POV edits at the page and opened up discussions which were fervently supported by Kautilya3:

Freedom Mouse a banned sock added POV and then opened a talk-page discussion: Content removal. This led to exhaustive discussion just because the sock was supported by Kautilya3. Had he not done so, precious time could have been saved. Thanks that Freedom Mouse got banned soon and the duel ended.

The same sock then again caused disruption which was again supported by Kautilya3 which again led to a lengthy discussion namely "Edits by Freedom Mouse aka Darknesshines". Later, when the second sock got banned the discussion ended with a consensus against Kautilya3.

Now most recently his third sock 2a00:11c0:9:794::5 re-added the same content which led to six talk-sections, namely Chuck Hagel, James Dobbins, Siraj Akbar, Kulbhushan Yadav, Israel, and even an Rfc!.

All these sock-edits were being diligently supported and fueled by Kautilya3. He even removed longstanding content on sock's suggestion and prolonged the discussion until the sock was banned and Future Perfect at Sunrise hatted the entire discussion.

That was me alone Vs 3 x socks and Kuatiliya3 and yet he cannot point out a single policy that I actually violated during the entire discourse. What does this say about me? Am I the bad guy here or the one reporting me? I fight 3 x socks, its supporters, follow polices, the socks then get banned and WP stays as it was before socking, and this is the reward I get in return? Can anyone deny that I wasnt fighting socks or that they werent banned during the discussion or that I upheld WP as a project? I am seriously getting tired of my efforts here. The bottomline here seems that if you fight socks, it's you who would get blocked even though you dont violate any policy but just give lots of diffs for people like Kuatiliya3 to quote here randomly while the socks who doesnt care for a block and its supporters go around disrupting WP.

Now, if challenging socks/vandals all while remaining within WP polices and following WP:BRD is wrong, please penalize me. But if I was able to prevent socks from disrupting WP without edit-warring and by participating in ALL the discussions and by following WP:BRD then why Kautilya3 is accusing me of doing 'seven reverts' i.e. digging up my entire history and cherry-picking random reverts that I might have made?

The real question here should be that why a guy who prevented socks from disrupting WP is being reported by the same editor who have been in support of these socks, and has been let scot-free?

Topic ban: I was topic banned a year from now (not 6 months). That's history. No need to bring it up over and again. I have improved, changed and my edit-history is a proof. By posting links to the topic ban thrice, Kautilya3, what were you trying to gain?

AE's: Just a way to divert attention. Last time, even the editor who reported me was about to get Boomeranged until he had to apologize and withdraw his AE report against me for the report being frivolous and false. I guess, had it actually boomeranged, things could have been simpler.

Kautilya3's Selective/Discreet Approach to push Nationalistic POV

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

Kautilya3, apart from supporting socks, always advocate other editors not to use WP:NEWSORG to construct articles as he considers them to be unreliable. Two latest instances are on GB page and BSO page (more examples can be dug if required). What Admins should take note of is the second, BSO page example. He tells me not to use reliable WP:NEWSORG like BBC, Al Jazeera to add content, but at the same time he totally reconstructs the entire BSO page from WP:NEWSORG including blogs and unreliable websites which totally aligns with the Indian government's POV on the Baloch issue. Examples:

1. Uses crisisbalochistan, a Baloch (news) website having C of I. And a NewsOrg, torontosun.

2: Uses Aljazeera.

3: Uses balochistantimes, a Baloch NewsOrg with C of I.

4: Uses a Blog gmcmissing.wordpress.com and a NewsOrg thefridaytimes.

5: Uses an unknown website/NewsOrg nakedpunch, twice.

He ventures as far as quoting unreliable blogs, Baloch propaganda websites and even WP:OR to push his nationalistic POV, but when I reinstate a SINGLE 3rd-party book-sourced edit at Gilgit-Baltistan, he cast WP:ASPERSIONS and accuses me of POV-pushing? How can this be acceptable at WP?

All above edits are from the same article for which Kuatilya has dragged me here. I dont object to the content provided it is well sourced but then Kautilya should follow what he advocate to others and stop gaming the system.

In an another example of bending the rules and pushing nationalistic POV, Kuatilya here, who champions WP:STICKTOSOURCE, lectures everyone to follow RS and quickly revert others if content does not match the source conveniently bypasses WP policy and his own words and pushes the Indian state POV against long-standing agreed upon content which was WP:NPOV. How conveniently he changes "Indian-administered region of Kashmir" to "Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir" despite that the source precisely and clearly uses the term "Indian-administered-Kashmir". And then strangely enough ask others to gain consensus for reverting the POV edit back to what was already long-standing. Brave enough, he accuses others of pushing POV.

Response to Kautilya3's additional comments

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

I get my feed from a twitter account that posts edits made by Pakistani IPs on any WP page. My edit-history is a proof that I have reverted many such vandalism from IPs. It's for the same reason GB article was on my watchlist, so obviously when I saw Kautilya3 reverting a perfectly sourced edit by a new user, I checked the sources and having found them correct reinstated the edit and followed WP:BRD by participating in the discussion. What diligence does Kautiliya3 expects me to show when I dont see any edit by Thomas.W on the recent page history and when all I can see is Kautiliya reverting a sourced edit merely by saying that it's not RS?

I wonder, all this is infact a content dispute that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily highlighting here which should have been solved at the respective talks.

All the rehtorics of topic-ban to that user is a facade Kautilya3 is trying hide behind. All I am concerned about is that the edit was sourced and was correct and was wrongly removed.

As regards his sock-comment, what does it has to do with he accusing me of canvassing? Kautilya3 himself is known for canvassing directly at editor's talk. The socks were reverted per WP:BRD and discussion carried out. Kautilya3 should be asked, when he knew that it were sock edits, why would he support them, not once but thrice?

His last point regarding canvassing, I have already admitted to the mistake, which otherwise is not an issue as already 4 editors mentioned by Kautilya3 himself were participating at the RfC, and the RfC was closed right after I posted it at WP:WikiProject Pakistan for being opened by a sock IP. He is just beating a dead horse. Moreover, as per my understanding the issue concerned "Wikiproject Pakistan". And WP:PAK is followed by many editors including non-Pakistanis. By raising this point it shows the bias Kautilya has against WP:PAK editors

No, Kuatiliya3 was not owning Bhartiya's edits alone, they were sock edits each and everytime. Bartiya29 was not even involved when the sock reinstated the edits and Kautiliya then had to even canvass Bharatiya29 to participate in the discussion restarted by the sock. This was just his way of covering his tracks that he was supporting a sock. But Bharatiya29 just responded to this canvassing at his talk and didn't bother to reply to the discussion at the article's talk.
Admins, can you please look into Kautiliya's repeated accusation of "pushing nationalistic POV" against me? WP:BATTLEGROUND?

Kuatilya is juts trying to confuse the issue. What a six-month-old edit has to do with the recent editing of GB article? An edit on a page that was on my watchlist was subjected to POV pushing by Kuatilya, I saw that and took action. What he wants to imply by bringing up this point is beyond me.

Response to Bharatiya29's comments

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

Please clarify what do you mean by that my behavior "has been disturbing"? Please quantify. We all have already agreed that only third party sources will be used in the article keeping in view its nature being a conflict and that both the involved parties will (always) try to present their POV whatsoever, how neutrally worded it may be. Now, if you cant present a 3rd party source to support your edit why the mud slinging? Your and Kuatilya's biased approach can be seen from the fact that when you want to push something you even find justifictaions to use sources having a C of I, and but when the other party says the same, you go back on your words. I have amply highlighted this point above, and Admins must look into this selective approach which games the system.

*Re Pakistan government's POV": A baseless accusation as none of the sources used in the article which say that India is involved in Balochistan are Pakistani, but instead are 3rd party independent/uninvolved sources. Whereas, Pakistani govt have been raising the issue of Indian involvement in Balochistan at international forums but it has not gain much currency. Conversely, it is the Indian govt that have bee specifically giving air-time to Baloch dissents and their separatists leaders to farther their views which you and the socks have been trying to push in the article. Also, as all this info is ONLY sourced from Indian sources, to me it seems that it is rather you and Kautilya3 who have been trying to push the Indian government's POV in the article while cloaking it as being NPOV. How can I do that when no Pakistani source is allowed in the article? If a 3rd party RS like a renowned US politician or a known website like BBC says something which might be inline with the facts on ground, blame the source not the one who is using them per WP polices. But if you blame the source, then sorry, but you wont be able to use the same source to support your POV. That's commonsense.

*Re BSO being a terrorist organization: What "3rd party" sources did India or you present to declare All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF), Al-Umar-Mujahideen (AUM),Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), Communist Party of India (Maoist), Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) People's War, Deendar Anjuman (DA), Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) etc as terrorist organization per Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, less the law itself?? BSO is a Pakistani organization which was declared as a terrorist organization per country's law just like any other country-specific organization. Sorry, you are just trying to muddy the waters, nothing else.

*Re Bhartiya's new comments: First he says that there's no 3rd party source that says BSO is a terrorist organization. I responded to that. Now he talks about BSO's notability which was never under discussion. The notability issue was with Kareema Baloch, but here he directs our attention to BSO itself. Bhartiya is just shifting his goal posts as he cant find any worthwhile points to complain about. Bhartiya, this is not BSO's talk page nor DRN where you are trying to resolve a dispute. You had time to do it at the talk, which you did not. Why do it here? Your comments concerning a dispute wont merit a response here.

....complaints' "own conduct may be examined as well."

Re Regentspark: Sir, I do agree with you and will surely try to follow your advice. I cant help but mention that this is what I already have been doing - trying to gain consensus constructively by positively engaging with the involved parties including the socks. Surely, per your advice, I will try to improve if there's any shortcoming. No argument on that. As for the socks, well sir, if an info was not allowed to stay in the article previously, it means that there's been a consensus not to include it at some point in the past. Now, using socks to push it again wont solve the matter, nor would it automatically mean that the edit become legit because a sock is repeatedly trying to push it. Not unless fresh evidence is presented which may change the consensus, and I am all for it. Legit edits dont require socks to add them. That's what is observed in remaining Indo-Pak conflict pages. The rules regarding usage of sources were set by Kuatilya himself, and he alone cant selectively follow part of those rules, reject the other part that does not suit him, and then change the rules altogether when other editors try following them in letter and spirit. Thanks.

Statement by TopGun

I commented on the last TripWire AE and generally know most users/socks and disputes in this topic area so the admins might benefit from my views on this. I've been following three sets of socks closely and trying to get them blocked for a year now: [8] [9] [10]. All three of them are disruptive, persistent and try to create this kind of mess each time they return. Unfortunately, there are not many active editors who recognize them and by the time I or another experienced editor report them, the victim articles are under complicated disputes. The balochistan conflict topic area is facing the exact same situation. To add to the fuel, Kautilya3 has demonstrated that he wants to assume responsibility of all edits of socks (in wholesale) as he said here. This can not be done without him having to clear WP:BURDEN instead of asking others to do so and is an issue per se as well. The Darkness Shines sock was just blocked after my report and his threads were hatted (as it happened in his previous attempts at disrupting the same article)... however the same is happening here with the dispute dragging on and Kautilya3 taking up the dispute. It's over and there's no need to drag it and if an editor thinks another user is not agreeing to their arguments, it's the basic right of an editor to participate in consensus in that way as far as they are civil and WP:DRN exists to resolve that to form a clearer consensus as already pointed out by an NeilN at the end of that discussion, not AE. If the traveling circus continues even after the sock is blocked, their purpose is achieved.

Furthermore, notifying WP:PAK is not canvassing. This was established at this proposal that was infact made by me: Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing/Archive 5#Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects. If I, even being the proposer of a policy against such notices, can accept that consensus is against terming such notices canvassing, it should be easy for others to follow. WP:PAK is infact the right venue to notify per consensus. Canvassing would have been posting talkpage messages to select editors.
This report is not as complicated as it seems and has been plagued with sock disruption which is common in this topic area.
Both editors should be recommended to go to WP:DRN and if they can not resolve their issues by discussion, I would recommend a simple interaction ban where both can edit the article(s), participate in RFCs, discuss on talkpage (not with each other) but not interact with each other, reverting/reporting each other or edit parts of an article edited by each other. We need to get rid of reporting editors for the sake of reporting so add to this ban any other editors who are bent on wasting every one's time here at AE.

--lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bharatiya29

TripWire's behavior at Talk:Balochistan conflict has been disturbing. He has constantly tried to block any attempts at making the article neutral and has objected to the addition of those contents which are not in agreement to Pakistan government's POV. The article has a section dedicated to Pakistan's allegations on India of supporting Baloch separatist groups. When I have tried to mention Baloch group's denial of this allegation, TripWire reverted me just because he maintains that the group is not reliable since it has been declared as a terrorist organisation by Pakistan government (although he hasn't cited any third-party sources to prove this). TripWire also seems to have an unfounded assumption that Indian media constitute Indian propaganda. His sole motive here is to confine WP to the views of the Pakistan government and he has argued against all other editors asking for NPOV.. Bharatiya 29 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TripWire's comments:What’s more disturbing than pushing a nationalistic POV? I never said that only third-party sources should be used; rather I have always said that the views of all the stakeholders should be mentioned with due weightage. Would you please explain to me that what does the Indian government have to do with interviews of notable Baloch nationalists by independent media houses? If you are really convinced that all the Indian media coverage is influenced by the Indian government then you must prove your point. I have repeatedly told you that the fact that Pakistan has declared BSO as a terrorist organisation is not enough to prove its non-reliability. Bharatiya 29 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TripWire's new comments:I have never said that only third-party sources should be used, instead statements by all the parties should also be given space. You should know that even if Karima Baloch is not notable as an individual, she is the chairperson of an involved party, and that is what makes her statement worth mentioning. I am being forced to discuss about all these stuff here since you are accusing me of having an biased approach. The discussion here is regarding your behavior, and so this was the last time I responded to your baseless allegations. Bharatiya 29 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is about fact telling and should be about fact telling. It should not be used for political propaganda. Using an encyclopedia for political propaganda defies its purpose of being an encyclopedia. Kautilya3's editing has been nothing but political propaganda. He tries to find less than encyclopedic information which suits his POV and adds it to encyclopedia. He calls founder of a nation as "internet beast", a clear indication that he personally considers him a villain for pursuing to create modern day boundaries in South Asia. He also at one point said that he does not recognize modern day boundaries in South Asia and it seems like his edits are more centric towards an undivided South Asia. Not recognizing the present day boundaries in South Asia makes the region look like the map in Akhand Bharat article where there is no other country except India in South Asia. Going in with that state of mind and editing a contentious topic area such as WP:ARBIPA can only create neutrality issues. Neutral editors like TripWire are needed to ensure that articles are not sidetracked by editors who display such political prejudice. If we will start banning editors like TripWire who did not violate any principle set forth in WP:ARBIPA but only challenged less than neutral edits of Kautilya3 who clearly displayed political prejudice at several times in their editing then we will only make Wikipedia, a non-neutral politically motivated information portal which is not what an encyclopedia should be. If anyone who deserves to be topic-banned from WP:ARBIPA is Kautilya3 and not TripWire. I am not sure if these findings can call for a Boomerang but if they do then I will suggest one against the nom. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Report is legit and action is necessary, since TripWire came off from a topic ban just some months ago, he had to be more careful but he is not. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TripWire

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

The last time an Enforcement request was made against TripWire, it was dismissed as frivolous and was about to boomerang when another admin allowed the filing party to withdraw. This one is more complicated. As I am not an expert in India-Pakistan relations, I'll reserve judgment until some other editors and admins weigh in and hopefully offer more context. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TripWire: Your statement is far beyond the limit. Please refactor for length, or hat unnecessary parts. Thank you, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this to someone else to judge but TripWire should note that reinstating edits made by sockpuppets is perfectly valid and repeatedly invoking the fact that the edits were originally made by a sock is not constructive. At some point, you need to accept that there is support for that content and get down to the business of seeking consensus in good faith. If this closes with no action, I urge TripWire to constructively engage in the compromise discussion or resort to dispute resolution where sources can be evaluated, npov can be judged, and consensus wording hammered out. It is true that this area is plagued by socks and that their presence is disruptive, but that should not be used as an excuse to avoid a consensus seeking discussion. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser

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 Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Debresser (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:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction :

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

21:14, 13 July 2016 First revert
23:05, 14 July 2016 Second revert

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)

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 29 June.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While the second revert is just outside of 24 hrs, the apparent gaming of the 1RR to restore contested material in a BLP merits attention I think. At present, the talk page section covering the material re-inserted in these reverts shows 3 editors agreeing that Debresser's material violates WP:UNDUE and yet Debresser has edit-warred the material into the article without modification. Repeatedly dismissing editors who disagree with him as "POV editors" and deciding that because he disagrees with them he may ignore them. This is a BLP and WP:BLP specifies that contested material stay out without consensus, as does WP:ONUS. Neither of those facts seems to impress Debresser, as the 24+2 hr revert above shows. Not one person has agreed with Debresser's position, and the edit-warring in a BLP should not be acceptable.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Debresser

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 Debresser

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think Nableezy needs to be reminded about what is and what is not acceptable to bring an AE. My feeling is that a "TBAN" on bringing AE actions is suitable at this time. It should not be used as a method of content dispute and it's similar to a legal threat in that Nableezy uses this as a method of stifling edits and discussions.

Statement by OID

When the man who is head of the Palestinian authority goes before the UN and repeats a claim that Israeli rabbi's are supporting well poisoning, which is picked up by Haaretz, Al Jezera, the NYT and Reuters, claiming it is undue is never going to fly unless it takes up a significant portion of their biography. Israel & Palestine land wars are inherantly part of his position. When he repeats a clearly massively controversial claim, it *will* get significant coverage. Recentism may otherwise be a good argument, except that there have been allegations for years about Israeli poisoning water sources. Abbas is just the latest and most high profile person to repeat them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

Khazen48

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 Khazen48

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bolter21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Khazen48 (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

All of those are part of some 100 edits this user made, predominantly in the I/P conflict area and as this user has less than 500 edits, he is not allowed to edit this area. I have reverted the majority of the edits he made, as many of them included undiscussed removal of sometimes sourced content, many times with no edit summery at all. I have informed this user about the restriction twice in his talkpage and in every edit summery in my reverts but he doesn't seem to even notice it. This user contribute through his phone, and if he can't learn the rules of Wikipedia through his phone, he is not suitable for editing here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

none

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

In his talkpage.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Khazen48

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 Khazen48

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Khazen48

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 463: / Line 463: @@
 ====Statement by Sir Joseph====
 I think Nableezy needs to be reminded about what is and what is not acceptable to bring an AE. My feeling is that a "TBAN" on bringing AE actions is suitable at this time. It should not be used as a method of content dispute and it's similar to a legal threat in that Nableezy uses this as a method of stifling edits and discussions.
+====Statement by OID====
+When the man who is head of the Palestinian authority goes before the UN and repeats a claim that Israeli rabbi's are supporting well poisoning, which is picked up by Haaretz, Al Jezera, the NYT and Reuters, claiming it is undue is never going to fly unless it takes up a significant portion of their biography. Israel & Palestine land wars are inherantly part of his position. When he repeats a clearly massively controversial claim, it *will* get significant coverage. Recentism may otherwise be a good argument, except that there have been allegations for years about Israeli poisoning water sources. Abbas is just the latest and most high profile person to repeat them. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 14:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====
 <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

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