Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:42, 17 June 2020

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

Cement4802

Partial block from Antifa (United States) for 2 weeks. El_C 15:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Cement4802

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cement4802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

05:27, 1 June 2020 First change of "left-wing" to "far-left"
06:10, 1 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
22:29, 2 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
15:07, 6 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
15:46, 6 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left", and 1RR breach being 29 minutes after the previous revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Notified here by User:Doug Weller

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There only engagement on the talk page was at 11:08, 1 June 2020 stating Nfitz Please don't bring your political views into Wikipedia. Sentiments like yours are usually the problem and source of conflict itself. And this has nothing to do with Donald Trump regardless. Numerous reliable sources describe ANTIFA as being far left. This was obviously prior to diffs #3-5.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cement4802

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 Cement4802

Statement by (username)

Statement by Levivich

Reviewing admin might want to review Special:Diff/961772855, posted June 10, four days after this report was filed. The sentiments expressed there are similar to the sentiments expressed on Cement's userpage. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cement4802

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

Clear cut 1RR violation. The additional edit warring as well as the failure to communicate, leads me to believe that sanctions will be necessary. El_C 16:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs show two 1RR violations and edit warring across the past week. The correct course of action would have been to participate in the discussions on Talk:Antifa (United States), and obtain consensus before making the change. — Newslinger talk 06:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azuredivay

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 Azuredivay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Azuredivay (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#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

4 June 2020 very many things wrong with this diff. Adds 13kb (!) of content without an edit summary, and with no explanation on the talk page. Includes content about "separatist campaign", much of which the sources do not directly connect to Pakistani nationalism. This is particularly true about the sentences discussing Direct Action Day. The same edit adds a long quotation about Pakistan from M. S. Golwalkar, a leader of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Golwalkar isn't a historian or political scientist, and his views constitute egregious undue weight. In short, edit violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and basic behavioral norms. EDITED: Azuredivay has pointed out that the quote already existed, for which I apologize; the software highlights it when I view that diff the same way new content is highlighted. That doesn't address the rest of the problems with that diff, though.
4 June 2020 same article as above; removes tags without explanation; adds content without a source.
23 May 2020 changes "Pakistani Qawwal" to "Indian Qawwal" without a source and without an edit summary.
4 June 2020 Accuses another user of "revisionism"; refuses to explain himself further.
14 May 2020; adds redundant links to an article; after they are removed, Azuredivay was warned, to which he responded quite dismissively.
Similarly, after edit-warring over the primary name of the article at Adam's Bridge (see this, and the previous revisions), responds in this manner to a warning on his talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: No previous sanctions.

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

Given an alert about discretionary sanctions by Newslinger on 15 March 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I find it quite strange that Azuredivay's command of English is far superior in the first two diffs linked above, than it is in discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Addendum; two additional concerning incidents were brought to my attention via email by an editor who did not wish to get involved at AE; they further substantiate the communication issues I highlighted above. @El C: Would you mind taking a look at this? It's possible that all that's necessary is for someone uninvolved to tell Azuredivay to communicate appropriately, but this is languishing without attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified.

Discussion concerning Azuredivay

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 Azuredivay

Diff #1 has been misrepresented. Golwalkar's quote had been added by Arslan-San[1] not me. I just combined it with the previous para and you are free to remove it if you want. The same editor also added a large amount regarding how "Sindh" was different from the rest of India, which is not true. All of the citations I added to article are reliable and were taken from other places of Wikipedia like Direct Action Day article itself. What I added actually traces the origins of Pakistani nationalism, as Muslim nationalism that began in British India among the elite class of Muslims of UP and Bihar. The content also cited the Lahore Resolution that called for a separate state in subcontinent for Indian Muslims. Mentioning Direct Action Day is obviously important because it is after that event that communal riots spread to other parts of the subcontinent resulting in partition and the realization of the Pakistani state.

Diff #2: Per WP:ES, I provided edit summary where it was needed. For the rest it is very obvious that I am only adding the content.

Diff #3: Vanamonde93 has apparently ignored in this edit that I removed puffery, unsourced and unreliably sourced content. There was no Pakistan before 1947 so how a person who was born in 1911 could be called "Pakistani"? I planned to resolve this content dispute on talk page for later.

Diff #4 has been also misrepresented because I engaged as much as it was needed and I cited a discussion (see Talk:Channar_revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?) which mentioned the word "revisionism" three times and concluded that those views were revisionist in nature. Azuredivay (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #5 happened nearly a month ago and has been poorly interpreted here since my final position on the matter was opposite as I had already modified my response and acknowledged the message appropriately.[2]

Diff #6 happened 2 months ago and at that time I wasn't aware of MOS:TITLE but after this I took time to read it and never added a non-title as main name. Azuredivay (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Where did you observed that there have been "no acknowledgement"? I don't appear to be indicating that I am going to repeat any problems raised here, in fact I told how I have resolved them. You seem wrong with your claim that a DS alert is made to "avert editing problems by putting editors on their best behaviour", because occasional mistakes are possible especially when an editor is making 100s of edits though they should not be repetitive. Finally, none of the diffs provided here rises to the level of any sanction. Azuredivay (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I am absolutely within my rights to point out the misrepresentation of the diffs, one of which has been already acknowledged by Vanamonde93 above per here. I was not aware of that page which you have linked, but then I would still like to know if there is even a single edit which shows that I am not putting "best behaviour" in the diffs coming within a week when this report was filed because the top note of this page alone notes that "Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale". Are there any diffs coming after this report where I am not putting "best behaviour"? I have acknowledged that I should provide more edit summaries as it reflects also in my recent edits, but I still think that a simple notice "provide more edit summaries" would have worked instead of filing this report. Azuredivay (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (other involved editor)

Result concerning Azuredivay

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

Since I was pinged (but somehow didn't get an alert for it — sorry), I would agree with Vanamonde93 that improvement is necessary. If Azuredivay were to take these concerns on board, that would spare them from suffering any sanctions. In that case, a warning to do better would be recommended. El_C 10:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of discretionary sanctions is to avert editing problems by putting editors on their best behaviour. Once Azuredivay had the alert in March, they should have been scrupulous in avoiding controversial edits. As there seems to be no acknowledgement that they've fallen short of the requirements, I suggest a topic-ban from the India-Pakistan area until they can show they understand how they need to be editing. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Azuredivay: I find all of those five edits problematic, not "careful and constructive", and all I see from you is a defence of making them. You've resolved no concerns that Vanamonde93 raised. You need to read accurately what other editors have written because it's the point of discretionary sanctions that I'm drawing to your attention, not the point of the alert. If you haven't bothered yet, please read WP:AC/DS #guide.expect, and consider all of it carefully before you tell me I'm wrong again. Finally, I'll point out that the uninvolved admins here decide if your behaviour rises the level of a sanction, not you. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zarcademan123456

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 Zarcademan123456

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Zarcademan123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles :

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

01:56, 7 June 2020 Add stuff and remove Palmer-ref at Kafr Saba
22:08, 7 June 2020 Re-add same stuff and remove Palmer-ref at Kafr Saba

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

blocked 22 December 2019 with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
blocked 28 December 2019 with an expiration time of 2 weeks (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
9 March 2020: "Zarcademan123456 is cautioned against making mass changes when these involve contested edits. Similar problems are likely to be met with sanctions next time."

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

Alerted, 28 August 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clear violation of 1RR on article under WP:A/I/PIA-sanctions, Huldra (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newslinger; no I didn't break the rules: my first rv was of an IP, (who shouldn't have edited the article in the first place), hence it doesn't count. Huldra (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]; Lol, I am not “out to get" Zarcademan123456, (as he claims); but as anyone can see: he is following me around. His first ever edit to Kafr Saba was 2-3 hours after I had edited it, (and the edit removed a reference, and introduced unsourced material), his first ever edit at Al-Khisas as also hours after I had edited, (just to mention a couple the last days). I am accustomed to "shadows" following me around, but I do expect them to follow the rules.; And I am delighted to hear that Zarcademan123456 has gotten his job back; hopefully he will in the future spend his time more constructively than his very latest edit: undoing my edit and re-inserting unsourced material, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified Huldra (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456

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 Zarcademan123456

I’ve kinda stopped using wiki as intently as in past, but if I broke rules comes from lack of understanding. 1R means 24 hours yes?... With all due respect to @Huldra, I do feel as if he/she is “out to get me” a little bit...again, as I said in previous wiki arbia discussion, if I violate, its out of ignorance, not maliciousness. Not that incompetence shouldn’t be punished, but as a volunteer website, mistakes, IMO, should be dealt with gently, not with heavy hand (violations). Brief aside, luckily I got my job back so I’ll be on wiki less so this will be moot anyways. Good day y’all

Statement by Zero0000

To editor Newslinger: Kafr Saba is an article covered by ARBPIA and the first diff of Huldra that you indicate was the revert of an IP. Such edits are exempt from the 1RR restriction, see WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions. So it is not correct that Huldra broke 1RR and you should withdraw that charge. Zero^talk 06:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (selfstudier)

Although no action was taken (only 3 reverts, not 4) this recent complaint also included 1R (Is-Pal) violations.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zarcademan123456

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

The page history shows that ~~both Huldra (23:20, 6 June 2020; 20:21, 7 June 2020) and~~ Zarcademan123456 (01:56, 7 June 2020; 22:08, 7 June 2020) violated the 1RR restriction on the Kafr Saba article. — Newslinger talk 05:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the corrections, Huldra and Zero0000. I'm sorry for the mistake, and I've revised my comment. — Newslinger talk 06:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While Zarcademan123456 was given the recommendation to self-revert, in fairness, they seem to have simply not been around to do so. That does not negate from 1RR having been contravened (the responsibility to be cognizant of that is on them) — but I would still recommend a (logged) warning rather than sanctions. But with the awareness that sanctions for a future violation would be accordingly more severe. El_C 10:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too much edit-warring for me to feel any sympathy for "mistakes". Given the two blocks in December and the warning in March, I think that a sanction can't be avoided here. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storritospeaks

Editor has been blocked indefinitely as a normal admin sanction by Bishonen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC) And afterwards as a sock by me. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Storritospeaks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Storritospeaks (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#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

10:24, 8 June 2020: Removal of 8,957 net characters from the Swarajya (magazine) article with no edit summary, undoing HaeB's reversion of Storritospeaks's previous identical edit. The edit removes the article's "Controversy" section and adds "THIS PAGE IS VANDALISED OFTEN, BY LEFT/RIGHT LEANING INDIVIDUALS." as the first unnamed parameter (reason) of the {{pp-protected}} template.
10:25, 8 June 2020: Removal of 15,565 net characters from the OpIndia article with no edit summary beyond the default "Undid revision 961393460 by Materialscientist (talk)", reverting Materialscientist's reversion of Storritospeaks's previous identical edit. The edit removes the article's "Content" section and part of the article's "Reception" section. It also removes "right-wing" from the article's description of OpIndia and Swarajya, along with the attached citations.
10:30, 8 June 2020: Removal of 716 characters from the "Controversies" section of the NDTV India article, including citations of Reuters and NDTV, with the edit summary "Deleted irrelevant info, for which providing citations is impossible."
10:32, 8 June 2020: Identical to #3, undoing Materialscientist's reversion of the previous edit.
10:37, 8 June 2020: Edit on User talk:Materialscientist, replacing Udaisingh01's previous comment with Storritospeaks's own comment. The comment includes the sentences "Kindly refrain from calling my editing disruptive. At the most, it may be called 'un-citied'." and "You revert my edits quite frequently, and generally leave me without any option to respond. This is a clear mistake on your part."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months (08:35, 8 June 2020), see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Considering the persistent disruption on the OpIndia article (see also #Raghavendrax, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive265 § Varun2048, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive263 § Pectore), likely motivated by OpIndia representatives' ongoing criticism of specific Wikipedia editors on their website and on social media, the semi-protection page restriction on the article might not be enough.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/961458142

Discussion concerning Storritospeaks

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 Storritospeaks

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Storritospeaks

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

You know, Newslinger, I thought I had indeffed this user earlier today for persistent disruptive editing, but I realize now that RL interrupted me in the act. I'll do it now. User indefinitely blocked as a regular admin action. Bishonen | tålk 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Siddsg

Siddsg is warned to not edit war and generally improve when it comes to the IPA topic area. Further problems are likely to lead to sanctions. El_C 16:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Siddsg

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Siddsg (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#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

Violation of WP:OR & WP:NPOV as explained in Special:Diff/961470988 and edit warring for the same on Mallapuram district.

07:33, 4 June 2020 First Addition
23:39, 4 June 2020 Revertion to the same
08:10, 5 June 2020 Revertion to the same
08:28, 5 June 2020 Revertion to the same
19:17, 5 June 2020 Revertion to the same
23:34, 5 June 2020 Revertion to the same

They have been warned on two other occasions for adding original research on Persecution of Hindus and 2020 Delhi riots on 00:39, 11 March 2020 and 19:54, 28 May 2020 respectively.

Similar behavior as shown above is displayed in section for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh on the page for Persecution of Christians.

08:27, 9 March 2020 Addition of an incident with no mention of persecution in the sources. The addition was reverted in 15:00, 9 March 2020 with an appropriate edit summary.
16:00, 9 March 2020 Re-adding of the same content after being reverted with no manual edit summary.
16:46, 9 March 2020 Reports the one who had reverted them to AIV, no other attempt at communication.
22:23, 9 March 2020 Editor is warned for the above displayed behavior.

Previously they have also created a copyright violation page Kodava cuisine (G12 template on 20:00, 6 March 2020), then went on to remove the speedy deletion template (warning message on 20:09, 6 March 2020) and added copyright violations to the page of Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus (warning message on 20:57, 6 March 2020).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in Special:Diff/944737144.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The date and time are in Indian Standard Time, sorry for any inconvenience.

@Siddsg: That response strikes me as utterly inadequate. I've already provided the diff which explains how it is a violation of WP:OR, behavior for which you had already been warned on multiple occasions well after the notice as well and still fail to acknowledge the issue. Materialscientist (talk · contribs) and Zvikorn (talk · contribs) likely restored the content because it outwardly appeared to be sourced with inline citations (due to the usage of what's essentially on web fictitious references. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)). Their restoration isn't evidence of it being not original research or not pov pushing and neither did they edit war over it unlike you, which you fail to acknowledge as well. I don't want to bloat this page therefore I will only highlight one particularly egregious instance of original research. The first line of the addition states, Malappuram has had a history of religious extremism which first came to the fore during the Mappila riots that consisted of various incidents of religious persecution of Hindus from the late 19th century to early 20th century. While the cited source is as follows:[reply]

Communal Riots in Post-independence India by Asgharati Engineer

A special mention may be made of the Moplah riots of 1921 which occurred in the Malabar region, a part of Kerala. There had been sporadic outbreaks of Moplah violence since 1836. These involved attacks by Moplahs on Hindu landlords and sometimes on English authorities. The outbreaks reflect the existence of both agrarian exploitation and rural poverty. The Namboodiri Brahmans and Nairs held superior tenurial rights whereas land was cultivated by the Moplahs. Throughout the period between 1836 and 1921 whenever the Namboodiri and Nair landlords tried to evict their tenants, violence was provoked. The Moplahs were bitterly anti-Hindu, bitterly anti-British, bitter against the world that gave them only misery. During the later part of the Khilafat movement, the Moplahs became convincted that the rule of the Khalifa had been established in India and they wreaked violence on the Hindu landlords and their men. They also tried to convert many of them to Islam. The army had to be sent for and it took the British Government more than 6 months to control insurrection. Of the Moplah rebels, 2266 were killed in action, 1615 were wounded, 5688 were captured and 38,256 surrended. Moplah prisoners were court-martialled and shot or executed (Smith 1946). The agrarian aspect of this violence was unfortunately lost sight of the leaders of that time including Gandhi and in future relations between the Congress and the Muslim League, the hangover of the Moplah riots continued to weigh on the minds of both parties.

How one can possibly summarise the source in the form of your added line is beyond me. While this isn't a WP:COI issue but "inappropriate and misleading" is quite a logical if not a forgiving summary for removing the addition. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/961510882

Discussion concerning Siddsg

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 Siddsg

@El C: I was still learning some of the core policies when I was editing in March 2020. Most of the diffs from "March" came after this notice. How they should be relevant makes no sense to me since I have learned from them and moved on from those matters.

As for the diffs from June, I would really like to know how this edit is violation WP:OR because the information has been completely supported by the sources in question. Similarly, my edits were reinstated by other established users,[3][4] while those who were removing my edits were just IPs and one user who referred these edits "WP:COI Extremism is not related with demographics", "Inappropriate and misleading content in a geography-related article with political intentions", "Prevented Vandalism and Conflict of Interest". I think this matter should be better solved at the talk page, and not this noticeboard. Siddsg (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I agree, but I was saying that my edits have merit since "other established users" restored my edits while there were "IPs and one user" who weren't logically disputing the content, this is why I had to revert them. Siddsg (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. I have been working to improve my editing and will continue improving it further. Siddsg (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Siddsg

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

A topic ban from the IPA topic area is probably in order. El_C 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddsg, what do you mean "just IPs" — they have no lesser standing as editors than you just because they haven't registered an account... El_C 05:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddsg, okay, point taken. I would perhaps be willing to amend my recommendation to a warning. But improvements would be expected. El_C 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban

Follow the instructions at the top of this page if you want to appeal. It won't be considered here otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I cordially request of Administrators here to lift the current topic ban against me in the ARBPIA area so that I might effectively contribute in that important area. A ban has been effective against me for one-year. The last appeal that I made was here, a little over six months ago. The history of my blocks in this area is one of rare occurence, which happened against me twice only after I had first filed complaints against two co-editors, and which complaints, in retrospect, were unwarranted. Both editors have had more blocks in the ARBPIA area than myself and yet are free to edit in this area. I am simply asking for admins to be impartial in my case and to give me the ability to contribute in this area, as it is an area in which I hope to add photographs to articles and to make general improvements in those articles, for the betterment of our online encyclopedia. The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused the aforementioned editors of stalking me (again, a wrong assumption) because of their "opposite" political views. I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. This was clearly wrong of me to do, and I have since made strides to amend my behavior. I bear no ill feelings towards any co-editor here, even in cases where we might disagree on political issues. After all, our world is made-up of pluralistic views, and that's a good thing. The same editors that I disagreed with, I have also a long record of cordial relations with, here on Wikipedia. I'm simply asking for a second chance to prove my worthiness, and to expand articles (make corrections, etc.) in this field. Again, as I know myself, I am able to get along with all editors, even in cases of disagreement. My edits in the ARBPIA have mostly been very constructive, as the record will show. If I have erred in judgment regarding these two editors, which I did, let us fix the problem with a reprimand and move-on, without hampering the ability to contribute effectively in the betterment of our online encyclopedia.Davidbena (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The history of my blocks in this area is one of rare occurence - that's one way to put it, another way was that you didn't even last three months in the area in between topic bans. You were first topic banned in August 2018 [5], got it lifted in late February 2019 [6], and got a second topic ban in early May 2019 [7] for similar behaviour. starship .paint (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors have had more blocks in the ARBPIA area than myself and yet are free to edit in this area. - it seems you haven't learned from the last failed appeal, where Grandpallama said: "Bringing up someone else's TBAN has nothing to do with your own behavior and is, as far as I'm concerned, further evidence that your own TBAN is appropriate and that you haven't learned anything." The same editors that I disagreed with, I have also a long record of cordial relations with - @Nableezy and Huldra: - would you agree with this sentence? starship .paint (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly, I have absolutely nothing against any editor who may have amassed more topic bans than myself, and I only said this in the event that my two topic bans be used against me here, even though both topic bans were the result of my own initiating punitive measures against my fellow co-editors and having it backfire, and which I now see my actions as being uncalled for. I ask admins to be impartial in my case, as I think that I have demonstrated that I learnt my lesson well.Davidbena (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena

Appeal declined. AE has no jurisdiction to lift community bans. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user: Davidbena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Davidbena (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban in the ARBPIA area; imposed here, during my last appeal.

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

Notification of that administrator: Notification

Statement by Davidbena

I humbly request an amendment by my fellow co-workers (administrators) on this project to lift a current topic ban against me in the ARBPIA area, and which action was taken against me twice in three months because of my having wrongly accused two other co-editors of stalking me, when that was not the case. That was poor judgment on my part, and I have since done my best to improve relations with one editor in particular, but have almost no contact with the other. A ban has been effective against me for one-year, last appealed in November of 2019. In future matters of dispute I will not be so rash as to level harsh criticisms and accusations against my disputants, but will seek to address the problem by cordial discussion of the issues involved. As I have stated repeatedly, I have since made strides to amend my behavior. I bear no ill feelings towards any co-editor here, even in cases where we might disagree on political issues. After all, our world is made-up of pluralistic views, and that's a good thing. I'm simply asking for another chance to prove my worthiness, and to expand articles (add photographs,make corrections, etc.) in this field. Again, as I know myself, I am able to get along with all editors, even in cases of disagreement. My edits in the ARBPIA have mostly been very constructive, as the record will show. If I have erred in judgment regarding these two editors, which I did, let us fix the problem with a reprimand and move-on, without hampering the ability to contribute effectively in the betterment of our online encyclopedia.

@EdJohnston: My interaction with Nableezy has been less than what it has been with Huldra, with whom I have kept-up a greater level of correspondence, e-mails, etc. although considerably less in recent days. If I'm not mistaken, some of my cordial exchanges with Nableezy which were made after our first conflict, can be seen here, in Talk:Kafr 'Inan#Kfar Hananya. As noted by the diffs, our cordial conversation was still in the making while a AN was filed against me here. I had already understood the mistake that I made in being too rash. As for Huldra, she has communicated privately with me in e-mails. I try my best to assist her, when I can. Even when she asked me to do an overhaul in the Surif article, which mostly spoke about its citizens from the standpoint of Palestinian Arab attacks against Israeli citizens, I agreed, and we made the necessary changes to that article, to reflect a more neutral image of that village (by the way, which village has also several Arab workers that work with us here, in Israel, whom I know personally and who are peaceable people).Davidbena (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: following your directives, I have informed the involved editors User:Bishonen, User:Oshwah, and User:Euryalus about my pending topic ban appeal.Davidbena (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, thanks for the warning. To set the record straight, I have never edited an article that pertains to my workplace. I only mentioned in passing that I personally know a few Arabs who come from the village Surif, but they work in my village (moshav), for an Israeli institution.Davidbena (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah:, thanks for your response. As you mentioned your concern of a "conflict of interest" in the case of some of my edits, I assure you that I have never edited an article related to my workplace, and where I have mentioned an article (Surif) where I know people who have come from that place, this, too, is unrelated to my edits on that article. The only reason why I mentioned that article (and which I thought would be obvious to all) is that the article concerns the Israeli-Palestinian area of conflict, and despite my being an Israeli, I was able to cooperate with User:Huldra (who has strong Palestinian-Arab leanings in her edits), and to reach an agreement with her on how best to portray this village in Wikipedia, which before had been nothing more than a very long chronological table of terrorist-related actions emanating from that one village, something which we would not see even with the article Chicago and that has far more crime on a daily basis. I have no personal stakes or interests in that village, other than wanting to project a view that is agreeable with my fellow co-editors and who are on a different political spectrum than me. If anything, it shows that I can work harmoniously with editors who hold different political views from me.Davidbena (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah:, you asked me what have I learned, and what has changed since my last topic ban appeal, so I will do my best to answer you. First, my earlier conduct which led to my topic ban should be seen as an anomaly, rather than a norm, since the topic ban was provoked by my wrongly accusing the other two editors of hounding me. I have not repeated the same mistake since. If the admins remain in doubt as to my future conduct in the ARBPIA area, they can take my history of edits in one of the most recent Wikipedia articles, Hebraization of Palestinian place names, an article that primarily concerns itself with geographical place names in Palestine / Israel, and which initially wore an ARBPIA tag (preventing me from editing there) until the creator of the page agreed to remove the tag. From 13 May 2020 to 11 June 2020 (as you can see by the diff here), the article was without the ARBPIA tag and which enabled me to edit that page. When the tag was reinstated, my edits were suddenly halted, and before I was able to suggest an edit that would be more acceptable with the other editors, generated by a discussion in the article's Talk-Page, I was suddenly prevented from doing so by the addition of the ARBPIA tag. Compare, if you will, my suggestion to Zero0000 here. I wish to point out that before my involvement in this recent article, as shown by the history of edits before 13 May 2020 (such as here), the article had a clear bias against the practice of renaming / restoring names to sites in the country, and even cited an author who had a clear resentment towards those who made these changes. My contributions sought to give more balance to the article, giving actually the reasons why the committees, in most cases, decided to give / restore old namesakes to old sites in Palestine / Israel. I went so far on the Talk-Page as to translate whole Hebrew documents to provide a clear understanding of the evolvement of this phenomenon, as you can see here. You see, I honestly think that I have Wikipedia's core-interests at heart, to keep our online encyclopedia an educational source for millions of people --- insofar that Wikipedia is a part of the Internet, and the Internet is a part of the media, but more often times than not Wikipedia articles are at the mercy of Wikipedia writers' particular biases. Balance is, therefore, needed. If problems arise in the future, I will first seek the advice and counsel of other experienced administrators before asking that punitive measures be taken against a disruptive editor. Davidbena (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: FYI: Among the admins that you requested of me to notice concerning this topic ban appeal, I received the following reply from Euryalus, here.Davidbena (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: a question please: The '"closure" that you refer to, does that pertain only to the AN appeal (before I opened this one here), or are you referring to the closure of the AE appeal here?14:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

Statement by Nableezy

I think this needs to go WP:AN as this was imposed here as part of a community consensus and not a single admin as a discretionary sanction. nableezy - 16:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I dont think this is a conundrum, and the community is always allowed to impose sanctions regardless of whether or not a single admin could have as a discretionary sanction. This is a community-imposed sanction and not one imposed under the auspices of an arbitration decision and as such it needs the community to rescind it, and that happens at AN, not at AE. This board is for things related to arbitration enforcement, and this ban is not such a thing. nableezy - 15:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it would probably help get a more robust discussion if he notified the people who he had been in conflict with previously and more directly answered the requests posed to him from the people that did comment there, and who said they would vote when answered. Just unarchive the AN or make a new one. nableezy - 16:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oshwah

From what I've gathered from past events, it appears that Davidbena was topic-banned from Palestine-Israel-related matters by community consensus in August 2018 (link to discussion). This ban was lifted by the community in February 2019 in a discussion at AN (diff, permalink). This ban was then applied again by the community only three months later in May 2019 (link to discussion). Davidbena tried appealing this topic ban in a discussion at AN six months later in November 2019 (link to discussion), which was unsuccessful. He then tried appealing again just shy of two weeks ago, which didn't result in much discussion let alone consensus (link to discussion). What concerns me here is that Davidbena has been given multiple opportunities to improve their behavior in this topic area, and even after the community lifted this ban to give him another chance and an opportunity to demonstrate improvement in this area, the community had to go back and re-instate the ban only three months after it was lifted. This is an obvious red flag to me, as well the statement above that he made (diff) stating, "I have never edited an article that pertains to my workplace. I only mentioned in passing that I personally know a few Arabs who come from the village Surif, but they work in my village (moshav), for an Israeli institution." This makes me feel that there's a level of ongoing personal conflict of interest (either at an emotional level or something of that matter) that's the driving force behind these behaviors and issues. If a user cannot manage their (possible) conflicts of interest or even just subjects or topics that evoke emotions or other feelings, then we have a duty to protect the project from disruption. If doing so requires that we set appropriate boundaries and apply necessary sanctions for these users, then that's what has to happen. I feel that, in this case, we've given this user multiple opportunities to correct their behavior, learn from their mistakes, and demonstrate improvement. What's different between now and the last time that Davidbena appealed their ban and the community decided to lift it? What didn't Davidbena learn from last time that he understands now? How is he going to improve his behavior this time that he didn't do before, and how is it going to stop any more issues moving forward? There's a lot of questions, and I the overall timeline of events should give us great pause. If we're going to appeal this ban, his answers to my questions above should (at a minimum) be very convincing... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena - Thank you for the response. Conflict of interest aside, what about the other questions I asked above? What's different between now and the last time that you appealed your ban and the community decided to lift it? What didn't you learn from last time that you understand now? What happened and what caused you to need a reinstatement of this topic ban a second time? Why didn't the behavior improve after the first ban was lifted? How are you going to improve your behavior this time that you didn't do before but should have? What will be different this time? How are you going to stop any more issues from occurring moving forward, and how are those changes going to keep yourself out of trouble in this topic area and prevent this from happening ever again? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (David Bena)

@EdJohnston: when you close this, may I suggest a clear statement in the closing statement that consensus here is that "Davidbena can then make a new request at WP:AN if desired and point out that his May 27 appeal at AN was archived without being formally closed." Because without a crystal-clear closing statement to that effect, I'm 100% sure DB will be accused by someone of "forum shopping" when he opens the AN thread. (Even with a crystal-clear closing statement, the accusation may still be made, but the closing statement signed by an admin will help rebut it.) Also if he's supposed to notify prior closers or anyone else, that would be helpful to put in the closing statement, too. Give him clear instructions he can follow, so he doesn't get unfairly accused of trying to game the system in the future. Thanks, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Davidbena

I endorse the appeal by Davidbena as he has apologized and realizes where he went wrong. He is a knowledgeable and positive contributor to WP. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Davidbena

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

David has already attempted to appeal at AN recently (archived here), where his appeal languished and received few response (none from admins). Because the free-form AN and ANI rarely mixes well with ARBPIA, I almost always recommend that such discussions be brought here under the discretionary sanctions regime. But since this was a community ban (logged at WP:RESTRICT rather than at WP:AEL), I'm really at a loss at what he could do to get an appeal that includes a proper closure. Take it back to AN yet again, so soon? Try again at AN in six months? But, indeed, I don't think admins at AE have the power to override a community ban at AN. At the same time, what is an appellant to do when they get hardly anyone to participate in their appeal, not to mention decide it. I don't think that has ever happens here, at AE. That is partially why I recommend that no ARBPIA matters be discussed at AN and ANI, pretty much ever. Because then, among other things, we end up with these conundrums. El_C 23:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, that doesn't really respond to what I said, so I don't really have a followup. El_C 16:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, indeed, there is an obligation, but the last appeal languished for about week. I just hope that does not happen again. El_C 16:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I don't think David should be obligated to notify neither editors who he has been in dispute with (likely to sink his appeal) nor ones who are more like-minded (likely to come across as canvassing). That's just a recipe for future problems. El_C 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ed, any "others" mentioned by David should be mentioned by name or not mentioned at all. I agree that he can't have it both ways. But my advise to David would be to limit himself to himself rather than draw parallels with other editors. El_C 00:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David, in general, you should not be editing any article that relates to your workplace, per Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Please keep that in mind if your appeal ends up being granted. El_C 01:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good Ed. Please go ahead. El_C 16:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend unarchiving the AN request, rather than making a new one. If the community imposes a sanction, we kind of have an obligation to review a request to remove it. This is clearly the wrong venue for reviewing a community sanction, and would just cause another AN thread if it was overturned here. I do not think a lack of significant participation in the previous attempt should count for or against removal. Unarchiving should get more eyes this time around. If Davidbena is worried about criticism of somehow gaming the system by unarchiving, let me know and I'll do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why this is still going on here. Three uninvolved admins have now said that the small subset of the community who are admins that patrol AE can't overturn a community consensus. No uninvolved admins have said they can. To be clear, I oppose a removal of the topic ban based on any discussion, no matter how long or how well attended, that occurs here. Just like I'd oppose it if it happened on Davidbena's talk page, or Talk:Peanut butter. At this time, I'm neutral on such a request if it is returned to AN, but if this is how Davidbena reacts to feedback, I also think it does not bode well for a ban removal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support User:Floquenbeam's idea of unarchiving Davidbena's last AN ban appeal. When he does so, perhaps he can include links to all the prior ban or unban discussions:

August 2018 – Original TBAN thread: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena
February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018
April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive Editing
November 2019 – Unsuccessful appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Request to lift topic ban
May 2020 – Latest appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban – This appeal was archived from AN without any closure.

At the same time, the prior closers ought to be notified: Bishonen, Oshwah and Euryalus. If Davidbena renews his AN appeal, he needs a better argument. (A vague promise to do better in the future might be OK the first time around). He should address his past problems with more than generalities. Also, it will be more persuasive if he doesn't take up space in his own appeal to blame others: "others with many more blocks than me have been allowed to edit in this area.". Also he mentions two co-editors in the area who used to be opponents that he now gets along with. "The same editors that I disagreed with, I have also a long record of cordial relations with, here on Wikipedia". Maybe he can give the names of those two editors and ask them to comment on his appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Floquenbeam's latest comment I am planning to close this as 'Appeal declined; no jurisdiction'. Davidbena can then make a new request at WP:AN if desired and point out that his May 27 appeal at AN was archived without being formally closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as declined per my above comment. None of the administrators believes that we can lift a community ban here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi

Blocked for 6 months. El_C 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Chesdovi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Chesdovi (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

[8] Chesdovi is topic banned from Zionism..... :
[9] Chesdovi is still TBANNED from ARBPIA

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

[10] June 10, edit on his page about Ben-Gurion and how Zionism is more important than lives.
[11] June 7, editing the Ben-Gurion article, covered by ARBPIA (tban)
[12] June 7, editing the Ben-Gurion article, covered by ARBPIA.(tban)
[13] June 2, "Religious Zionist" covered under TBAN.
[14] Another Ben-Gurion article
[15] Haredim and Zionism tban violation April 30th
[16] Flag of Israel April 27, tban violation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[17] March 2016, TBAN from Zionism, Western Wall, adding Palestine or Palestinian to articles
[18] Feb 2016, ARBPIA TBAN still in force
[19]2012 Tban violation block

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

N/A, TBAN Violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(I did not include all the violations just many to show that it's not a one off, even after being politely warned.)

On April 30th, I posted on Chesdovi's talk page a welcome back to Wiki message after his 4 year absence. I told him that he seems to be editing in an area that he is tbanned from and he hasn't requested the tban to be rescinded. At that point I didn't take him to AE, just a polite welcome back and letting him know that the tban is still in force. [20]. He then asked me to file an appeal which I then told him that usually doesn't work, and that he should do it himself, but suggested that he stay away from his TBAN area for a little bit before jumping right back in after a 4 year absence. [21] I then posted another friendly warning on his page that his edits seem to be in the TBAN area, especially "broadly construed." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chesdovi&diff=next&oldid=954299615 (May 24th)

On May 13th he request at WP:AN to "Lift Bans" see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive320#Lift_bans basically just asking to lift the bans. I told him there as well, that 1. You need to ask at AE, as I said on the talk page, and 2. You should edit in other areas first before jumping right in. Several admins concurred and the section was promptly closed.

Chesdovi has a very long history in the IP area and his skirting the ban is not a good thing, and while he may do good in other areas, for those who remember 2016 and prior, I don't think we need to go back to those times.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified: [22]

Discussion concerning Chesdovi

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 Chesdovi

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Chesdovi

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

Alcaios

Filer blocked as sock.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Alcaios

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kip1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Alcaios (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:PERSONALATTACKS WP:CIVIL WP:LIBEL WP:HARASS

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

Hi, I have not had to do this before even if editors have made (much less offensive or repetitive) personal attacks against me before. However, this user: Alcaios has been making frequent unsolicited and unwarranted personal attacks against me on the Celts talk page, including comparing me to a neo-nazi racist. I have included a screenshot, in case he then attempts to delete and deny what he has said. There would be also be other users that can corroborate the content of these attacks:

I have more but unfortunately was not permitted to upload them because of an invalid CSRF token tag.

[http://Difflink1 June 2020] Equating me to a neo-nazi racist for absolutely no reason
[http://Difflink2 June 2020] My reply asking him to not talk about/focus on race as it was a topic that wasn't relevant
[http://Difflink3 June 2020] False apology and accusation of me being a "racialist" rather than a "supremacist", even though I had asked him to stop bringing race into ethnic groups
[http://Difflink4 June 2020] Attack of "racialist thinking" because I pointed out that celts have paler skin and probably wouldn't have survived very well thousands of years ago in a much hotter climate
[http://Difflink5 June 2020] Indirect attack on other user because they agreed with me on an unrelated point for some reason

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

/* #Date Explanation */ /* #Date Explanation */

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I filed this request according to Graham's hierarchy of disagreement on the dispute resolution page, which his comments have repeatedly fallen under the most serious level of. He has also attempted to WP:BULLY me and other users, as well as harassment and other policy breaches. I will be happy to clarify, explain or be contacted in any way beyond this point.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of Notification

Discussion concerning Alcaios

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.

Alcaois: Sorta by definition, racialist aren't "reasonable". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alcaios

I have apologized for comparing Kip1234's views on Ancient peoples with that of Richard B. Spencer.

The quote is: Am I reading Richard B. Spencer? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a Romantic and racialist vision of Celts. (originally: Am I reading Richard B. Spencer?, which I have edited in the same sequence, not as an alteration of a past message that had already been answered to)

I still hold that Kip1234 has a racialist point of view of Celts and peoples in general. Alcaios (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have never WP:BULLYied you, be reasonable. I have stated that your point of view on peoples is comparable with Spencer's, for which I have apologized, and I have stated that you're holding a racialist view of peoples, which I won't retract. Alcaios (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS2: to be clear, the principal reason I won't apologize for stating that you're a racialist is this sentence: A cultural group is not the most important aspect of a "people" and can even change within a generation multiple times. To the contrary, I observe that culture is above nature in any human group. Had I been raised as a child in a black Nigerian family, I would be a Nigerian (read: culturally Nigerian) regardless of my genetic background. And if I fully adopt the French language and culture later in my life, I would be a French, again regardless of my ancestry (cf. cultural assimilation). In the same way, Celts are defined by a common language and culture by scholars (cf. Drinkwater: Their unity is recognizable by common speech and common artistic traditions.). Alcaios (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kip1234

Result concerning Alcaios

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

SpicyBiryani

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 SpicyBiryani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SpicyBiryani (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:ARBIP :

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

23:20, 31 May 2020: In their very first post on Talk:Kargil War, user commits an egregious violation of WP:ASPERSIONS by assuming nationalities of fellow editors: an Indian user has reverted this page....If any Indian editors have objections
18:45, 8 June 2020: Refuses to respect the consensus of editors (reached here) and casts WP:ASPERSIONS on its participants: a 'consensus' doesn't really mean much anyway considering that India who has the largest internet presence in the world, the most fake news in the world, and IT Cells who actively spread propaganda in organised brigades for the government
18:24, 9 June 2020: On being told how his inappropriate labelling of fellow editors as IT Cell and Indian government sponsored propagandist and his obstinate refusal to accept the consensus breached core policies like WP:NPOV, user doubles down on the violations and resorts to adhominem attacks to impugn the unanimous consensus: I have not targeted a single editor but given a reason to doubt the validity of any quantity based decisions made involving India on the internet...
18:24, 9 June 2020: Same diff, showing that this same user further proceeds to personally attack another fellow participant in the discussion by accusing him of engaging in "chest thumping" and assuming bad faith and nationalities: I am not trying to engage in chest thumping for the Pakistani military if you believe chset thumping is the purpouse of these discussions. Ends the comment by seeking credibility for a chronic sockpuppeter PAKHIGHWAY by speculating the sockpuppeter's nationality after feigning ignorance about the sockpuppeter's past history: Their IP address indicates they are Canadian, a neutral nationality in this, eliminating any Indo-Pakistani bias.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): User is aware of the discretionary sanction in effect in the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area per their talk page, but all the same they were notified about it again on 31 May 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To begin with, the report is strictly confined to the conduct of the reported user, which on the whole has been lamentable. A persual of the relevant talk page discussion alone would show the user's repeated WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, breach of core policies like WP:NPA, WP: ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLE and last but not the least WP:CPUSH (in particular the part that reads, They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument. See ad hominem.

Another thing important to mention here is that the user is essentially an WP:SPA who has obstinately refused to realize faults in their comments laden with policy violations (which have been adequate demonstrated above through a number of diffs), when pointed to them1, 2. User has been incivil from the get-go and has repeatedly attempted to personalize disputes by speculating ethnicities and nationalities of others, among other things.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [23]

Discussion concerning SpicyBiryani

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 SpicyBiryani

User is aware of the discretionary sanction in effect in the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area per their talk page, but all the same they were notified about it again on 31 May 2020.

Firstly, I had been notified of the sanctions well before I had edited the talk page, which you'd know if you'd bothered looking at the page history instead of resorting to WP:CHERRYPICKING as you have attempted to throughout the rest of your allegations. Do not make things up to discredit me.

Secondly, I have not speculated anyone's nationality. Here, you can see that User:Kautilya3, who is Indian, as you can see on their userpage, had reverted the page, to clear up un-neccessary discussion about the Kargil War, instead of the about the article. I had left a comment about the infobox that got caught up in this along some others. So, assuming it was a mistake as User:Kautilya3 is a seemingly competent editor, I re-addressed the issue on the talk page, and just to be on the safe side, changed it to remove as much commentary on the actual war as possible and to focus on the article more. Jingoism on such pages by Indian and Pakistani users is not new, the former being more common due to India having the largest (mostly uncensored) internet population in the world. Again, User:Kautilya3 seemed to be a competent editor, and did not further revert any of my comments, I did not attack or accuse or assume anything about them, nor did I even mention them any further. Additoinally, the fact that they did not revert any of my content again indicates that I was not the issue which caused the revert. I had only mentioned his nationality as people from India and Pakistan are obviously biased to their own country, whether they realise it or not. As you can tell, the comment complied with WP:TALKFIRST, and I had discouraged edit warring and refrained from editing the article itself, despite having the rights to do so at the time. So you could understand why I was initially disappointed that it seemed a biased Indian user had already began edit-warring. However, seeing that this revert was not targeted at me, and after seeing Kautulya3 was a competent editor, I realised this was not the case.

Refuses to respect the consensus of editors (reached here) and casts WP:ASPERSIONS on its participants I have every right to question the validity of anything quantity based involving India on the Internet. Yes, IT Cells and fake news in India do exist. No, this is not my opinion or WP:OR: Nationalism-fuelled^[1] fake news is rampant in India. In fact, India has the most fake news in the world.^[2]. And if you want to check yourself, go to any popular webpage about Pakistan, and you fill find more Indians than Pakistanis in the comment section/replies/whatever. For example, even when crickiter Shahid Afridi tested positive for Covid-19, they did not fail to politicise the situation and saw it as an opportunity to make racist comments. Anyway, moving on:

user further proceeds to personally attack another fellow participant in the discussion by accusing him of engaging in "chest thumping" and assuming bad faith and nationalities: "I am not trying to engage in chest thumping for the Pakistani military if you believe chset thumping is the purpouse of these discussions." Ends the comment by seeking credibility for a chronic sockpuppeter PAKHIGHWAY by speculating the sockpuppeter's nationality after feigning ignorance about the sockpuppeter's past history: "Their IP address indicates they are Canadian, a neutral nationality in this, eliminating any Indo-Pakistani bias."

Here is the piece written by this user. There is no indication of any sockpuppetery or bans whatsoever on their talk, nor on their userpage which they did not add anything to. A quick geolocation shows that it is a Canadian user, so it's not like they were a biased Indian or Pakistani, as I pointed out. Despite me asking for evidence of sockpuppetery multiple times, User:Aman.kumar.goel resorted to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and called the user 'sockmaster': You can't lend more credibility to sockmaster....

showing that this same user further proceeds to personally attack another fellow participant in the discussion by accusing him of engaging in "chest thumping" and assuming bad faith and nationalities: "I am not trying to engage in chest thumping for the Pakistani military if you believe chset thumping is the purpouse of these discussions."

I do not know what kind of mental gymnastics it takes to interpret that as a 'personal attack'. I stated that the as a result of the war, there were indeed territorial changes, whether they be in India or Pakistan's favour, and that I was not chest thumping and trying to make the Pakistani military look better, if that was the assumption other users had. In fact, I was agreeing with the person who you allege I was personally attacking.

Another thing important to mention here is that the user is essentially an WP:SPA who has obstinately refused to realize faults in their comments laden with policy violations (which have been adequate demonstrated above through a number of diffs), when pointed to them1, 2. User has been incivil from the get-go and has repeatedly attempted to personalize disputes by speculating ethnicities and nationalities of others, among other things. Where have I mentioned ethnicities? Other than my userpage, I have found no mention of any such subject. If you look at WP:SPATG, I do not fit the criteria to be labelled as such. And is there anything wrong with me editing articles relevant to my own country? The accusing user's page shows that they too have an interest in their country, so by their logic they too should be banned. Moreover, my account is younger than his, so obviously its edits have not grown to reach as much of Wikipedia, especially considering the fact that there is a Pandemic which makes it difficult to spend more time contributing to Wikipedia. Otherwise, I could just spam useless edits on random page to increase my edit count, editing rights and use other common deceptive if I created this account with malicious intent as Aman.kumar.goel alleges.

TL;DR:

Aman.kumar.goel resorts to WP:CHERRYPICKING/WP:ICANTHEARYOU, refused to acknowledge facts related to the topic and called another fellow editor a sockpuppeter without providing any evidence, while blaming me for personally attacking others even when I agree with them. Proceeds to accuse me of being a WP:SPA because I edit articles which I am intrested in and don't take pride in artificially inflating my edit count.

If any of my actions are indeed leaning towards the wrong side then I will avoid committing them in the future and change my editing behaviour, if pointed out by an administrator.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddsg, Kindly avoid resorting to WP:MOREX. If you'd read what I actually said and didn't resort to WP:CHERRYPICKING, you'll see that not only is News-18 run in India by Indians and owned by Indian companies (it is affiliated with CNN) but it is also giving the same numbers as the Indian armed forces were. Therefore, this would be labeled as an Indian figure as it's provided by an Indian source. Additionally, if you researched about me properly, you'll see I've had a pleasant experience with some Indian editors and the opposite with some. Moreover, If I had created this account just to crib about Indians, I would be resorting to insults and vandalism a lot more, and would not bother defending myself to this extent if I didn't value this website and account and saw it as an insignificant platform for trolling and vandalism. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "BBC - New BBC research shows nationalism is driving the spread of fake news - Media Centre". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
^ "India has more fake news than any other country in the world: Survey". Business Insider. Retrieved 2020-06-13.

Statement by Siddsg

So SpicyBiryani has only 38 edits and he feels that it is fine for him to misuse Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX against "Indians" because of his own perceived but very personal prejudice/hatred/bias against Indians. I see this to be a clear example of WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE. SpicyBiryani also misrepresented CNN and CNN-News18 as "Indian source" in order to sabotage the reliability of the source when he edited 2020 China–India skirmishes.[24] Maybe an indef block (topic ban upon return) would be worth it. Siddsg (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SpicyBiryani

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

A topic ban from the IPA topic area is probably in order. El_C 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think SpicyBiryani is editing in good faith, but their attitude requires a fundamental recalibration; a righting great wrongs approach to content isn't acceptable, and a battleground approach towards other editors isn't acceptable either. The topic is rife with POV-pushing and tag-teaming, but that's no excuse. I would recommend a topic-ban from armed conflict involving India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (really it ought to be all of South Asia, but the sanctions regime is not that wide; El C, thoughts on that?) and would be okay with an ARBIPA topic ban also, though it wouldn't be my first choice. I would make the TBAN indefinite, with the expectation that it wouldn't be lifted until the user showed a history of constructive engagement with areas outside their TBAN. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posp68

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 Posp68

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ermenrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Posp68 (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/Eastern Europe#Amendments#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

June 13 2020 Using article talk page as a forum to justify the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after WWII despite being told that the talk page is not a forum.
June 13 2020 Using article talk page as a forum to justify the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after WWII despite being told that the talk page is not a forum.
June 13 2020 Using article talk page as a forum to justify the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after WWII despite being told that the talk page is not a forum.
March 28 2020 Racialist attack on Hungarians being "Asiatic" to imply that they have less right to live somewhere than "European" Slovakians.
March 29 2020 Second of two repeated racialist attacks on Hungarians as "Asiatic".
May 15 2020 Thinly veiled racialist attack on another editor.
June 12 2020 Edit warring over the addition of "historical Czech lands" multiple times to the article Munich agreement.
June 12, 2020 Edit warring over the addition of "historical Czech lands" multiple times to the article Munich agreement.
June 14 2020 Edit warring while logged out over the addition of "historical Czech lands" multiple times to the article Munich agreement.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

May 2 2020 Posp68 was blocked for 32 hours for attacking me as a German of the right old type over a content dispute [25]

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 May 2 2020 by Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Posp68's edits appear mostly to be intended to justify the current borders of the Czech Republic and the removal of Germans from it. They have some serious NPOV issues and also competency issues in that their editing is often grammatically incorrect and poorly formatted. In the five years they have been registered here, most of their edits have been to Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia and Munich Agreement, always seeking to justify the Czech position. They also had an extended edit war over Polish-Czechoslovak War. It is my belief that the user is WP:NOTHERE.

This is my first time filing an enforcement request, so I apologize if anything is not quite as it should be.

Edit I've added three more diffs of edit warring I think should be considered, including some where Posp68 edited while logged out. The issue was discussed here [26], where Posp68 gave one of there usual pronouncements for having essentially the same sentence three times in one paragraph: The historical Czech lands retained its historical boundaries. The history of the Czech lands did not start in 1918. This sort of unbending attitude (did anyone deny that Bohemia and Moravia existed before?) used to justify edits with a clear agenda, is precisely the problem here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning Posp68

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 Posp68

Statement by Ymblanter

I have blocked the user in May ~~as a conclusion of~~ for a personal attack while having this nice discussion at my talk page, and my impression was (and remains) that this is a type of user who knows the TRUTH and would always interpret sources as if they confirm their POV, and would never concede the sources say something else, not aligned with their POV. I do not think the participation of this user in Easter European topics is beneficial for Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Posp68

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

In my opinion, a topic ban of User:Posp68 from the domain of WP:ARBEE would be justified. I don't see evidence he is capable of neutral editing in this area. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed. The user is a net negative in the area. --RexxS (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22

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 Mikola22

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sadko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mikola22 (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:TOPICBAN

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

A user under 1RR sanctions is going on with the same sort of behaviour which led to his current status and continuing his fringe narrative and disruptive editing/lack of communications, which was just recently observed by another fellow editor - @Slatersteven:

Removal of sourced content in the same manner in the same way before the imposed sanctions [28] [29]
Identical fringe viewpoints which were reported multiple times in the recent past (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [30]
Ignoring other user’s concerns [31] [32]
Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [33] [34]
Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editors involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his actions) [35] [36]

Endless disturbing point-scoring (the intent seemes to be to paint the Serbian role in WW2 as black as possible, using questionable sources and logic):

[37] [38] [39] (which is more often than not just wrong or taken out of full context) [40] [41] [42] [43] ! [44] [45] [46]

blunt removal [47] [48] [49] [50]

[51] (on the very same article WW2 fascists were used as "RS" by the same editor [52]) [53] (Marco Polo was Croatian) [54]

It seems to me that nothing has changed and I would suggest a topic ban on the history of the Balkans.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[55] Sitewide block, involved admin was @El C: with whom I had a discussion about this sort of editing on his TP.

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

[56] Arbitration sanction

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Constant WP:NOTHERE and refusal to cooperate with other editors.

Not at all, diffs speak quite clearly about everything, rather than the pile of interpretations which have been presented above. Constant use of questionable sources, ignoring other users and than leaving comments on the TP which just repeat the previous points. That's the modus operandi, which is not bringing anything good.

I understand that you want to turn a blind eye. There have been several reports on the same user (not done by me) for promoting fringe theories and views.

I'm not hounding anyone (taking a look once in a while in order to see what some editor/s with history of promoting fringe theories are doing can't be called hounding; I should know considering that several editors are doing the same to me). Being vigilant and pointing out to potential canvassing, which was a serious issue from editors from hr.wiki is not a bad thing. [57] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[58]

Discussion concerning Mikola22

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.

Considering that some of my opinions on the talk page are a problem, and we will see what I specifically violated I did a bit of searching for some of editor Sadko's comments. Given that he diligently follows my work here are some of his comments on Wikipedia which includes a "duty to ancestors" and that playing with Wikipedia is his major lifetime goal. He has a habit to making improper comments. Comments such as accusing other editors of behaving like punks in kafana, saying that other editors have sure sign of corrosion of intellect, accusing other editors of following him around, accusing other editors of attempting to discredit his work, accusing other editors of tag teaming, and "teaming up", accusing other editors of ganging up,making jokes of new editors, comparing a Croatian editor's proposal with sort of edits one would expect to see on shameful POV pushing hr.wikipedia, accusing other editors of petty politician-like sort of behaviour, and in the same time accusing of hounding, "teaming up" and having an "endgame", accusing other editors of "sneaky way of pushhing the POV" with their edits being described as "both ironic and moronic". And finally insulting me as a person that I am a follower of the Nazis, for which, despite the report, nothing happened to him (a guardian angel from Wikipedia protected him). Comment for my proposed changes on Statuta Valachorum article "The current text is a Frankenstein-like creation and I plan to alert various Wiki projects of any problems, bad use of sources and lack of consensus, because this is some new sort of revisionism" and "This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles."[59] The curiosity is in this case that we have an article about the law which covers the Vlach Croatian population(17th century) from a small part of Croatia ie Varaždin Generalate. When you read the article, you get the impression that it is about Serbian statutes and not about the Vlachs who are actually another name for Serbs there. Article is simply full of Serbs facts, even though it is a part of Croatia where Croatian peasants (surfs) are moving en masse to that area, many are converting to Orthodoxy and becoming Vlachs. Many Vlachs villages in that area are today 100% Croatian Catholic villages. This informations are not been in the article at all, although the law is part of the history of Croats and Croatia. When I wanted to change that for the better in accordance with reliable sources I got insulted for being a follower of the Nazis. Not to mention preservation of certain Serbian forgeries in some articles by the editor Sadko because "it is based on RS" and when I put the true facts based on RS and historians then it is Nazism. There is also specialty of putting informations from various internet portals as evidence in which it is said that Croats steal something from Serbs etc, and we hardly can remove that sources from the articles, we need five editors to remove political pamphlets from articles because editor Sadko defends it as if it were a book of academician. Here is noble work of editor Sadko just in touch with me and where are his edits which I don’t know about. Mikola22 (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mikola22

Removal of sourced content in the same manner in the same way before the imposed sanctions [34] [35] I have not moved anything here but I have added two information to the article from RS.
Identical fringe viewpoints which were reported multiple times in the recent past (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [36] Yes, it is a talk page and my opinion based on historical facts that I know of. I guess I can say something? 10 RS presented on the article say that Svetozar Borijević is a Croat, whay would my opinion be fringe viewpoints if I say that he is a Croat? What I supposed to say on talk page if Borojević himself said that he is Croat?
Ignoring other user’s concerns [37] [38] [37], Yes, added information to the article which exist in 9 RS(Military Frontier article). How much RS for some information I must add to the article, 20? [38] Yes, it is a forgery for wich the Serbian academic Sima Ćirković talks about in his books. Whether this information from the greatest Serbian authority and from RS must not be said, and he himself says that he does not know when the use of this false information will stop ("200 thousand Serbs who came to Croatia. Slavonia"). This false information ie forgery is still an integral part of many articles on Wikipedia and instead of starting to remove this information from Wikipedia, it bothers you that I'm talking about it on talk page?
Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [39] [40] [39] Yes, opinion expressed at talk page, which rule I broke here, whether I am allowed to talk on the talk page? [40] Yes, this is from talk page before 1RR restriction, whether I am allowed to talk on the talk page or not?
Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editors involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his actions) [41] [42]. [41] Yes, added information from various RS, what should I do. add information without RS? [42] Yes, something I added to the article, something does not belong to the article and that is why we are here, we edit articles. Did I kill someone?
Endless disturbing point-scoring (the intent semes to be to paint the Serbian role in WW2 as black as possible, using questionable sources and logic): [43] Yes, Stjepan Filipović article, nor was the date of his capture well written until I came in 2020, I put significant information from his life in the article, what I should not to add this informations to the article? [44] Yes, information about the city of Belgrade from the source(RS) "Belgrade became the first city in Europe to be declared Judenfrei ("clean of Jews") Does it bother you this information from RS? [45]Yes, Nedić's, Ljotić's and Chetniks by Semptember of 1944 capture about 455 remaining Jews in Serbia who were handed over to the Banjica concentration camp where they were killed immediately. information from the RS, does it bother you this information from RS? [46]Yes, I don't know what's bothering you here? [47]Yes, "In March 1942 Nedić with suport of August Meyszner establish Serbian State Guard (Srpska državna straža) who together with the Gestapo participated in guarding of Banjica concentration camp, in which among others were responsible for killings, including children." what bothers you here, information from the source ie RS. [48] Yes, information from RS "with thousands killed in Jajinci, Jewish cemetery and Marinkova Bara" what bothers you here? [49] Yes, "but in Germany suspected that this is not true and authority from Berlin sent Franz Abromeit to check situation. After that Ustashe were under pressure to finish the job. In April 1942 Jews from Osijek were deported to Jasenovac, two hundred of them while 2,800 were sent to Auschwich." information from the RS, what bothers you here? [50]Yes, "Anti-Jewish and anti-Judaic views are visible in his literary works from the 1920s and 1930s. In his literary work the Jews are mentioned as murderers of Christ and the satanic people who betrayed the God." information for Serbian vladika Nikolaj Velimirović, does data from this RS must not be known? [51]Yes, information from RS, what's the problem? [52]Yes, adding link to the article, is it problem with adding link to the article? [53]Yes, Svetozar Borojević article and editor TU-nor explained this fact(Eastern Orthodox, "No separate Serbian churh at that time." ) and I returned to the state of his edit. [54] Yes, "German Chancellor Adolf Hitler 1935 awards him with civil Medal for his contribution in 1926 in renovation of the WWI German military cemetery in Bitola" I added this information in accordance with RS, I later saw that there was some of the same information in the article, so I deleted this(my) information (my reason "this information is mentioned in the article so I delete it") editor Peacemaker67 thinks that this information should be part of the article(his reason " I do not understand the edit summary. Is a reliable source.) what I did wrong here? It is just proof that you don't follow my edits at all. Editor Peacemaker67 says it's RS. [55]Yes, I don't know what's bothering you here, everything has been explained here. The flag with that greeting is on military parades in Croatia every year, it is unfortunately the official coat of arms registered in Croatia, what should I do? [56]Yes, "On August 1942 Harald Turner reported his superiors that "Serbia is the only country in which the Jewish question and the Gypsy question have been solved." information from RS, does this information bother you? [57]Yes, what about this edit from 2019? you've already accused me for use of that source and no one punished me or asked about it. [58] [59] Yes, same case, I just came to Wikipedia(2019, at that time) and in Croatia this source was used and the author is presented in the Croatian Catholic Institutions, this source(book of WW2 fascists published by the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1938) is also used in the book of Noel Malcolm "Bosnia: A Short History". As if I had killed someone, you reported me and no one even asked me about it. [58]Yes, "The vast majority of the Orthodox clergy from Montenegro, NDH and Serbia were on the Chetnik side while some of them in NDH as Momčilo Đujić and priest Savo Božić became famous Chetniks commanders." this is information from Ljubica Štefan and original information from book "Chetniks" of historian Jozo Tomasevich, and this information is now in the article. What would be the problem here? Ljubica Štefan is famous Croatian historian, what should I do now?
Thus, no Wikipedia rules are violated and if someone doesn't like informations which I put (from various sources(RS)) to the articles what should I do now, everyone is free to look at the article about Milan Nedić before and after my editing in 2020 and you will see why someone doesn't like me here, all these years until a month ago the article was fine and now it's not okay anymore. Before my edit Milan Nedić was presented as flowers from WWII and now various sources(RS) speak about him as they speak. It's not my fault for this, we must respect reliable sources. Let’s continue to edit Wikipedia to make it as accurate and better as possible, come on friends! Mikola22 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This accusations are from here [60] and they are from editor Sadko. I have explained my position and @El_C gave support to editor Sadko for further proceedings. I accepted their views and invited editor Sadko and @El_C to initiate proceedings against me to see which Wikipedia rules I have violated. Now you have opportunity to present all violations of Wikipedia rules. Quote each edit and violated Wikipedia rule specifically by numbers so I can answer you. I don't need anyone here to help me like I said I'm here alone, you give your best in argumentation and I will give my best, good luck to both of you. Mikola22 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tezwoo

First, it should be pointed out that Sadko was the main subject of a large ANI just a month and a half ago regarding POV pushing in a number of topics. [61] Since the ANI was too large, it was overlooked, and some of the articles mentioned here are the same as the ones in the ANI of 30 April. Admin Number_57 noted back then that Sadko's edits look "clearly like classic nationalist POV pushing/point-scoring in a contentious area" [62] That should be looked at now, due to the severity of the accusations on a user with whom he had content disputes, as a potential WP:BOOMERANG. Sadko also seems to have been WP:WIKIHOUNDING Mikola22, which can be seen in the history of Mikola22's talk page, example: [63].

Here's a closer look at the report by article/point:

Slavonia - The first diff in the report, and the first false claim by Sadko, that it was "Removal of sourced content". In fact, Mikola22 did not remove anything, he just added another information from a RS.

Statuta Valachorum - 2nd diff, Mikola22 did not remove anything here as well, he added new content, properly sourced. There are many sources on Catholic and Orthodox Vlachs and their migration in the region, there is nothing contentious there.

Svetozar Boroević - 3rd diff, Sadko says those are "fringe viewpoints", but Mikola22 and several other users provided multiple reliable sources on the talk page that show how the ethnicity of Svetozar Boroević is differently presented in various sources. A consensus was reached that the article should state both the sources that mention his Serb origin (which was strongly advocated by Sadko), and those that mention a Croat origin.

"Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place" - that is nonexistent in the diffs provided.

"Ignoring other user’s concerns" - 1st diff, Military Frontier article. Nothing was removed here, he added sources which are in fact modern historiography. He discussed on the talk page, and another user, OyMosby, agreed that those are reliable sources. Regarding the second diff, Eparchy of Marča article, Mikola22 did not add anything to the article following that discussion, so he did not ignore others concerns.

WW2 articles - Again, he added sourced content, mostly about the holocaust. It is interesting that on the second diff provided, in the previous revert, Sadko reverted Mikola22's edit that "Milan Nedić implemented Hitler's anti Semitic policies". That is the only contentious edit I see there.

"blunt removal" - for the Boroević article (first diff), he was right to remove that because the cited source doesn't say "Serbian Orthodox". 2nd diff, Nikolaj Velimirović, was obviously a mistake because he thought this was mentioned already. 3rd diff, he started a section on the talk page and several other users also pointed out to the off topic content in that article. 4th diff, nothing removed there, he added cited information.

Marco Polo - he did not write that "Marco Polo was Croatian", he wrote how the description in the lead of that article changed often (to Venetian, Italian, Croatian explorer) and he started a RfC on that issue (and not to change it to "Croatian explorer")

Chetniks - the content he added was confirmed with an additional sources by Peacemaker67 [64]

That is mostly it. This just seems as an attempt to get rid of an editor with whom the user had some content disputes, taking advantage of his previous block with misleading diffs and explanations. Tezwoo (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, he did not break the 1RR imposed and he is using sources for the content he is adding. I'll gladly provide additional sources for any of the "fringe theories and views" from the article diffs, and discuss the "questionable sources". Tezwoo (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mikola22

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

Edithgoche

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 Edithgoche

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Edithgoche (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:ARBIP :

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

13 June: Re-inserts his completely rejected edit even after gaining no consensus for his version per Talk:Tipu_Sultan#Tipu's_religious_policies_in_the_intro_vs_contents:_WP:CENSORED and WP:DUE violated.
13 June: Falsely accusing of censorship; "RegentsPark don't censor this again citing"
13 June: Again, falsely accusing editors of WP:CENSOR.
13 June: Accuses RegentsPark of "WP:ADMINABUSE" and provides zero evidence involving abuse of admin tools.
13 June: Starts a DRN, and notifies only one editor when there were more editors who have reverted and disputed his edits on this dispute. Here too, he alleges editors are making "attempts to censor this WP:CENSORED"
13 June: Assumes bad faith contrary to WP:AGF against established editors by claiming that "the editors seem to be uncooperative for a discussion or purposely stalling".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: One block for edit warring involving the same article.[65]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [66]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Text-book example of WP:1AM and WP:SPA dedicated to Tipu Sultan for nearly 2 years. The above diffs provide clear examples of WP:EW, WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[67]

Discussion concerning Edithgoche

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 Edithgoche

1) I was blocked for edit-warring in 2018, it was when I created the account new and had no idea of how wiki works. Since then I never did it again. We all make mistakes and learn from them, don't we?

2) It is not accusing them of censor and adminabuse. It is failure on my part to apply the policies properly. Once I understood it I no longer do that. Apologies again, if any inconvenience caused.

3)Before calling this a SPA please go through my edit history. I also made contributions to another area.

4) Wikipedia:DRN_Rule_A says "Do not report any issues about the article or the editing of the article at any other noticeboards". Is it not a violation of the rule that I am being reported here?

Edithgoche (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Edithgoche

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

Hölderlin2019

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 Hölderlin2019

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Siddsg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hölderlin2019 (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 :

14 June Removed reliably sourced content in violation of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT even after being warned against it.
14 June Same as above diff.
14 June Same as above diff.
15 June Same as above diff.
15 June Same as above diff.
15 June: Violating WP:CANVASSING by canvassing editors he never interacted before.[68][69][70]
15 June Doubles down with his blatant WP:OR, WP:EDITWAR and misrepresentation of sources and using sources that don't even talk about any "homosexuality" even after warnings and discussion.
15 June Same as above.
15 June Again, doubles down with his blatant WP:OR, WP:EDITWAR and blatant misrepresentation of sources.
15 June Same as above.

He has already reverted more than 3 times on both articles in less than 24 hours even after warning.[71]

This reply by him even after hours of attempts to guide him to understand basic policies shows he is more willing to exhibit WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE than understand what WP:OR, WP:CON, WP:CANVASSING means. Instead it shows that he is more adamant to continue misrepresenting sources. Siddsg (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [72]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [73]

Discussion concerning Hölderlin2019

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 Hölderlin2019

Here’s a simple summary of this situation: a claim is being made, on multiple pages, that the Rigveda — an ancient Sanskrit volume of religious poetry — contains a particular phrase, “vikruti evam prakriti”, which allegedly means “what seems unnatural is also natural”, which is allegedly a statement about homosexuality.

The issue with this is that the phrase literally does not occur in the actual text of the Rig Veda, which renders irrelevant questions about what it might mean, or what the significance of that meaning may be. There is no controversy about this among Sanskritists: authoritative sources such as Monier-Williams and VB’s revised edition of Bloomfield’s concordance do not accept that this text occurs in the Rigveda. Neither does Jamison & Brereton’s recent authoritative translation and commentary. In fact, *no* academic source by a Sanskritist accepts that even two of the three constituent *words* of the phrase occur anywhere in the Rig Veda.

This fact, which anyone can verify for themselves by searching the publicly available text of the Rig Veda, is not OR. It reflects the universal understanding of Sanskrit and Vedic scholars, and is entirely consonant with their research output. I freely concede that none of my sources deal with homosexuality; there’s no reason that they should, since the question is whether or not a given phrase actually exists in a given text in the first place, and on that matter, the only authoritative sources are those which specialize in the translation and exegesis of that text, and in the language and culture in question. I have also not misrepresented any of my sources, and can only conclude from the claim that I have that the claimant is unfamiliar with the academic literature, and lacking in the competence necessary to understand what the literature establishes.

I have not breached 3RR on any of the articles in question, though this may not be clear from the diffs provided, since the same text occurs multiple times in multiple articles, and has been deleted and reinserted twice in each, though in separate, though sequential edits for each section in which it occurs. I have subsequently added text establishing that there is no support for the existence of this text among academic Sanskritists, while preserving the original language to which I object, and defended that language once. I will not edit further pending the establishment of consensus, but will note that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the challenged material in the first place.

The user who has filed this case misunderstands what OR is, and also CIR and generally the basic policies he presumes to “guide” me in. As regards canvassing, I have notified a handful of editors who routinely edit on India and Sanskrit - related topics; none of them, to my knowledge, have expressed a stance on this matter. I would like their thoughts, but have no prior knowledge of which side they are likely to take. I stand by the context I provided on the situation, but have preemptively removed it to ensure the pings are ‘neutral’. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I am nowhere interpreting the text of the Rig Veda, and I’m puzzled as to why you would think that I am. I am commenting that the string ’vikruti evam prakriti’, however it might be interpreted, does not occur in the Rig Veda. In fact, neither of the words ‘vikruti’ or ‘prakriti’ occur in the Rig Veda. This isn’t some original insight of my own. No Sanskritist would suggest otherwise. None of the sources in the articles provide the information necessary to locate it (academic sources on the Rig Veda index lines by book and hymn).

Both Monier-Williams and VB’s revised edition of Bloomfield’s Vedic concordance — which are both foundational academic sources in academic Vedic and Sanskrit studies — attest that this language does not occur in the Rig Veda. They respectively catalogue the works in which each Sanskrit lemma is found, and both establish that ‘vikruti evam prakriti’ does not occur in the Rig Veda. These sources are being excluded from the articles in question on the grounds that they do not deal with homosexuality and are therefore irrelevant, which seems entirely bizarre — the question is not whether the verse refers to homosexuality; the question is whether or not the verse exists in the Rig Veda in the first place. It’s also unclear to me why sources that are not specialist academic works on either Sanskrit or the Rig Veda, and that do not themselves cite their claim that the Rig Veda contains this verse, are considered reliable to support this specific claim, let alone more reliable than actual academic works on Sanskrit.

Incidentally, which website have I linked whose reliability is questionable? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

@Hölderlin2019: Regardless of the truth of your assertions, your justification for your edits leaves a lot to be desired. Interpreting the text of the Rig Veda is in fact original research, and not something editors should be doing. If you have reliable sources from reliable publishers supporting your assertion, then you need to demonstrate that; so far I've seen you provide links to a website whose reliability is questionable, and to an entire book. That isn't good enough. If the claim you're challenging hasn't actually been directly contradicted by the sources, then that's something you have to live with. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hölderlin2019: you're missing my point a little. We have some sources saying that a specific line appears in the Rig Veda, and interpreting that line in a certain way. Relative to this, your own search through the text of the Rig Veda carries little weight. If scholars of the Vedas have explicitly stated that the text in question is not in the Rig Veda, then you need to provide explicit evidence of that; I don't mean links to where they discuss the Rig Veda and fail to mention this line, or where they provide translations of the Rig Veda; I mean sources where they say "The Rig Veda does not contain this line". Short of that, everything you are doing is original research, even if (and this is critical) you are correct. The website I was referring to was this one; it may be reliable for specific translations to and from Sanskrit; but it's not reliable for the assertions you are making. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hölderlin2019

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

@Vanamonde93: I think that you're expecting too much by asking Hölderlin2019 to prove a negative. It doesn't seem likely that scholars will compile a list of phrases that don't appear in the Rig Veda, so the sort of sources required to prove the negative won't exist. On the other hand, some works have variorums and concordances. Surely the absence of a particular phrase in one of those scholarly studies is sufficient proof that it does not appear in the original work? I'm not sure exactly what the sources Hölderlin2019 refers to (and a link or cite to a book would help), but if they are sufficiently comprehensive studies of the Rig Veda, then surely we can't fault Hölderlin2019 if he concludes that a particular phrase is absent from the work. We must remember that WP:No original research applies to article content, not talk page debate, and I don't feel it should be sanctionable to report on a talk page that a source makes a claim that is demonstrably untrue (even if the demonstration requires a full text search of the Rig Veda). That of course does not excuse the behaviour in the article, and the argument should have been confined to the talk page. Of course D4iNa4 and Siddsg both reverted more than once on the other side of the edit war, so are equally culpable. I actually think this is fundamentally a content dispute which rests on whether Hölderlin2019's sources are reliable to support the contention that the phrase does not appear in the Rig Veda. I recommend WP:RSN to decide the underlying dispute. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mar4d

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

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

Appealing user: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mar4d (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#Capitals00, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018.

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

Notification of that administrator: [74]

Statement by Mar4d

I would like to humbly appeal for lifting a topic ban restriction which dates back to May 2018. The restriction in question was applied collectively amongst at least nine other editors at the time, with the option to appeal in 6 months' time, which I did not choose to exercise until now. More than the unfortunate circumstances which fostered the atmosphere for sanctions, I would like to focus here on why the sanctions had to be resorted to and what I personally take out of it.

I am cognisant of the fact that the sanctions were a result of several issues pertaining to WP:NOTBATTLE; and that individually, my conduct had been deemed sanctionable precisely because it fell under the ambit of this problem. If I were to reflect on how I've been able to respond and what I've learnt from this experience, my answer will be twofold:

1) Since the enforcement, I've made an effort to correct this by working actively, constructively and diligently on many other subjects, and have made thousands of edits in this respect. This includes writing, expanding or creating many articles within the Pakistan-India topic area objectively over the last several months without complaints. I have largely enjoyed doing this; and
2) I have strived to demonstrate and follow a conflict and confrontation-free path in the course of this editing, as a result of which I've been able to avoid any further sanctions or issues. I can confidently say this has affected me in a good way and has been a net positive personally.

As for the reason of why I'm making the request at this time, the most correct answer will be that the topic ban has been an impediment in being able to edit some existing articles of late, especially in cases where the subject may not even have the strongest of connections to the India-Pakistan conflict. I realised this most recently when I was writing an article on an ethnicity, and understood I could not expand it meaningfully as much of it involved writing about their migration during the partition of India. This is one instance among many other similar and broader examples.

25 months and a wiser yet cooler head later, I am optimistic regarding where I stand . Therefore, I am submitting this appeal and look forward to engaging in this arbitration request. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel

As recently as 2019, there was an extended ANI thread where most participants were concerned enough about expanding the scope of the topic ban or block Mar4d indefinitely, and some were opposed to any action. But overall, there was a clear agreement that Mar4d was violating the topic ban.

His first edit to Pathans in India [75] which he himself created on 28 May 2020, is a violation of topic ban from "conflicts between India and Pakistan" given the edit mentions "partition" of India two times on the first edit alone. The second sentence of Kashmir conflict article notes that "The conflict started after the partition of India in 1947". This 30 May edit is just more of the same violation.

This comes when Mar4d notes in his appeal that he is not able to write about a subject "as much of it involved writing about their migration during the partition of India"; agreeing that about the scope of the topic's relations with the existing topic ban, but nonetheless he writes about the partition.

This page move from 12 May is a gross violation of the topic ban since the subject greatly involves the details about a war in which India and Pakistan warred each other.

These edits are obviously not the only example where Mar4d has failed to stay away from his topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts. This 18 April which removed a whole section about India-Pakistan conflict involved Kashmir was a topic ban violation, and even after Mar4d appeared to have self-reverted,[76] I would still like to know how this source supports the information which Mar4d added on his next edit to the article.

I would recommend declining the appeal based on these facts because Mar4d has failed to stay away from the topic he is banned from. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mar4d

Result of the appeal by Mar4d

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

Hijiri88

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 Hijiri88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TH1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hijiri88 (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: [[77]] :

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

June 16 IBAN violation - making inaccurate statements about me on talk page and requesting another editor to make edits that would be in violation of Hijiri88's own IBAN

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was alerted by another user of troubling edits made by Hijiri88 on his talk page. In spite of our IBAN, he accused me of making "a false claim" on my previous topic ban appeal, though I didn't do so. He accused me of violating my IBAN on the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, but that's impossible. Since the IBAN was imposed, he has only made one visible edit to the article, which was made years ago,[78] and I didn't modify that edit. He pinged an admin concerning my previous, now lifted, topic ban, even though this matter obviously isn't IBAN-exempt under BANEX rules. Also concerningly, he says "pinging Nishidani (talk · contribs) to see if anything can be done about the content of the recent IBAN-violating edits." It must be noted that Hijiri88 previously said in 2018, "the text might have been added by TH1980, and when I checked the history to confirm I had to email Nishidani to deal with it." In other words, this is (at least) the second time Hijiri88 has attempted to get around this IBAN by asking another user to edit in his stead. This is surely in violation of the spirit of the IBAN. What is the point of an IBAN if the other editor can just e-mail someone else to ask them to make edits for him? Hijiri88 has a long history of violating IBANs[79] and this is surely just another case of that. TH1980 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[80]

Discussion concerning Hijiri88

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 Hijiri88

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hijiri88

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

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

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

[3] "BBC - New BBC research shows nationalism is driving the spread of fake news - Media Centre". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-06-13.

[4] "India has more fake news than any other country in the world: Survey". Business Insider. Retrieved 2020-06-13.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 961: / Line 961: @@
 ===Statement by GoldenRing===
-===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
+===Statement by Aman.kumar.goel===
+As recently as 2019, there was an extended [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#User:Mar4d_reported_by_User:Mountain157|ANI thread]] where most participants were concerned enough about expanding the scope of the topic ban or block Mar4d indefinitely, and some were opposed to any action. But overall, there was a clear agreement that Mar4d was violating the topic ban.
+His first edit to [[Pathans in India]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathans_in_India&oldid=959431357] which he himself created on 28 May 2020, is a violation of topic ban from "conflicts between India and Pakistan" given the edit mentions "partition" [[partition of India|of India]] two times on the first edit alone. The second sentence of [[Kashmir conflict]] article notes that "The conflict started after the [[partition of India]] in 1947". This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathans_in_India&diff=959802676&oldid=959800864 30 May edit] is just more of the same violation.
+This comes when Mar4d notes in his appeal that he is not able to write about a subject "{{tq|as much of it involved writing about their migration during the [[partition of India]]}}"; agreeing that about the scope of the topic's relations with the existing topic ban, but nonetheless he writes about the partition.
+This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Biharis_in_Bangladesh&diff=prev&oldid=956259277 page move from 12 May] is a gross violation of the topic ban since the subject greatly involves the details about [[Bangladesh Liberation War|a war]] in which India and Pakistan warred each other.
+These edits are obviously not the only example where Mar4d has failed to stay away from his topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-Pakistan_sentiment&diff=951677985&oldid=951053080 18 April] which removed a whole section about India-Pakistan conflict involved Kashmir was a topic ban violation, and even after Mar4d appeared to have self-reverted,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-Pakistan_sentiment&diff=next&oldid=951677985] I would still like to know how [http://www.asiantribune.com/node/93771 this source] supports the information which Mar4d added on his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-Pakistan_sentiment&diff=prev&oldid=951683058 next edit] to the article.
+I would recommend declining the appeal based on these facts because Mar4d has failed to stay away from the topic he is banned from. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 02:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 ===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

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