Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Line 344: | Line 344: | ||
<br>With respect to this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=599150419&oldid=598892502], I have cited references, so it doesn't go against the rules. |
<br>With respect to this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=599150419&oldid=598892502], I have cited references, so it doesn't go against the rules. |
||
<br>With respect to this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Muslim_violence_in_India&diff=599181677&oldid=599161780], I did not restore what I added when it was reverted, because other editors told me to cite references for it (which I could not because of time constraints). |
<br>With respect to this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Muslim_violence_in_India&diff=599181677&oldid=599161780], I did not restore what I added when it was reverted, because other editors told me to cite references for it (which I could not because of time constraints). |
||
<br>With respect to this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Pakistan&diff=599741634&oldid=599740736], I copied the matter from [[State-sponsored terrorism#Pakistan]], along with the references. |
<br>With respect to this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Pakistan&diff=599741634&oldid=599740736], I copied the matter from [[State-sponsored terrorism#Pakistan]], along with the references and it does say, "Pakistan is perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups" now. |
||
<br>I haven't even edit warred with <font color=blue>Smsarmad</font> and he has not even discussed my edits on the discussion/Talk page of the article. Aren't we supposed to discuss things on the Talk page, then post a Request for comments and then ask for the mediation committee's help before asking for arbitration (that's what an admin told me when I complained about another editor/user)?—[[User:Khabboos|Khabboos]] ([[User talk:Khabboos|talk]]) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC) |
<br>I haven't even edit warred with <font color=blue>Smsarmad</font> and he has not even discussed my edits on the discussion/Talk page of the article. Aren't we supposed to discuss things on the Talk page, then post a Request for comments and then ask for the mediation committee's help before asking for arbitration (that's what an admin told me when I complained about another editor/user)?—[[User:Khabboos|Khabboos]] ([[User talk:Khabboos|talk]]) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I also observed that <font color=blue>Smsarmad</font> added complaints no.3 and 4 later. Luckily, I was online and able to reply. If he makes another complaint, please give me the opportunity to reply before blocking/banning me. Thanks!—[[User:Khabboos|Khabboos]] ([[User talk:Khabboos|talk]]) 17:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC) |
:I also observed that <font color=blue>Smsarmad</font> added complaints no.3 and 4 later. Luckily, I was online and able to reply. If he makes another complaint, please give me the opportunity to reply before blocking/banning me. Thanks!—[[User:Khabboos|Khabboos]] ([[User talk:Khabboos|talk]]) 17:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:18, 17 March 2014
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Maurice07
Maurice07 topic banned from everything related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts and warned if the disruption does spread to another topic area they will be blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Maurice07
28 February Voted Oppose to my FP nomination that was related to the Adana massacre by calling it "Irrational nationalism" and claims that the source is unreliable since it is "Armenian." Maurice07 came out of no where. He is not a regular at WP:FP (see here) and has never voted or participated before. It seems this was a WP:BATTLEGROUND-like move to strike at his supposed "opponents" where it hurts them the most.
Sabiha Gokcen's ethnicity is disputed among those who believe she is Turkish and those who believe she is Armenian. There has been a long consensus to include both claims in the Early Life section of her article. The user initially removes an entire sourced paragraph of her being Armenian under the edit-summary "Personal effort to impose and deception". I proposed a compromise at the TP of the article by giving more WP:WEIGHT to Maurice07's claim that she is Turkish by placing it as the first paragraph of the section. After I have warned him over this matter and repeatedly told him to go to the talk page ([7][8][9]), the user continues to edit-war by keeping any notion that she may be of Armenian origin out of the Early Life section ([10][11]). I opened a section at the talk page to reach a compromise. Maurice07 repeatedly says that "Allegations that are of Armenian descent, too add early life section just absürd and extreme nationalism" and says "All sources one-sided and unreliable" because one is an "Armenian newspaper" and the other is by an "Armenian historian" ([12]).
The user is indefinitely sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC is continuing to conduct a similar WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern in Armenian related articles. I find that every time he edits an Armenian article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the ARBMAC ban. The user has a pretty extensive block log which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. However, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user still displays a belligerent attitude to those he comes across and is willing to edit-war to get his way. This WP:BATTLEFIELD-like demeanor has been the story for the past several years now. In the past, he deleted an entire paragraph stating that Mount Ararat was a historical part of Armenia with an edit-summary saying, "Political opinion can not be included here." His deletion of Greek and Armenian native names of appears to be an obsession stretching back several years (examples include Greek names: [13][14]; Armenian names: [15]). He's almost impossible to work with since all of his "opponents" are either extreme nationalists or deceptive individuals. I have yet to have seen him refer to the talk page to gather a consensus before making such contentious edits or reverts. For the reasons I have aforementioned, I believe that the user should be banned from editing topics related to Armenia and Turkey. For past inquiries, please see Maurice07's ARBMAC report: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Maurice07
Discussion concerning Maurice07Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Maurice07Totally unacceptable request by User:EtienneDolet. I did'nt remove Armenian names from the articles of Turkish cities. There are many examples in this regard. Trabzon, Bayburt, Gaziantep..etc. User accusing me, Armenian names impose to cities, just like example of Erzurum. In the section of Name and etymology there are many names of city (Kurdish, Ottoman Turkish, Greek, Latin) but was only interested in the Armenian name. [17]. Another disctrict in Divriği, Armenian name placed by a Armanian user [18] waithout citing any source. In city of Iğdır, a edit war still continues by another Armenian User:MarshallBagramyan. I've added an information sourced [19] but this title and Kurdish and Azerbaijani names removed by this WP:ARBAA2 [20] user [21] About the Sabiha Gökçen issue, another Armaniafication effort by Etienne, Bagramyan and Yerevantsi. I have moved the Armenian claims to related section "Controversies" [22]. Because, in this regard, not any certainty. I don't think that User:EtienneDolet per WP:NPOV. As part of this dispute, this user has carried out an intensive effort to intimidate.
In parallel, same terrorization effort applied by Proudbolsahye renamed (Etienne) in Wikipedia Commons Sabiha Gökçen's photos deleted and nominated for deletion See: I think EtienneDolet should be topic banned Turkey-Armenia related articles per, WP:ARBAA2. Maurice07 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by YerevantsiMaurice's comment speaks for itself. Using inappropriate language is, apparently, OK for him (e.g. "terrorization effort"). I'd like to point out a few more expressions of his attitude towards Armenians. As of January 2014, his userpage had a template saying "This user rejects the so-called Armenian Genocide"[28] The current version of his userpage declares "This user rejects the so-called Armenian claims and believes that it's a big lie concocted by Armenian diaspora!" --Երևանցի talk 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by Dr.K.For your information, I have informed Callanecc about a possible violation of Maurice07's ban from Greek-Turkish relations broadly construed. Maurice07 added a picture in the Eurozone crisis article showing Greece as the first domino of the crisis. I know this is unrelated to AA2 enforcement but it relates to your thoughts about Maurice07's behaviour spreading to other areas. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Maurice07This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This appears to me to have merit. The most actionable concerns here appear to be Maurice07's edit warring at Divriği and Erzurum, as well as his battleground behaviour, such as calling other users' edits vandalistic. As being topic banned under WP:ARBMAC doesn't seem to have gotten Maurice to edit appropriately, I would consider going straight to a lengthy topic ban. EtienneDolet has shown some signs of edit warringat Erzurum as well, so I'm not sure his/her hands are totally clean here, either. Nonethless, as the edit warring isn't as extensive and I'm not seeing the same battleground behaviour, I would tend not to sanction. Will wait to hear what other admins think. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Brews ohare
Not actionable. Sandstein 09:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Brews ohare
A clear repitition of the behaviour for which the previous one month block was imposed. Brews has been sailing close to the wind by using 'science' not 'physics on several articles, but this one is specific. We see this in an extended attempt to change the Free Will article which like nearly all his edits on philosophy articles has not gained support. The response to him (see final paragraph of the diff) from the ever patient Pfhorest illustrates a wider issue, similar to that which resulted in the original sanction. This time we have a single incident that he has not attempted to reinsert and I thought for a couple of days before making this request. However given the the prior history and general intransigence someone with experience needs to review this. ----Snowded TALK 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Brews ohareStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Brews ohareStatement by 198.228.200.177The issue is not so much the content of Brews' edits, which arguably don't run afoul of this particular sanction. It's more that he is repeating the same pattern of tendentious editing and his strategy of wearing down any and all who disagree with his opinions (be they correct or not) by endless RFCs, walls of text, wikilawyering and generally making a nuisance of himself that (eventually) landed him at ArbCom in the first place. The proper venue for those concerns, though, is a user conduct RFC which, to date, no editor has been willing to undertake likely because of the sheer volume of diffs that would be required. 198.228.200.177 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Brews ohareThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I think that this is not actionable. The topic ban in the decision that is asked to be enforced applies to "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". The edit at issue is to the page Mind–body problem, which per its lead is about "the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain." That is not a topic related to physics, but to philosophy and neurobiology. Neither does the text added by Brews ohare refer to physics. The fact that it is a citation by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger and another physicist is by far not enough to make the whole article - as required by the wording of the topic ban - "about" physics. Sandstein 07:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Urartu TH
Urartu TH (talk · contribs) blocked by Sandstein for WP:NPA/WP:AGF issues separate from original request which was not actionable. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 16:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Urartu TH
Urartu TH is editing controversial arbitration covered article Khojaly Massacre against consensus and in unnecessarily aggressive manner. I tried to resolve a dispute with this user at WP:DRN, and there was no consensus there for the removal of the death toll provided by the Azerbaijani government (613 dead). This was confirmed by the mediator in his closing summary [29], and in a discussion with Urartu TH at mediator's talk: [30]. While Urartu TH insisted on his unilateral removal of info, the mediator mentioned that "based on the discussions at DRN such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus". [31] Despite the outcome of the discussion at WP:DRN, and the warning of the mediator, Urartu TH removed the info from the article: [32] This is not the only example of aggressive and uncompromising editing by this user. He makes controversial edits and reverts to restore them, while there clearly is no consensus for inclusion, or deletion, for instance here: [33] he restores his edit, which was rolled back by another editor: [34], yet Urartu TH restored it without any attempt at discussion or DR. I believe due to unwillingness to work for the consensus Urartu TH should be restricted from editing AA topics, before the situation around the aforementioned article escalates further. Grandmaster 00:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC) I believe that if the result of the discussion at DRN was no consensus for removal of the information, then removing the information in defiance of the outcome of the discussion is disruptive. Even the mediator warned that "such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus", but this did not deter Urartu TH from making a defiant revert. In my opinion, such behavior should not be acceptable, as it leads to escalation of tensions in an arbitration covered area. At the very least, this deserves a warning. Grandmaster 09:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Urartu THStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Urartu THI have been harassed by Grandmaster ever since I joined Wikipedia roughly 1 month ago and made some neutral edits that did not satisfy his anti-Armenian POV. I find this "enforcement request" to be a shameful attempt at censorship. One need only read the DRN or the Khojaly tragedy talk page for examples. To the edits in question: The first edit, March 14, 2014, was simply to give context to the citation listed. This is paramount because the article in question deals with a highly controversial and divisive topic. I only include a few words which can be found in the citation itself and provide crucial facts necessary in understanding where the information comes from. The second edit, March 15, 2014, was not even discussed in the DRN and I am truly perplexed as to how Grandmaster could attempt to "enforce" a DRN's conclusion on a topic that was not at all discussed. I merely added the words, "Battle of Khojaly" because that is the event during which the Khojaly tragedy is said to have taken place. This part of Grandmaster's complaint clearly exemplifies his animus towards me. Grandmaster needs to learn to tolerate differing and/or dissenting opinions instead of attempting to silence them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urartu TH (talk • contribs) Statement by (username)Result concerning Urartu THThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I'm not convinced this has got to the point it's worthy of sanctions. The main argument here seems to be that a user is editing against consensus, but the result at DRN was a lack of consensus. It's true that Urartu TH has been reverting, but there aren't that many reverts, and no more, as far as I can see, than his opponent in the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
|
PhiChiPsiOmega
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 PhiChiPsiOmega
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- DavidLeighEllis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions:
PhiChiPsiOmega has engaged in an extended, frivolous discussion in which he asserts that parapsychology is not a pseudoscience, with flimsy references in comparison to those which describe it as a pseudoscience, in violation of WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SOAP:
- 15:15, 28 February 2014
- 15:44, 28 February 2014
- 17:02, 28 February 2014
- 17:34, 28 February 2014
- 17:37, 28 February 2014
- 18:07, 28 February 2014
- 18:08, 28 February 2014
- 18:20, 28 February 2014
- 18:22, 28 February 2014
- 20:08, 28 February 2014
- 20:17, 28 February 2014
- 21:13, 28 February 2014
- 23:20, 28 February 2014
- 12:42, 1 March 2014
- 13:41, 1 March 2014
- 16:02, 8 March 2014
- 20:17, 8 March 2014
- 22:58, 8 March 2014
- 17:06, 27 February 2014 He tried to alter the parapsychology article to this effect, removing the reference from the previous version and not supplying a source, in violation of WP:VER.
Since being reverted, he has contented himself with interminable talk page posting. See also the AN/I report on this issue, which PhiChiPsiOmega has ironically managed to turn into a constant argument.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning PhiChiPsiOmega
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 PhiChiPsiOmega
The references are hardly flimsy, but everyone is right -- I'm just pushing everyone's buttons. Let me present my case later when I don't have so much stuff on my plate, and when I've gotten the hang of Wikipedia. OK? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
On my talk page, I have indicated that I will refrain from this behavior until I understand Wikipedia policies better. I'd rather look past this. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning PhiChiPsiOmega
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I would decline this enforcement request because it does not contain, as requested in the template and instructions, dated diffs of alleged misconduct with a clear explanation of which conduct policy or guideline they allegedly violate. The issue of whether something should be described or not as a pseudoscience in an article is a content issue which the arbitration process cannot address. Sandstein 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
[notice] Discretionary sanctions review. Comments welcome on Draft v3
The Arbitration Committee has recently been conducting a review of the discretionary sanctions system. You may wish to comment on the newest (third) draft update to the system, which has just been posted to the review page. Comments are welcome on the review talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 00:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Khabboos
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 Khabboos
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Smsarmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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
- 15 March 2014 Source falsification and misrepresentation.
- 11 March 2014 Source misrepresentation/Addition of irrelevant content and then edit warring it into the article (
[39], [40], [41]). Consider this diff as Diff 2a - 11 March 2014 POV editing
- 15 March 2013 Source misrepresentation
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Warned on 14 February 2014 by ErikHaugen (talk · contribs)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
@Sandstein I am adding the explanation for each diff below:
For Diff # 1, the sources cited for "President of Pakistan claimed that he must have been sheltered by elements in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and that the Pakistani Government had no hand in it." nowhere says that. Besides this content was added without explaining how it is relevant to the subject of the article. The same is true for "The Pakistani Government eventually, has done a deal with the Taliban to enforce the Sharia in parts of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, because they could not fight the Taliban in that region." that was added in the same set of edits and it nowhere says that the deal was done because Pakistan couldn't fight the Taliban. This diff violates WP:V by source falsification by furthering a POV.
For Diff # 2, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" was added to the article Persecution of Hindus, while through an RFC on the talk page of the same article it was very much clear that there is no consensus to add it and the source didn't described the event as persecution. In the same diff a narration of another incident (about yoga center) was also added, but the sources cited didn't call the burning of the yoga center as "Persecution of Hindus" but Khabboos tried to edit war it into the article.
For Diff # 2a, Again the same article (Persecution of Hindus), where Khabboos added an incident about a Hindu man's killing, but the source no where said that the killing is related to the subject of the article.
For Diff # 3, it is very much clear how Khabboos furthers his POV. And this was done after the discussion on the talk, where he made an appeal that "...include these in this article. Muslims do not live in fear in India and they are hardly persecuted - in fact, they are a pampered lot. Remember, this article could be used by Pakistan to brain-wash people to terrorize India...", besides making similar POV edits [42], [43].
For Diff # 4, Khaboos added "... Pakistan was the worlds 'most active' state sponsor of terrorism including aiding groups which were considered a direct threat to USA." to the article Terrorism in Pakistan, while the source cited said "Pakistan is perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups", completely ignoring that the subject of the article is not "Terrorism by Pakistan". He was reverted but he edit warred here too, reverting it into the article twice ([44], [45]). -- SMS Talk 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified. -- SMS Talk 14:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Khabboos
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 Khabboos
With respect to this edit [46], I copied the matter from Osama bin Laden, along with the references.
With respect to this edit [47], I have cited references, so it doesn't go against the rules.
With respect to this edit [48], I did not restore what I added when it was reverted, because other editors told me to cite references for it (which I could not because of time constraints).
With respect to this edit [49], I copied the matter from State-sponsored terrorism#Pakistan, along with the references and it does say, "Pakistan is perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups" now.
I haven't even edit warred with Smsarmad and he has not even discussed my edits on the discussion/Talk page of the article. Aren't we supposed to discuss things on the Talk page, then post a Request for comments and then ask for the mediation committee's help before asking for arbitration (that's what an admin told me when I complained about another editor/user)?—Khabboos (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I also observed that Smsarmad added complaints no.3 and 4 later. Luckily, I was online and able to reply. If he makes another complaint, please give me the opportunity to reply before blocking/banning me. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- @AcidSnow: When no admin replied to your first ANI report, it means they found it wasn't worth acting on (they did not take action when I reported to them about you either - that too I followed the right procedure also, i.e.discuss things on the Talk page, then post a Request for comments, then ask for the mediation committee's help and then ask for arbitration). I never restored the sentence, so I haven't edit warred with you on that sentence, which means I cannot be banned for it. I did not do anything, 'to get past the vote'.—Khabboos (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Note to administrators: I'm logging out now because of other things to do. Please give me a chance to reply to any allegation before blocking/banning me. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: AcidSnow and you were also warned, so what?—Khabboos (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Smsarmad: I did not restore the sentence, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" after the Rfc on the Talk Page - stop making false allegations.—Khabboos (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- @AcidSnow: If you say that Toddy1, you and me were just informed and not warned, it's fine with me. Please check the date for the restoration of the sentence, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" - clearly, it was not after the Rfc on the Talk Page.—Khabboos (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Smsarmad: I did not restore the sentence, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" after the Rfc on the Talk Page - stop making false allegations.—Khabboos (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: AcidSnow and you were also warned, so what?—Khabboos (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Toddy1
Khabboos had it explained to him/her in February that he/she could not just paste in fake or misrepresented citations - see Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan#Hinduism in Pakistan#Persecution. You will see that he/she was warned on 14 February 2014 about discretionary sanctions at User talk:Khabboos/Archive 1#Discretionary sanctions are applied to articles related to Pakistan.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by AcidSnow
This does is not seem to be true since you demanded that I go find citations for them since they are "true statements". Instead, I responded with reasons as to why there is no need for me to do it, but you never responded. AcidSnow (talk)
- Edit: Khabboos, nobody said that you were edit warring; these types of edits are not allowed and can still lead you to be sanctioned. I was also merely stating how you constantly play the "novice card" when told to stop your disruptive editing and them demand another user to do the same exact action. AcidSnow (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Khabboos has also engaged in forum shopping about the same issue (see here, this is my original ANI report about him were a list a few of them and other problems with this user though almost no admin responded to me). I would give you more diffs on this specific issue, but I don't have the time to do so (maybe later); though there are also other issues that are more problematic. Most of the users that did respond to his request stated that they "oppose" it. Yet, instead of respecting the outcome he went and used sock puppetry (see here for two more, I plan on making an investigation soon) so he can get past the vote. Even after being warned that he was severally risking being banned off Wikipedia he went, instead of responding to it, automatically archived it (he has responded to all other comments on his talk page, but not this?). He would later specifically remove it off his archive, but kept everything else intact. Why would he do that unless he was trying to hid it? I don't see why he is allowed to edit on Wikipedia, let alone these types of articles when he continuously doing the same thing even after being told to stop and being given numerous chances to reform himself. AcidSnow (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes Khabboos, I was informed that these types of articles are are under discretionary sanctions, but not cause I was doing anything wrong. AcidSnow (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- " I did not restore the sentence", that's a bold thing to say Khabboos, even after being shown that you have. AcidSnow (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- "they found it wasn't worth acting", not true as I was told to wait by admins for assistance, but I decided that it was best to let it get archived. AcidSnow (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- "when I reported to them about you either", they did respond, but did nothing because I did nothing wrong. Plus, I was never informed that these articles are under discretionary sanctions. You, however are a different story. You did not even follow the right procedure to begin with, but simply formed shopped. AcidSnow (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Result concerning Khabboos
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
In my view, diffs 1 and 2 are not actionable because the submitter does not explain, as they are required to, how specifically the edits misrepresent or falsify sources, or constitute edit-warring. Diff 3 is more problematic, especially the parts that read "Moreover, the muslims in India do not live in fear, the way minorities in Pakistan live" and "muslims are pampered as a part of vote Bank politics in India". In addition to the grammatical deficiencies, this is not only unsourced (WP:V) but also it appears intended to make a particular political argument rather than to neutrally inform readers about the variety of opinions that may exist (WP:NPOV). Such content should not be added to articles. If Khabboos does not demonstrate their understanding of this, we should consider a topic ban. Sandstein 16:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)