Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:33, 14 May 2018

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

E-960

E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours. If disruptive tagging is an issue, another request should be made, with evidence that will allow admins unfamiliar with the sources to understand the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning E-960

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: E-960 (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:ARBEE, page level article restrictions - 1RR (+original author as in ARBPIA)

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

Revision as of 19:22, 6 May 2018 revert 1 of this edit - Revision as of 08:54, 26 April 2018 (with modifications).
Revision as of 20:54, 6 May 2018 revert 2 (reverting an IP - not a 1RR vio, does count for 3RR later).
Revision as of 05:40, 7 May 2018 revert 3
revision as of 06:35, 7 May 2018 revert 4.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

4 reverts on a 1RR article. There are also BLP and RS issues for some of the information added. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba and various discussions at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland such as Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Should Grabowski be removed ?.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified

Additional comments by Icewhiz

RE E-960's comments below -

I tagged the article once in the past two weeks - with this edit in 27 April in which I said "tag - better source - literature professor writing about literature." I subsequently refuted the stmt made by this source in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty - with RSes showing the death penalty was imposed for this in other occupied countries. It is unclear to me how this is "users Icewhiz ... continue to tag bomb".
In this 6 May edit with the edit summary " FRINGEy source, interview in which he says indirectly - as he said all along." - I perhaps should have been clearer. I was referring (before the comma) to the right wing internet portal wPolityce as WP:FRINGE (which it is, in and of itself) - all the more so when the coverage in wPolityce was of comments posted to Facebook by Jakub Kumoch - the Polish ambassador to Switzerland - this is not an appropriate source for WWII history, and possibly also a BLP vio. After the comma I was referring to the interview in Gazeta Wyborcza (which is not FRINGE) - as superfluous - as we never say (nor has Grabowski in any scholarly publication or in a media interview that we found so far on Wikipedia) that Grabowski estimates 200,000 murdered by the Poles - as Grabowski had always said "directly and indirectly" (or variations thereof). Some FRINGEy outlets such as wPolityce may have reported second or third hand that he had said that - however we do not cover that (nor does it seem relevant!) - so covering his clarification to a question (by Gazeta Wyborcza) about claims by "right-wing historians and publicists" is out of context and irrelevant (particularly since the text E-960 introduced leads off with "directly and indirectly"). Both these issues (the Facebook posts by the Polish ambassador and the "clarification" (which was what was being said all along) - were dicussed in-depth at the talk-page - E-960 returned an old version of the text and as far as I can see did not participate in the recent talk page discussion on this particular topic.Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning E-960

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 E-960

I'd like to respectfully object to user Icewhiz's reporting of me, as his "Reverts" were done under a false and misleading pretense.

In this example [1] user Icewhiz reverted text containing two RELIABLE reference sources, and in his Edit Summary writing in that these are "FRINGE source[s]" (and here [2] the unture claim was made that the same text was ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Yet, both these reference sources are two of the biggest newspapers in Poland, and in the case of Gazeta Wyborcza, the reference was the actual INTERVIEW with historian Jan Grabowski, and the removed text was what the historian said himself. To call these sources "FRINGE" unfortunately comes across as nothing more than an excuse to arbitrarily remove the text. Also, to back up this suspicion users Icewhiz and François Robere continue to tag bomb the article (here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) and revert text back-up by reliable reference sources using the 'IJUSTDONTLIKEIT shame tagging' tactic, and they have been warned about it and their tags reverted by other editors such as GizzyCatBella, Nihil novi, and Volunteer Marek, as this keeps occurring.

In any case, I can apologize for my knee jerk reaction to restore the text, and confirm that in the future I'll keep in mind that this article is under the tighter scrutiny of the 1RR rule. But, also I'd like to ask the Admins to remind users Icewhiz and François Robere that automatically adding un-warranted tags or removing statements containing RELIABLE reference sources by labeling them as FRINGE, can come across as disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls note that wPolityce newspaper is not FRINGE. In 2018, it has around 1.2 million regular readers (and an accompanying weekly news magazine that is available in every newsstand in the country) — though it is righwing, as Gazeta Wyborcza is leftwing. Again, throwing around untrue labels to automatically discredit a conservative news outlet. --E-960 (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by NeilN, to avoid escalating the issue, I can step back for the suggested time, and let the content discussion play out on the article talk page. --E-960 (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

(writing in progress...will finish today)GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC) I'll hold off on my comment and keep my word for future later use if necessary. NeilN's recommendation [10] is very fair in my opinion.GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning E-960

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

@NeilN: These are your page-level restrictions, could you please evaluate this request? Sandstein 13:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a pretty blatant violation and E-960 seems to be aware of this given the apology above. I'm not familiar enough with the sources in question to comment sensibly on the wider dispute, though I note that at least some sources have been removed or tagged for being non-english-language without translation, which is not appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1RR violation involving a sourcing dispute but in light of E-960's assertion that they will be more careful I would suggest they voluntarily restrict themselves to using the talk page for the next 72 hours in lieu of discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim!

Salvidrim! made and caught their own mistake, so other than a massive TROUT there's nothing to do other than kicking the page back to the draft space and letting someone else review it. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Salvidrim!

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Salvidrim! (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/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors#Salvidrim! prohibited (II) :

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

Today moving an article Drafted by others into mainspace

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

D'oh! I was casually looking up this game, found a draft in Draftspace that looked fine, moved it to mainspace and wikified it a bit. Then choked on my coffee when I recalled I was currently prohibited from reviewing AfC Drafts or moving other people's AfC Drafts into mainspace. In this case there was no AfC template but I don't wanna look like the guy intentionally toeing the line and going after Drafts just because they don't have AfC tags, without regard for the spirit of the sanction. I'm self-reporting here before someone else does. I think it's probably no big deal but "thinking it's no big deal" is part of what landed me before ArbCom so I'm not sure how much my self-assessment is worth. That I should "seek external review" was the point that the case commenters wanted to hammer into my skull so that's what I'm doing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

My face has been notified by my palm.

Discussion concerning Salvidrim

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 Salvidrim

re Tony: I guess my first thought was that self-reverting might be seen as "yet another attempt to avoid scrutiny"? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, apologies if this is a bit of a timewaster. Another one. Plus I couldn't self-revert anyways since I left a redirect at the draftspace title per usual practice. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Can you just re: draftify and slap an AfC tag on it for someone else to review? I appreciate the self-reporting here, but this seems like a bit of a waste of time. When someone accidentally violates an AE sanction, the norm is just to self-revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Salvidrim

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

Crawford88

Crawford88 is strongly cautioned to follow closely what sources actually state, be aware of WP:ASSERT, and not to overreach when writing article content based on reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Crawford88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Crawford88 (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: From the definitions of discretionary sanctions, "Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, ...comply with all applicable policies and guidelines... etc" (emphasis mine).

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

08:30, 7 May 2018 Reinstates removed content in violation of WP:NPOV (because of its language) and of WP:V and WP:NOR because said language is not supported by the source in question. Furthermore, the reinstatement was made despite my having been explicit about the OR problem when removing said content.
08:32, 7 May 2018 Reinstates removed content in violation of NPOV. The source discusses defaming a government and a country; the content claims defamation of Hindus.

At this point, I reverted the edits, once again describing the problems with them, and left a warning on this user's page, describing the specific problems with reinstating the edits. They essentially brushed off this warning.

04:47, 8 May 2018 Once again reinstates content in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V, despite having seen and responded to my warning above. This version addresses the "defaming Hindus" part of the problem, but reinstates the other original research and non-neutral language for a second time.

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)

Editor was alerted to discretionary sanctions in January 2017. While this was 15 months ago, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest they are therefore unaware of the sanctions, having edited in this topic area continuously since.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There's several incorrect statements and fundamental misunderstandings in Crawford88's statement.

I haven't used my administrator tools on this page, and as I am aware of WP:INVOLVED, am not likely to do so.
"Hindu" and "Hindutva foot soldier" are not the same either, and if Crawford88 believes them to be, he is simply demonstrating his unsuitability for editing this topic.
The importance of the content I removed is quite irrelevant, as is the presence of other sources. I removed the content because it wasn't supported by the cited source.
Crawford reinstated it, thereby taking responsibility for it, in violation of our core policies. He still does not appear to see the problem with that. Neil, he's responded, as you asked; could you take a look? Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Well, they reinstated original research, were warned about it and reverted it, and then reinstated it again. This is far worse than a lost of behavior I've seen sanctioned here. You're right that an isolated incident may not be worth a sanction under normal circumstances; but that's only when we have some indication that it is an isolated incident, ie that it won't be repeated. Crawford88 hasn't even recognized problematic behavior here. Vanamonde (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [11]

Discussion concerning Crawford88

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 Crawford88

The two separate edits for which Vanamonde93 is crying foul are:

'Allegation by media and Church organizations for a case involving a nun's rape and church vandalism': This case has gathered heavy mainstream attention and elections were fought over this issue calling it the tyranny by Hindu nationalist Sangh Parivar and BJP.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] The allegation by Vanamonde93 that the source only talks about "defaming a government and a country" is utter falsehood, as it specifically says, "Far from being a Hindutva foot soldier, as the CBCI, the media, commentators and the opposition had alleged, the man was a Muslim and, that too, a Bangladeshi!".

'A certain talk show hosted by Tony Brown': This not so relevant in India, but for American Hindus, this incident's importance can be gathered by the documentation of this event in various books and journals.^[5] including the seminal Encyclopedia of African American History.^[6] WLS - AM 890 is a powerful and influential radio in US over 90 years old in which Brown expressed his anti-Hindu views.

But, as this is an AE proceeding, the things I said about, which ideally should have been part of the discussions on the specific page's talk page discussion, are not relevant. This proceeding is a gross misuse of administrative privileges of Vanamonde93 which he uses to randomly targets well meaning Wikipedia users who do not tag his line. There has been two reverts by me (on two different days) and I have been careful of not violating any Wikipedia policy. So, instead of having a meaningful dialogue about why he considers there is WP:NPOV and absence of WP:V, Vanamonde93 jumps straight into threatening me of an AE proceeding (which to his credit he did). This is what (s)he's claiming to be constructive feedback, "blatant original research, non-neutral wording, and dodgy sources." without any specific instances or reasons.

Highhandedness by Wiki moderators and administrators will only reduce the already waning credibility of Wikipedia in being neutral and welcoming of new editors and users. Crawford88 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Nun rape and church vandalism: The fringe is now mainstream". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
^ "Nun rape and church vandalism: Hindutva idea or land-grabbing technique?". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
^ "Christians Say They are Under Siege in India After Nun's Rape, Church Attacks". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
^ Today, Christian. "Christians Outraged at WB Nun Gang-rape, Vandalism of Haryana Church". Christian Today. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
^ Kumar, M. Kumar R. (2009). Women Health, Empowerment and Economic Development: Their Contribution to National Economy. Deep & Deep Publications. ISBN 9788184501346.
^ Finkelman, Paul; Wintz, Cary D. (2009). Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present: From the Age of Segregation to the Twenty-first Century Five-volume Set. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 9780195167795.

Statement by Sitush

The example given by Vanamonde93 may be part of a pattern. I come across Crawford88 from time to time and have often thought them to be at best an apologist for Hindutva and at worst an outright proponent of it. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, of course, but when one's political etc philosophy becomes self-evident in one's edits across a range of articles then it suggests that neutral editing is unlikely to be at the forefront. Recent examples include a spat (with associated edit warring) at Talk:Koenraad_Elst#Feb,_2018 and unexplained removals of categories relating to far-right politics in India around 18 April, eg here and here. Let's not make any bones about it: Hindu nationalism is regularly described as a fascist philosophy and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have to work hard to support their opinion. We are not censored; Crawford88 should not be censoring. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Crawford88

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

@Vanamonde93:, as presented, this doesn't seem to be AE actionable unless you can document a pattern of POV editing in the area. @Crawford88:, bringing an issue to AE is not an admin action and is in no way a gross or otherwise "misuse of administrative privileges". I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, otherwise you're only supporting the complaint brought against you. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot sanction Crawford88 because of the Arbcom-mandated awareness requirement. If there is no further input in the next few hours I will close this request with a strong caution to Crawford88 to follow closely what sources actually state, be aware of WP:ASSERT, and not to overreach when writing article content based on reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DanaUllman

As pointed out, this was a community sanction which replaced an expired or expiring ArbCom sanction. I will take it to ANI. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning DanaUllman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DanaUllman (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

I think DanaUllman should be sitebanned for violation of sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

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

[12] asks for help undeleting article on Dana Ullman, and immediately veers into characteristic apologia for homeopathy itself.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
Indefinite topic ban [13]
User talk:DanaUllman contains discussion of the scope of this ban, DanaUllman is well aware that it applies everywhere.

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 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
Blocked at 23:00, March 24, 2018 by user:GoldenRing for topic ban violations.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

DanaUllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, he is, by admission, Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a tireless promoter of homeopathy. He has made exactly one mainspace edit since his 2008 topic ban, and that was promoting a purveyor of bogus diagnostics, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted.

His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

Discussion concerning DanaUllman

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 DanaUllman

Statement by (username)

Statement by Spartaz

this is the link for the closed discussion confirming the sanction. Curiously, the tban is a community sanction reimposing the arbcom tban. Buggered if I know whether its out of scope as a community not arbitration sanction or not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Per the 2012 Arbcom motion, it appears that Homeopathy sanctions were rolled into Pseudoscience. So this enforcement request should be handled as if it was asking for Pseudoscience enforcement. The 2012 motion was in effect dropping sanctions in some areas such as Gibraltar but for other topics, such as Cold Fusion and Homeopathy, it was reshuffling them under new headers. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning DanaUllman

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

To the extent that a violation of a community topic ban is alleged, AE does not enforce community sanctions. To the extent that enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy is requested, the request does not make clear which specific remedy of that decision is to be enforced here, and why.
But to the extent that discretionary sanctions may be requested, I would support a topic ban from the topic of Dana Ullman to stop the attempts at self-promotion. Sandstein 06:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz

Editors directed to WP:RSN to discuss Chodakiewicz. GizzyCatBella directed to write Icewhiz's name properly and reminded that communications on the English-language Wikipedia need to be in English. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Icewhiz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Icewhiz (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

Misconduct in two matters subject to discretionary sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons

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

The editor acted in a troublesome manner by targeted removal of references to the particular historian (Marek Chodakiewicz - a living person) on 12 different E. Europe related articles. Seldom in a threshold of 2 minutes in between edits. These appear to be thoughtless edits in a sole purpose of removing the historian as a source.

05:02, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Invasion of Poland with hitting edit summary -> "not about the invasion itself, questionable author, doesn't seem to be used here"
07:00, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Cursed soldiers with beating edit summary -> "highly biased author making a very contentious claim - that should at the least be attributed, but probably doesn't merit inclusion"
07:02, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Cursed soldiers
07:04, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Soviet partisans with the unclear edit summary
07:06, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Soviet partisans with misleading edit summary -> "UNDUE"
08:19, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Peace of Riga
08:36, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Wąsosz pogrom
10:56, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Soviet partisans
11:08, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Peace of Riga
11:23, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Cursed soldiers
12:15, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Bielski partisans
12:20, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Przytyk pogrom with edit summary -> "Fringe view, not lede worthy, particularly since some of it is sourced to a bl"
12:26, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Przytyk pogrom
12:32, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Mokotów Prison
12:34, 8 May 2018 Removed source to interview with Chodakiewicz @ History of the Jews in 20th-century Poland
12:41, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Przytyk
13:07, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Vladimir Alganov
13:13, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Piotr Śmietański
13:29, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Peter Vogel (banker)

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

User filed (@ least twice) a call for discretionary sanctions himself, latest on May 7, 2018 [15]. Also several times commented [16], they are well informed of the sanctions.
Alerted also about discretionary sanctions in the other area of conflict [17]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On March 8 the editor Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started [18] to make edits to the page of the living Polish historian Marek Chodakiewicz in a profoundly critical fashion. Edits continued until today. [19] Then On May 8th, they went into a frenzy cruse removing any reference to Chodakiewcz from 12 separate Poland and the Holocaust articles under false or no valid justifications at all. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

Discussion concerning Icewhiz

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 Icewhiz

I have indeed been reviewing use of Chodakiewicz as a source - going over most of the uses of him on enwiki. Chodakiewicz is a highly WP:BIASED source (more below) even when writing in a peer-reviewed reviewed setting. While some of his writings have been published academically (in journals and more reputable publishers), much of what he writes is not published academically - varying from non-academic publishers, Polish newspapers of a particular bent, and his various blogs. I am willing to defend each and every one of those diffs if needed (and I'll note - GCB hasn't bothered to discuss) - in some cases I removed highly-biased statements that were made in Wikipedia's voice while representing a rather fringe view, in others I removed sourcing to blog posts, and in a few cases - I removed information that wasn't even in the cited source. It has been my impression that when editors resort to using a source such as Chodakiewicz - there are often other problems involved (both NPOV and V).

As for Marek Jan Chodakiewicz -

Besides being a historian, he's also a far-right activist.Newsweek 2017 For instance he's appeared in a rally of the far-right Ruch Narodowy and said: "We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!".video Newsweek.
He's been covered by the SPLC (2009, 2017) and HopeNothate. Coverage in Newsweek.[[21]. You may read these for his views on gays, multiculturalism, Obama, genocide and whites in South Africa, Jewish communist collaboration, use of Rivers of blood, etc. Adam Michnik has gone so far as to compare his writings to the Protocols.[22]
In an academic setting, he's been described in a historiography source as the "most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of historical writing"[23]. You might see more with this search in these two books: [24][25]. His recent book, Intermarium, as been described in a review in a peer reviewed journal as promoting the return of the pre-1772 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book".[26]. Piotr Wróbel and Antony Polonsky have also critiqued him, with Wrobel saying "The book under review has a visible political agenda and is written in a language full of politically loaded key words. Everyone whose opinions are different than Chodakiewicz’s is a “pundit” (the author’s favorite word). Some, and this is really bad, are “leftist pundits." and "The Massacre is, in my opinion, difficult to read, unoriginal, irritating, and unconvincing" and Polonsky saying "It does not rise above the clichés of old-fashioned national apologetics" and "What is most striking about this book is the lack of empathy with those caught up in these tragic events."[27]. I could go on.... Suffice to say that academic works by Chodakiewicz have been criticized quite a bit.

Reviewing use of sources is what we do on Wikipedia - per WP:V, WP:NPOV. I submit that per WP:BIASED review of the use of Chodakiewicz is more than warranted, and obviously removing what doesn't pass WP:V - e.g. this diff GCB presents - in which we were ascribing to Chodakiewicz a claim he did not actually write in his political blog - is required per V policy as well and WP:BLP given we were falsely ascribing a statement to Chodakiewicz.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang proposal: GizzyCatBella repeatedly introducing information from a self-published book by a questionable author that was refuted

Note that the editor using GCB as a handle has admitted to editing as an IP as well - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella - admission here and elsewhere. Editing as one of the IP's in GCB's range in April, GCB introduced the following - text and source. This was discussed as a source with GCB in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek (where this didn't receive support). In conjunction, we also discussed Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty - in which Poland being the only country with the death penalty for helping Jews was outright refuted. Ewa Kurek is mainly covered for making stmts such as "Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II."[28][29][30]. And does not hold a significant academic appointment.[31][32]. So far - one use of a questionable source. However, GCB then added a self-published book (iUniverse) in a number different articles -

I'll also note, given the circumstances that Poeticbent Revision as of 13:19, 25 April 2018 also re-added Kurek.

GCB has not discussed this at the relevant article talk page (complaining instead on the wall of text - see Talk:Irena Sendler#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source and Talk:The Holocaust in Poland#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source) - and instead has been reverting. Use of a WP:SPS is a clear no-go, when it is a questionable author as well, making a claim that has been clearly refuted - it is even less acceptable. Repeated reversions of this without discussion are WP:IDHT. In an area with discretionary sanctions - editors are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and WP:V - which is clearly not the case in the diffs above.

Note I did open a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul after the last revert - however this shouldn't have gotten to this - an editor re-inserting a self-published book, by a questionable author, with a false claim, repeatedly - in a sanctioned area!Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - GCB has also been possibly WP:HOUNDING my edits - as might be see in the editor interaction tool. In particular their decision to WP:ILIKEIT !vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darioush Rezaeinejad diff, Revision as of 04:49, 7 May 2018 which I nominated - which is their 4th AfD page edited - in a topic area (Iran) which GCB has not edited at all (or much at all) is quite telling.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They've also, in a manner that seems intentional, been using "Itzewitz" (and variations thereof - as opposed to my user name) to refer to me,[33][34][35] going back almost a month.[36] which seems disrespectful and possibly WP:NPA.Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The disputing editors should open a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard if they cannot come to a consensus on the talk page.

BTW, not to say "I told you so", but in the recent ANI scuffle about this topic area, I suggested that all the warring editors should be topic-banned from these articles under ARBEE, but no one was interested in doing so. This is not going to stop, the positions are too entrenched, and it's eventually going to end up in a full-blown Arbitration case, simply because admins wouldn't take positive action to control the subject area. This calls into question the effectiveness of discretionary sanctions if no one is willing to utilize them. I believe this situation to be a rare case of the failure of effective administration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Icewhiz

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

This looks like a content dispute about whether this Chodakiewicz is appropriate as a source. Because arbitration and by extension AE does not decide content disputes, I would take no action here. Sandstein 06:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Come back after you've debated the source on WP:RSN. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with others above that RSN is the place to discuss the validity of a source. Unless that question has been resolved, there is nothing behavioural to deal with here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page restriction for infobox addition and infobox discussion at Stanley Kubrick

Infobox restriction posted at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request: Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Standard discretionary sanctions

I'm not sure whether page restrictions have ever been placed per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I thought I'd ask uninvolved admins here before I try it. There's been a long-running war about whether or not to have an infobox at Stanley Kubrick, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again on the talkpage, and with an infobox being repeatedly added to the article, and then promptly removed. The last explicit consensus on the matter (=no infobox) was back in 2015. I'm considering placing the following page restriction:

"You must not start another infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, until the general infobox RfC is finished, or before 9 September 2018, whichever comes first, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." Not an elegant sentence, but Template:Ds/editnotice is extremely constraining. (Note: mention of the general infobox RfC will be removed per below.)

The template will also automatically add this text in smaller font: "An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is due to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully. Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm. Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision." [There are various links in the text also.] And I thought I'd also add a comment from myself at the bottom of the page, to explain that if people break the restriction it's most likely because they haven't seen it (the top of the page is dominated in the usual way by a mass of, to me, uninteresting wikiprojects information that makes it unlikely anything else will be noticed or read, but I digress), and they shouldn't be dragged immediately to AE, but politely told about the restriction and asked to self-revert. Plus I'll also explain where to appeal against the restriction, namely, here on AE.

My rationale is that we shouldn't abandon articles and contributors to endless bickering, but put the new discretionary sanctions to use, as I assume ArbCom intended when they set them. The general infobox RfC at the Village Pump has run into the sands and nobody seems up for closing it, which I don't wonder at. God, no. There was an unsuccessful attempt within that RfC to set a limit of six months for starting yet another infobox discussion on an article talkpage. As you can see, I'm offering a restriction of four months on Talk:Stanley Kubrick, where yet another straw poll has just started and been closed, after there was one in early April... Thoughts? Pinging Laser brain, who just posted an appeal for an infobox discussion break on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 07:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Francis Schonken: but I'm only proposing it for Stanley Kubrick. I'll admit I hope it'll be the thin end of the wedge and lead to comparable page restrictions being placed on other articles with a troubled infobox history, but I'm not proposing it as a "default", nor do I have any notion very many articles will need any kind of infobox restriction. Note that my wording says "nor add an infobox to the article", which you have left out in both yours. It's quite an important part. For some other pages, with different histories and consensuses, one would presumably say "nor remove the infobox from the article". Also, I really want a date, rather than a generalized "within four months after a previous discussion mentioning that topic has been archived or formally closed", with its rich opportunities for lawyering. ('But it was closed by a non-admin!' 'But it was archived by a disruptive editor!') Also, the expiry parameter in your first suggestion doesn't work — I suppose the template doesn't have it. But I do appreciate the attempts to improve the wording. My proposal is certainly clumsy. (The template insists it must begin with "You" and end with "and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page", so it's quite the Procrustean bed.) Bishonen | talk 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@NeilN: I have to be frank: I'm not well-read enough in general infobox discussions (because I kind of can't stand reading them) to know whether infobox disruption is confined to IPs and SPAs. That's one of the reasons reason I'd rather not bundle an extended-confirmed restriction with the other stuff on Stanley Kubrick. Also, it's an ingenious idea that would certainly sort part of the problem, but wouldn't it more be a suggestion for the general Village Pump RfC? Have you considered adding it there? Or is that RfC considered defunct? I mean, nothing against Good Day's talkpage, but how widely read is it? Bishonen | talk 14:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Francis Schonken: The Village Pump RfC has been put out of its misery? Good. That'll make it simpler, since its closing statement is no help (not the closer's fault, that, for sure). Then I'll just say "You must not start another infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, before", uhh.. "10 September 2018, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." Neat. A bit of luck it didn't get closed a few hours after I'd posted the restriction. Thanks for telling me. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion concerning the page restrictions

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 Francis

Don't know whether any of these variants would be less convoluted:

{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not start a new discussion on whether or not to include an infobox in this article,|topic=cid|expiry=9 September 2018}}
{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not re-initiate discussion on whether or not to include an infobox in this article within four months after a previous discussion mentioning that topic has been archived or formally closed,|topic=cid}}

(the infobox of that particular article, mentioned in The Wall Street Journal two days ago, is way beyond a "default" option, that being the topic of the current RfC, so I wouldn't connect timing to that RfC) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: oops, sorry, was only trying to get rid of the awkward time management formulation – new suggestions:

{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not add an infobox to[, nor remove an infobox from,] this article, nor start a new discussion on this talk page on whether or not to include an infobox in this article,|topic=cid|expiry=9 September 2018}}
{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not add an infobox to[, nor remove an infobox from,] this article without consensus establised by a [[WP:ANRFC|formally closed]] discussion, nor should you re-initiate discussion on this talk page on whether or not to include an infobox in this article within four months after any previous discussion mentioning that topic on this talk page has been archived or formally closed,|topic=cid}}

... or some such ... (omit the text in square brackets for Stanley's article). Anyway, support the initiative FWIW. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: the infobox RfC is closed now, so your original wording (I mean, its proposed time-schedule) would be a non-starter when introduced now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Laser brain

I think this is a good idea. I've informally requested on the article talk page that it be given a break multiple times, but there is no sign of a stoppage of the series of proposals. Good-faith editors who are completely unaware of the history stumbling onto the page are one thing, but Hentheden, byteflush, and Siliconred have each opened proposals in the last two months with full awareness of the rocky road the article's been on for several months. It is becoming disruptive and I'd like to see some calm on this page. --Laser brain (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning the page restriction

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

Sounds like a good use of DS to me. GoldenRing (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, this may be more controversial but you (and other admins placing editing restrictions) may want to restrict who can start such discussions on certain articles. I suggested this here. There are people out there who use IPs and sock accounts who don't really care about infoboxes but will start arguments about them just to stir up drama and poke at certain editors. I'm not saying the extended-confirmed restriction should be automatically be bundled in with your restriction, but rather considered as an option for certain articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Probably impossible to get community consensus on this and admins have leeway to judiciously apply whatever restrictions they see fit. Note I'm not suggesting restricting newer editors from participating in re-litigation but just from starting discussions. I know I'll be adding that restriction if I apply moratoriums on discussions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting as an admin, this is exactly why we applied DS to the topic area. My only suggestion is that you don’t tie this to a specific RfC, which is somewhat arbitrary. I’d just do two or three months from the last discussion closure and leave it at that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: Agree with Rob but largely for pessimistic reasons: I don't think that a large community RfC is likely to definitively resolve this issue, and tying it to that is unlikely to be helpful down the road (where even if the community resolves one issue, another is likely to occur, as they tend to.) I would suggest something like No discussions may be initiated about an infobox for at least 90 days after the close of a previous discussion. I'm neutral on the EC requirement Neil suggests. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, noting I saw the close after I read Bish's original proposal and Rob's response. Yeah, the RfC just reinforced the status quo, so I stand by my comment above. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 90 days is way too short, IMO. We'd be having the same ~~damn~~ ~~fuitful~~ conversation four times a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - 180 days? 365 days? I don't particularly care, but I think it should be an ongoing DS and not just a one-off until September. This reminds me a bit of the Sarah Jane Brown RM where we did a 2 year moratorium. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - My thinking is September may be about the right time to try to do without the restriction — then, if the situation degenerates again, restore the restriction. After all, the infobox question isn't the heart and soul of the article; it's not like the kind of conflict that keeps Donald Trump eternally under page restrictions; people may conceivably forget the infobox issue once they've had a rest from it. But I'm not married to September, or any particular time. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
      - Fair point, and its worth an initial try that way as this would be a first of it's kind. It's not exactly like page level restrictions are difficult to impose. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) with Tony: And as for having the same footful (fateful?) conversation four times a year, NeilN, why should we? It's only because the very notion of a page restriction per the infobox case ds is new (to me at least) that I took it here in the first place; for the future it's the kind of thing I'd just do, as surely would most admins. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
      - @Bishonen: We're talking about different conversations. Tony suggested a moratorium on article talk page discussions lasting 90 days. That would mean infobox discussions could start up four times a year. I would just apply a "fire and forget" restriction: New discussions cannot be opened until a year has passed after the close of the last discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll close this soon, since I've received plenty of good advice; thank you all very much. I note that several people seem to prefer a time-scale something on the lines of "no infobox discussion until at least 90 days after a previous discussion has been archived/closed," rather than a set date. I just think a date is less susceptible to wikilawyering, per above. The disadvantage is that it will become obsolete, but, well, then it can be re-applied if still needed. I'd so much like to see a simple page restriction which needs no Kremlinology to interpret it, so I'm going with the set date to save all our nerves. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Theres a historic disapproval of arbitrators commenting at AE, but whatever: per my comment at your talk page, belated pile-on support for this appropriate use of infobox DS, and agree that a set date restriction is preferable. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella

Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Request concerning GizzyCatBella

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GizzyCatBella (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 Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts alert.dup. Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.

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

Revision as of 21:14, 25 March 2018 Icewhiz issued DS alert on ARBEE by other user.

Revision as of 04:53, 9 May 2018 - GizzyCatBella files AE against Icewhiz for ARBEE.

Latest revision as of 16:08, 9 May 2018 Icewhiz issued DS alert on ARBEE issue by GizzyCatBella.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive230#GizzyCatBella - blocked for 72 hours for ARBEE.

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

Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018

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

(+given sanction +filed case on 9 May on ARBEE).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WP:POINTy DS alert in violation of alert.dup, particularly that given their own AE filing today - GizzyCatBella was asserting I was aware of the sactions.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition - this edit by GCB at 16:25, 9 May 2018 (concurrent to filing) is a BLP violation as well as contrary to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba - consensus (by uninvovled editors) at RSN was that if this were to be included - it had to be attributed to the Polish ambassador in Poland - this is a right wing internet portal reporting on the Polish ambassador to Switzerland's facebook post - which is used to make a stmt in our voice on what Grabowski did - Subsequently, Grabowski acknowledged that his estimate was not the result of original research, but was based on referencing works of other historians, most notably Szymon Datner, and as reported by the Polish newspaper wPolityce: "Grabowski admitted that the number of 250,000 fugitives from the ghettos is based solely on his own estimates and selective treatment of Szymon Datner's works. Grabowski simply took into account the maximum number of escapes from the ghetto suggested by Datner, but he rejected his estimates of the number of survivors. According to Grabowski—if you subtract the number of survivors (in his opinion only 50,000 people) from the number of fugitives, you will get 200,000. Grabowski, therefore, stated that this was the number of Jews murdered by Poles.".Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: - Had this been a simple mistake, I would not have filed. However in this case GCB filed a baseless AE complaint against me, claiming ARBEE awareness, and the after that AE was rejected issued a POINTy DS alert. Note they did not do this formality concurrent to the AE, but after. This is not a simple mistake - as either the AE filing was done in bad faith, or the alert was issued in bad faith. Since they had claimed correctly that I was aware of ARBEE due to me filing an ARBEE AE in 7 May 2018 against another user - they were well aware, at the very least, that I was aware until 7 May 2019. Finally, I submit that a user whose main contribution of late is getting blocked for edit warring on a sanctioned page, and making edits sourced to coverage of Facebook posts, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (including political blogs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leszek Pietrzak, and others - some of which were self published - is NOTTHERE for Polish/Jewish history - this is a NPOV and RS issue - however that is a harder case to make (mainly since it leads to a TLDR complaint) - then a clear alert.dup violation (after filing an AE claiming awareness) - the alert here was a clear duplicate - and at the very least there is a WP:CIR regarding policy and finding the previous alert (which is not that hard to find).Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also add (not TLDR) - this diff on a BLP - Peter Vogel (banker) - which is a BLP violation (user was alerted BLP sanctions here). "World Politics Watch" (www.worldpoliticswatch.com - this seems defunct / taken over) does not fit WP:BLPSOURCES. The removal of the material was clearly marked with BLPSOURCES.Icewhiz (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Withdrawn.07:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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 GizzyCatBella

I sincerely missed the previous alert that was given to Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and entered the template in good faith. I even wrote that I couldn't see it before inserting the alert template. [37] I wrote:

I know you are aware of this but I couldn't find any record of you being properly informed about it in the past. So here you go, now it is official for easy reference.

If I could find the alert and I knew that it had existed already I would refer to it yesterday ->[38] I didn't because I couldn't find it and wrote this instead:

User filed (@ least twice) a call for discretionary sanctions himself, latest on May 7, 2018 [39]. Also several times commented [40], they are well informed of the sanctions.

It's evident that I honestly missed the alert when I was looking for it, and I was honestly thinking that I'm doing the proper thing.[41] User Icewhiz instead has chosen to retaliate and possibly take revenge for me filing a complaint against him yesterday. He could have just told me about the fact that he already has been informed instead of coming here. I would remove the template. His hostile attitude is very troublesome.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS to the "In addition" it refers to this conversation on the talk page [42] and not to what they claim. This is what I wrote : [43] I advise any uninvolved administrator taking a closer look at editing record of Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Poland related articles to have a proper judgment of the alarming conduct. Please let me know if it is mattering and you need to hear my further rationale. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Admin. Additions to this report of bogus infringements resemble Icewhiz behavior while editing the articles. Stance ALWAYS uncompromised and threatening, changes radical, often turning the narrative of the articles by 180 degrees. Edit summaries are often misleading. If challenged, responds with walls of confusing text, full of "TLDR, BLP, ARBEE, RSN, PPP, WCH, PCHRT, etc." abbreviations to create an appearance of credibility. I invite you guys to have a look at his edit history if you have time and energy for this of course, if not I understand. Until last month I was excited that I can dedicate my free time to build this great project, but I have to tell you that my enthusiasm is slowly evaporating.GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

Am I reading this right? Icewhiz, are you asking for GizzyCatBella to be sanctioned for giving you a discretionary sanctions alert when you had already been given one by another editor? The earlier alert was in March, I see. Seriously? Your quote "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned" means people may be sanctioned if they issue alerts over and over. If they pester and harass you with them. Not for making a mistake once! I bet that has happened to lots of people. It happened to me last month. Please use common sense. I see you also bring up another diff in an "additional comment", but I have some trouble understanding that one. If that diff is actually the meat of your complaint, please try to reformulate it in a more pedagogical way. If it's not, you had better withdraw the complaint about the extra alert before an admin sanctions you for posting a "groundless or vexatious complaint", per the notice on this page. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Unhelpful report. It doesn't tell us what is supposed to be wrong with these alerts. The Grabowski stuff looks like a content dispute. I would take no action. Sandstein 05:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe87

Raf87 has now been notified properly of discretionary sanctions and the assumption is that they fully understand the editing restrictions and behavioral expectations involved in the area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Rafe87

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rafe87 (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:1RR of ARBPIA :

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Moreover, the section of anti-Arabism in Israel falls into ARBPIA. Therefore, per third bullet of ARBPIA, if an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. User was supposed to wait at least 24 hours after my revert before reinserting his disputed content full of POV-pushing, unreliable sources, labels and Op-Eds. But a mere 14 hours later he restored it anyway.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[44]

Discussion concerning Rafe87

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 Rafe87

Statement by Shrike

NeilN This is correct but now that he know.He have a chance to self revert.--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think in general everyone should have a chance to self-revert especially if its 1RR--Shrike (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

GoldenRing this editor has been blocked for edit warring, been brought to AE before for 1RR, and warned about 1RR several times over. How many more can/should be afforded to them before we understand that they are ineffective?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN I had a dull moment. I was looking at the diffs like יניב הורון was the one being reported. Since this looks like the editor's first warning, disregard my previous statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rafe87

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

יניב הורון, as far as I can see, these edits came before the mandatory discretionary sanctions alert and Raf87 has not edited since. Is that correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: ~~Not really as they stopped editing before the alert and their edit has already been reverted.~~ Looked at wrong article. I'll wait for a statement from Rafe87. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: Search is still broken here. When was Rafe87 brought to AE? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is my impression also - I'd close this with a warning against future 1RR / 24h violations. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though a quick look through this user's edits is not impressive. This and this is pretty naked canvassing; this edit is pretty clear retaliation for this. There's some good editing in there as well, but I'd advise them to go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00

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 Capitals00

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Capitals00 (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

″You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself″ WP:PERSONALATTACK
″Making up nonsense would result in sanctions against you. You know that NadirAli has WP:CIR issues, just like you do″ WP:PERSONALATTACK.
″Looks like he told you to come here and misrepresent the entire issue for him.″ He is casting WP:ASPERSIONS on a senior editor in good standing Samee.
″Your WP:CIR issues are not even limited to this. You had exhibited similar incompetence on entire Sino-Indian conflicts.″ Rudeness and incompetence accusations during content disputes with editor The Discoverer.
″Given you have been a totally disruptive editor from the get-go″ More bad-faith accusations in content disputes. Also a WP:PERSONALATTACK.
″Misrepresenting Indian position when you believe it will help you pushing your POV,″ Bad-faith accusations.
″so why you are engaging in this disruption now? You have issues with WP:CIR and WP:IDHT and that's the only issue″ More display of bad faith and accusations in content disputes.
″now it is being followed by your typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and repeating same boring refuted arguments.″ More accusations and personal attacks.
″Mar4d Stop engaging in this usual IDHT″ Same as above.
″I was only refuting your senseless excuses for denying Indian victory″ Clear WP:TENDENTIOUS attitude and WP:PERSONALATTACK.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[45] The block log shows a history of blocks for edit war, disruptive and tendentious editing.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [46])

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has a tradition of accusing any editors he has disagreements with to be ″incompetent″, abusing WP:IDHT in content disputes and general incivility. There's a lot of bad-faith comments and ad hominem personal attacks coming from him. The environment this user is creating throughout the project, regardless of topic area, is unhealthy for Wikipedia editing. The block log shows that this historic behaviour is not improving. Which is why I think a very long block is in order. I am going to invite administrator Sandstein who dealt with a similar case with similar users to take a survey of these cases. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Capitals00 by JosephusOfJerusalem

Well lets see your defense case. It has not yet been decided by the administrators at Copyright problems/2018 May 10 that there have definitely been copyright violations yet your WP:PERSONALATTACKs and repetitive uncivil accusations of incompetence against NadirAli and SheriffIsInTown are unceasing and relentless.[47][48][49] So you were already skating on thin ice there. Your response also does not address the uncalled for WP:ASPERSIONS you cast on Samee. This comment is nowhere near the level of WP:PERSONALATTACK the way your comment is in diff 8. WP:BRD here is no justification for this rude (diff 4) vitriolic accusation of incompetence by you on The Discoverer's talkpage. As for Talk:Siachen conflict it does not matter what consensus is or not until it has been reached. You were making accusations of incompetence and generally incivil replies while discussion was ongoing.

Now for your offense case, which is a classic deraiment which cannot justify your misconduct (read WP:NOTTHEM) lets break it down. Going by this user's edit history it is definitely a sleeper account, last active in 2016, then showed up to do a revert and vitriolic talkpost before disappearing and not responding ever again on Talk:Princely state despite the disruption caused. This comment on my talkpage was not a WP:PERSONALATTACK, not least considering that in that context the discussion was initiated by a spurious accusation against me of making ″deceptive pov edits″ (a reference to this plain verifiable edit which has no POV). This edit is an entirely verifiable edit which you wrongly call ″gossip″. The rest of your diffs about me[50][51][52] are either before Bishonen's advice or they are a misrepresentation of my messages of appeal to administrators to stop edit wars. The latter is not WP:CANVASSING.

Again read WP:NOTTHEM. Your misconduct stands unjustified. The evidence concerning you is definitely more extensive than 10 diffs if I really put my mind to collecting them. An example can be your revert of a WP:STATUSQUO version of History of Gilgit Baltistan with a deceptive edit summary of WP:BRD and again here just today after Mar4d was kind enough to restore the WP:STATUSQUO. It is also worth noting you had no prior or subsequent participation at Talk:Princely state despite the false use of WP:BRD in your edit summary.

Response to Raymond3023 by JosephusOfJerusalem

You have not addressed any of Capitals00's misconduct. Rather you have engaged in WP:IDHT by repeating Capitals00's arguments which I have already quashed here.

Perhaps it is natural you will defend Capitals00 and D4iNa4 given your history of coordination with them. I point to the evidence of WP:TAGTEAM here

See Raymond3023/Capitals00 coordination [53][54][55][56]
See D4iNa4/Raymond3023 [57][58][59][60][61].
The same voting is also more evidence.[62][63]. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Power~enwiki by JosephusOfJerusalem

This is a critical analysis of your comment, here. You claim ″The Balochistan one makes nobody look good; perhaps those diffs should be ignored.″ I think you are mistakenly making a false equivalence and making a broad generalisation by unfairly painting everyone with the same brush without due regard to the behavioural facts.

Lets take a look at what happened. The first reply was from Samee, the second was from me. There were no personal attacks or direct comments about specific editors by either of us. According to Dennis Brown a bit of minor push and shove is okay. Now here is Capitals00's reply to both of us. It is certainly not a minor push and shove. Capitals00 cast WP:ASPERSIONS on Samee, ″Looks like he told you to come here and misrepresent the entire issue for him.″ He also attacked me directly and personally without provocation, ″Making up nonsense would result in sanctions against you. You know that NadirAli has WP:CIR issues, just like you do.″ Now lets take a look at my reply. Can you see any WP:PA in my recitation of the guidelines? Compare this with Capitals00's next response, ″You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself.″

Now lets get to the Capitals00-SheriffIsInTown exchange. This is SheriffIsInTown's comment with no WP:PA. This is Capitals00's reply, ″I believe though that you have no issue with them since your actual motive is to defend NadirAli, no matter what you have to say.″ SheriffIsInTown replied again, with no WP:PA to which Capitals00 answered with this. The next part of the chat is not bad [64][65]. It continues until Capitals00 resumes the personal attacks, disruption accusations and CIR taunts on SheriffIsInTown, ″In place of whinning over these reports ...Seems like you don't even know what is a copyright given your CIR issue...Stop wishing that editors should allow you and NadirAli disrupt as much as you want.″

Going through this history shows that the problem is coming only from Capitals00's ″side″ here. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki: The ″retaliatory″ suggestion was in response not to the copyright violation claim, which is itself yet to be decided, but a response to this block demand in Capitals00's comment, ″I would urge admin to block him″. I do not believe there is an equivalence between the users there. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki: This ″wiki-lawyering″ can not justify this attack, nor this earlier one. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Justlettersandnumbers

Can you point out the diffs of ″combative behaviour″? I have already explained in length here, with detailed explanation of diffs, that the problems are entirely one-sided. I agree with SheriffIsInTown's statement that the behavioural problems of a few editors are being unfairly thought of as a problem from everyone. There is no need to create a false equivalence between everyone for the bad actions of a few. Justice does not mean collective punishment, it means identifying the culprit, this is not a Catholic high school where the whole class gets lunch detention because of a few naughty students. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vanamonde93 by JosephusOfJerusalem

I don't think its appropriate for you to comment here because you are involved in much of where Capitals00 is and you are also quite evidently friendly with and defensive of Kautilya3. The user you are protecting calls simple edits such as these "deceptive POV edits" and calls my verifiable editing "smearing." He also thinks these simple and verifiable edits[66][67] are some sort of game. This is an exhibition of battleground behaviour. And shortly after making an incorrect equivalence between me and Capitalsoo's blatant misconduct to ask that I also be blocked with Capitals00, he decides to revert a more than week old edit of mine on a page where both of us had been active and where he had not reverted me before now, since I made the edit. This opportune timing to revert me after commenting against me is also a textbook example of his WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, if you think I am not innocent why not prove it with diffs? As I said you are involved. You have long associations with Kautilya3. Its not right for you to comment here. The issue of involved administrators has been brought up on AE before. And if you seriously want to evaluate everyone's behaviour look at this. After I created this section on Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus Kautilya3 left this notice on my talkpage. He accused me of "targeting editors" just because I opened sections with user names in the headings. What's remarkable is that he does that himself, but that is not targeting editors? Just last month he created a section on Talk:1947 Jammu massacres with a heading calling my edits "Poor quality edits". He also accused me then and there of making "POV edits" and fighting "silly games" because of this verifiable edit. Evidently, when I see other TPs, I am not the only user having this issue of double standards with him. Sandstein I would encourage you to look at the evidence I have given about Kautilya3 here. I belive they are very much a net negative for the encyclopedia. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[68]

Discussion concerning Capitals00

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 Capitals00

Looks like JosephusOfJerusalem is back to his usual modus operandi by filing frivolous report on this board to get rid of his opponents like he has also done before.

10 diffs from last 4 months is all he got? When you are wasting time of majority of editors by going against consensus and engaging in disruption, you just can't expect other editors not to cite WP:CIR and WP:IDHT or react. To reply all those cherrypicked diffs, it is a mere reaction when you see hoards of disruption by editors engaging in violations of WP:OR (diff 8), WP:COPYVIO (diff 5), WP:BRD,(diff 4) WP:NPA/WP:IDHT (diff 1),(diff 2), (diff 3), (diff 6 and diff 7), (diff 9), (diff 10). Citing WP:CIR is not a personal attack, because that page is "an explanatory supplement to the disruptive editing guideline" per community consensus.[69] Much of the diffs here comes from Talk:Siachen conflict where consensus was to include what I supported. Why you can't show diffs where I was going against consensus or I had been problematic and had no consensus for edits?

JosephusOfJerusalem has always engaged in personal attacks:-

"page was quite stable until 30 April when a sleeper account" [70] (referring a long term editor as "sleeper")
"People who have battles to fight and socks in contact will have the L-RD" [71]
"removing POV warrior's bad faith message" [72]
"removing threats from the POV warriors" [73]
"bad faith warning by a disruptive editor on the verge of being blocked" [74]

And rest of the diffs of this report and below one comes from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 May 10, where JosephusOfJersualem has defended copyright violation by falsely claiming that "I could not find any copyright violations".[75] Now that is clear evidence of WP:CIR and WP:DE, and he also attempted to selectively censor a comment that he didn't liked.[76] Clearly he has competence issues and thinks that it is a personal attack if WP:CIR has been cited to him, despite his defense of copyrights violation and clear WP:IDHT.

In a separate incident from February 2018, he was arguing against 4 editors and alleging of them failure of "WP:LISTEN" and engagement in "WP:CANVASSING", ""WP:DISRUPTION".[77][78] It shows that he resorts to falsely allege others of misconduct only because he is not getting consensus for his POV.

He had been also warned by Bishonen for this problematic editing. However there has been no improvement and the attitude of this editor has only worsened. Furthermore, Bishonen had asked him if "there anything you'd like to share about any previous account/s?"[79] given he registered on 18 October 2017 and has been too professed when it comes to WP:GAMING. JosephusOfJerusalem suspiciously removed that message.[80]

I would request an indefinite topic ban on JosephusOfJerusalem per evidence above as well as for the following:-

WP:EDITWAR: edit warring on Jawaharlal Nehru by promoting controversial gossips,[81][82] despite having no support for his problematic edits.[83] Edit warring on Indian nationalism.[84][85][86]
WP:CANVASS: Canvassed multiple editors to help him in his edit war by restoring his preferred version.[87][88][89]
WP:CIR: Defending copyright violations as noted above. Misrepresentation of "WP:STATUSQUO on talk pages, by restoring new edits that have no consensus.[90][91]
WP:BATTLEGROUND: Usually prefers to allege others of bad faith,[92], create frivolous AfD of notable subject,[93] cites unrelated policies to derail discussion.[94] Capitals00 (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raymond3023

Ironic to see an offensive editor, editing with a battleground mentality, often assuming bad faith and demonstrating significant competence issues is talking about "civility".

These two reports are result of the failure of JosephusOfJerusalem to get his preferred non-consensus version of Princely state protected after trying hard for it.[95][96][97][98]

It is fair to say that JOJ is a case of WP:CIR and probably WP:NOTHERE, since he is mostly engaging in ethnic POV battles, similar to "Towns Hill" (a banned sockmaster).

JOJ's failure to understand copyrights, STATUSQUO, and misrepresentation other relevant policies while mass canvassing other editors with the hopes that he would receive some support for his frivolous report shows that having him topic banned or blocked indefinitely would be best for us. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBlaze Lightning

This is frivolous complaint; there is nothing in the diffs which would even remotely constitute "personal attacks". Also, it is worth mentioning that the majority of the diffs in question are months old—some of them dates back to February, 20 i.e. they are stale. Things get heated up in these subjects, especially when you are dealing with clear WP:OR, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPA, WP:IDHT, but there is nothing sanctionable.

JosephusOfJerusalem comments demonstrates a glaring lack of understanding of the very policies that he citing, not to mention his gross battleground mentality as is evident from his comments here and elsewhere. I also agree with the above comments that JosephusOfJerusalem is desperately trying to get the editors with an opposite POV topic banned so that he could push his POV in peace. And not long ago, JosephusOfJerusalem has filed a similar frivolous report against another established editor.[99]

If JosephusOfJerusalem perceives comments like, "You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself" as "WP:PERSONALATTACK", then he's clearly demonstrating incompetency. He does not even know when to indent and when to outdent his comments,[100][101] so he should not be astonished when an established editor points him to WP:CIR.

What's more striking is that these filings are strongly reminiscent of filings of socks of Faizan/Towns Hill, in particular Sardeeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who used to file similar spurious reports against me and Kautilya3 in order to get them blocked by citing similar trivial or non-violations. Sardeeph was eventually blocked by Boing! said Zebedee and Black Kite for WP:NOTHERE after a long ANI thread[102] that he had himself started and cited same type of evidence that JosephusOfJerusalem has cited here as well as attempted to canvass dozens of editors just like JosephusOfJerusalem is doing here.

Similarities between Sardeeph and JosephusOfJerusalem are just more than that. There is a clear case of WP:DUCK.

Sardeeph filed two AE reports, against me and Kautilya3 on 30 July.[103][104]
And today JosephusOfJerusalem filed two AE reports, against Capitals00 and D4iNa4.
Even the notification left by JosephusOfJerusalem and Sardeeph are totally same:

There is a discussion about your behaviour at WP:AE.[105]

Please see WP:AE for discussion about your behavior.[106]

Sardeeph was indeffed on 20 October 2017. JosephusOfJerusalem registered on 18 October but made his first article space edit on 31 October.[107] I see no doubt that JosephusOfJerusalem is a sock of Sardeeph and he should be blocked for his block evasion. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 13:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've filed an SPI report here. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 15:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mar4d

Support indefinite block on Capitals00; According to JoJ's editing history, he is a neutral user and someone who doesn't have a personal, vested history in this disruption-ridden topic area. Unfortunately I find his observations spot on, having seen Capitals00's edit warring, incessant personal attacks, WP:NOTTHEM excuses and disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour across all pages. The above WP:WALLOFTEXT is the latest example. This unmanageable approach and attitude is justified and tolerated repeatedly without consequence, and the long-term harm it is doing to the project is completely unaccounted for.

This user is responsible for creating a deeply toxic editing environment, and has no one to single-handedly blame but himself. Unlike JoJ, the vast majority of Capitals00's recent talk page interactions involve personal attacks and confrontational vitriol directed at others, not to mention continuous condescending harassment, and there's stack-loads of evidence: [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]. This adds on to the myriad of edit wars, escalating new content disputes, and forcing in relentless WP:POV. It is no wonder then that the entire topic area is in a pitiable condition, when these problems are just the tip of the iceberg. I will take strong exception to MBL and Raymond3023, both of whom are involved users (their own highly problematic conduct issues require a chapter), who defended this user's disruption first on an SPI case (where he himself was not available for defense), and then in the most frivolous example of WP:TAGTEAM on ANI. When multiple people are observing the same, the question is, how long? This needs to end as it has become a net negative for Wikipedia, and it's time the curtains are pulled. For a user who has consistently shown no signs of improvement or reform, an indefinite block is in order. Mar4d (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@D4iNa4: Well, it's a WP:CFORK which was copy-pasted right out of an existing article on the same topic, rejuvenated under a title already rejected by consensus, and it's a copyright violation based on WP:CWW with no text attribution. So yes, I will follow the rules and it will be pursued at WP:DELREV. You meanwhile have serious conduct issues as inherent below and in your response. Mar4d (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Come on Mar4d. Regardless of your long term disruption, you had to be blocked indefinitely a few hours ago for your exceptional disruption on 2016 Indian Line of Control strike. That you edit warred to get that article redirected[134][135] then you started a senseless AFD [136] and after already realizing that you will fail to get the article deleted, you tried to get it deleted under frivolous A10,[137] and after that your senseless AfD was closed as WP:SNOW "speedy keep" under a few hours.[138] That's what sanctionable conduct is, not the diffs showing Capitals providing warnings/guidance to users that you have misrepresented just like you misrepresented. Don't talk about "improvements" when you fail to get consensus on just every single article that you disrupt, such as 2016 Indian Line of Control strike, Siachen conflict, Kashmir conflict, India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present) and lots more. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, that was not a WP:CFORK. You are still not getting that the article's creation was totally valid and was created following the consensus on talk page. Why you even bother to tell you are right and everyone is wrong? Or that you just don't like to get over the results because the consensus is always goes against you. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, you have misrepresented diffs in your comment. The four diffs provided by Raymond3023 are showing that how JosephusOfJerusalem was WP:GAMING the system to get his version protected by edit warring[139] and misrepresenting WP:STATUSQUO.[140] I should also mention that NadirAli made 3 reverts in less than one hour.[141][142][143] On 14:44 yesterday, the comment I had made here by including the diff for "speedy close" is much before the diff for "swiftly reversed" you are providing, because the revert of the the speedy closure happened on 16:21, nearly two hours after my comment on here. You can ask any uninvolved admin if a block is warranted for restoring the copyright violation for which the user has already received a warning, the answer you will get would be yes. Bigger question is that why it happened at first place, had NadirAli never violated copyrights or just heeded the warning he had already received?[144] Given he has been blocked enough times for copyrights before, why really made him deliberately ignore copyright violation? I will be adding more evidence here of actual misconduct but right now I am more inclined to wait for the outcome of the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardeeph. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, your comment read like I was ignoring the revert of the closure, though the revert came almost 2 hours later. For what it's really worth, I haven't even voted in that AfD but I am absolutely confident that the AFD will result in "Keep". If it did, then my comment would stand taller that the idea of nominating the article for AfD is clear evidence of WP:TE because a user should not be nominating those articles for deletion that are obviously going to be kept, especially when the user in question is here for long enough. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

Support indefinite block for Capitals00, Raymond3023 and MBlaze Lightning: I will not lengthen my argument with too many diffs of these users bad behavior as this AE has gotten already very lengthy. There are many diffs provided by JOJ and Mar4d regarding Capitals00's behavior and those should be good enough to get them banned. I would just note one additional point that Capitals00 accused OP of canvassing which is a fake accusation considering they were only bringing attention of neutral and uninvolved administrators towards issues on different pages, that is no canvassing especially when OP themselves are a neutral editor in WP:ARBIPA area. Also, in their defence, Capitals00 is accusing "JosephusOfJerusalem suspiciously removed that message" for removing a message from their own talk page for which they have complete prerogative. Using arguments like these to defend their actions is self-defeating.

WP:ARBIPA calls for a conducive and coherent environment. WP:CIR might be an extension to a policy but that is not to be cited in every comment against your opponents on WP:ARBIPA articles. It is insulting to call all other editors incompetent who disagree with you. Capitals00 has been doing this in defiance of WP:ARBIPA, they are using WP:CIR as an excuse to insult their opponents.

I am supporting an indef ban for Raymond3023 and MBlaze Lightning for their accusation of socking in this very thread against the OP. WP:ARBIPA prohibits such bad faith accusations against other editors. As a matter of fact MBlaze Lightning has already once reported JOJ under a different master than the one they are associating them with in this thread. It looks like they are unable to make up their mind and associating OP with different sockmasters just to get their point through and defend the accused in vain. This is not the proper place to accuse someone of socking and that too without proper evidence plus accusing OP for socking without evidence would not take the violations of Capitals00 away. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@power~enwiki: No, this is not what WP:ARBIPA is for, we do not ban most if not all. Evidence is evaluated, then violators are banned. Your statement is unhelpful and destructive for the project, it seems as if when opinion starts to turn against one editor and a ban looks evident, someone comes and says let's ban most if not all so as to confuse the admins (not that they can be) and derail the conversation.

@Razer2115: You should be banned for casting WP:ASPERSIONS and bringing that SPI here. That SPI has no bearing on this AE and was filed after and in retaliation of these arbitration enforcement requests. You twisted it to make it look like these requests were filed after the SPI and matter is already decided that JOJ is the sock of Sardeeph. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Please read WP:ARBIPA, once you will read that, you will understand my argument. After, reading that up, please evaluate the diffs provided by the OP and Mar4d against Capitals00 and evaluate the socking allegation made against OP by MBlaze Lightning and Raymond3023. The act of Razer2115 to bring that undecided SPI falls under WP:ASPERSIONS, they made it look like OP filed this report because of the SPI rather SPI was filed because of AE. Also, these reports has nothing to do with content disputes rather it is about the behavior of editors on WP:ARBIPA sanctioned pages. They are to refrain from creating toxic environment by making insulting remarks, socking allegations and expression of bad faith. Referencing WP:CIR might be allowed when you really want to report someone for their lack of competency but it is not and should not be allowed on WP:ARBIPA sanctioned pages, at least not at this scale. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I saw your statements recommending t-ban for everyone and that concerns me a lot especially because you are an admin and I feel like you might be including me in that list. You are referring to statements made in the discussion about copyvio. My participation in that conversation might just be because of my own misunderstanding about copyvio since I have seen edits by Kautilya3 which include the quotes in citations. OP there was asking for an indef ban for NadirAli, which made me concerned. Although, my comments on that forum did not have any personal attacks compared to Capitals00 but I am willing to retract those comments if I can to avoid a topic ban as I had a clean slate so far and would like to avoid any ban at any cost. Let me know what could work for you and other admins minus a t-ban for me. I would also like to point out that Mar4d never participated in that copyvio discussion. There is an election season in Pakistan and collective ban such as proposed here would stop editors from editing all Pakistan pages not just the conflict pages thus shortening the number of editors and hurting the project overall so I request a reconsideration. @Sandstein, Ivanvector, and Seraphimblade:, see my comment addressed to Vanamonde93 above. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latest diffs presented by Razer again fall under WP:ASPERSIONS as most of those diffs are of different people reaching out to different admins requesting to address some concerns and I do not think there is anything wrong with that. Those are also closed matters, if an admin would have thought of them as a problem, they would have taken an action there and then. For example, Mar4d opening an ANI request was closed by an admin, for example me reaching out to Ivanvector, the conversation continued because he was kind enough to look at the matter and he is still willing to, same is with my matter with Bbb23, I accepted to Bbb23 that my comments were overboard and that matter was resolved amicably. Citing diffs which put the editors in negative light and ignoring the ones where admins closed the matter, or where they were williling to work with the editors or where editors changed their behavior to positivity comes under WP:ASPERSIONS if I am correct. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

Many of the editors involved here "on both sides" of the India-Pakistan conflict are out of control. I'd recommend the AE admins consider sanctions against most (if not all) of the involved parties here. I note recent ANI threads from May 5 (on sock-puppetry) and April 14 (on Hookah) as involving many of these editors and being fairly disasterous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't keep straight which of Capitals00, D4iNa4, Mar4d, Raymond3023 and MBlaze Lightning are on which side of any disputes here, but the constant bickering to get each other banned is disruptive, unhelpful, and destructive. I'm not as familiar with SheriffIsInTown, but disagree with their opinion here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two most recent disagreements appear to be at Talk:History of Balochistan (moved from a copyvio board) and Talk:Siachen conflict#Warning. The Balochistan one makes nobody look good; perhaps those diffs should be ignored.

The Siachen one makes Mar4d and Tripwire look bad, and Capitals00's frustration, though not ideal editing behavior, is understandable. We describe the Korean War as ending when the armistice was signed, and a 15-year ceasefire should be interpreted as the end of a conflict and not as evidence the conflict is ongoing. Regardless, that's a content dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus: Suggesting that a copyright infringement complaint is purely "retaliatory" is a bit more than pushing-and-shoving, especially on a page where the discussion should be about whether copyright violations have occurred. I'm not sure how much of the 31KB change is the removal of quotes from this diff as other changes are intertwined, but it's clearly a lot. I don't take Capitals00's immediate request for an indef to be in good faith, but the copyright concern looks to be a legitimate concern. I do agree that Capitals00 seems to be the worst offender in terms of escalating things, but nobody involved here has clean hands. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's true, the acronym soup of [145] is wiki-lawyering. That's not unique to you; every single person in this discussion so far (myself included) wiki-lawyers too much. It's not a crime to call a spade a spade. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus: you may be right. Perhaps Capitals00 will attempt to defend his behavior, rather than simply giving an alphabet-soup of attacks against the people he was replying to. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Razer2115

WP:AE is not supposed to be used by tireless POV-pushers to try to eliminate editors who clearly have much better grasp of WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:CON, WP:COPYVIO and other relevant policies. Report seems to have been filed by a probable sock per recently opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardeeph and is nonetheless frivolous. Razer(talk) 18:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the WP:ASPERSIONS as well as misrepresention of evidence around, I find serious issues with some editors I am describing below.

Two users of this case, SheriffIsInTown[146] and NadirAli[147] were working hard to reject obvious copyright violation and they are now desperately derailing a strong SPI by lending defense to a suspected sock even after one CheckUser has commented that the account is extraordinarily suspicious.[148][149][150]

Consensus building and dispute resolutions have been already tried, but clear evidence of unwillingness to get over the outcome from NadirAli, Mar4d,[151][152] SheriffIsInTown[153][154][155][156][157] and TripWire[158][159] with their frequent WP:FORUMSHOPPING for already resolved issues has been most disruptive. Razer(talk) 07:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

I cannot take admin action in this case, but I would seriously suggest a "plague on both your houses" approach here. I've looked through the diffs, and there is little to choose between the behavior of the various protagonists, with the exception of Kautilya3. There's plenty of impolite language, accusations of bad faith sans evidence, filing of pointy reports at various noticeboards, a tendency to stonewall to protect favored sources/content, and generally far too much evidence of battleground behavior. I'd recommend a topic ban from the Indo-Pakistan conflict for at least the four principals here. Vanamonde (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand on that just a bit. The so-called copyright discussion, which has now been moved here, is actually about a somewhat subtle issue. Nadir Ali has been copying quotes onto Wikipedia, which were subsequently removed by Kautilya3. These quotes are not copied without attribution (our most egregious form of copyvio) nor do they represent excessive use of quotations in-text; they are quotations used in a reference, in a topic in which faked references, and allegations thereof, are common. This does not mean that any such use of quotations is okay; but it does mean that the use is largely a matter of judgement, and a question of balancing what is absolutely necessary with minimal use. This is a matter that could be solved by folks who disagree but are committed to working together. Instead, what do we have? One set of folks flatly denying any copyvio; another insisting that its absolutely blatant, needs to be met with an immediate block, and that any failure to agree with this diagnosis is evidence of lack of competence. Thus my conclusion that the whole bunch here are displaying a battleground mentality, with the exception again of Kautilya, whose edit summary linked above is some of the only temperate language in this mess.
In short, most folks here are simply trying to grab every opportunity to bring sanctions down on their opponents. JosephusOfJerusalem has provided a number of stale diffs in his original post, but he's not the only one; as evidence of disruptive behavior, Raymond3023 offers four quite legitimate requests for protection, and as evidence of a frivolous AFD D4iNa4 offers a speedy close that was swiftly reversed. These items are symptomatic of this set of disputes in general, wherein discussions about genuine disputes contain pages of castigation and recrimination, little to no substance, and certainly no evidence of compromise or attempts to build consensus. Thus my recommendation above, which I continue to stand behind; t-bans for all the folks deeply involved in this dispute with the one exception already noted. Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4, that's not going to fly; the AfD closure may have been reverted later, but the fact that it was inappropriate was evident when it was made; anyone could have seen that, had they not been blinkered by their agreement with the closure. Vanamonde (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown, I haven't evaluated your behavior yet, but Mar4d, Nadir Ali and the OP are certainly not innocent here; neither is MBlazeLightning, who I did not mention above. Kautilya3: I do not believe blocks are appropriate here. These are not short-term problems caused by folks losing their cool; the problems are long-running, and have to do with basic editing style. People need to be removed from the topic until their attitudes towards other editors have changed; so we need either indefinite blocks or topic-bans, and I support the latter, because that is the lesser sanction. Vanamonde (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JOJ, anyone can comment here, and I have made it explicit that I am not acting in an administrative capacity. I suggest you confine your attentions to your original complaint. Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

As I noted on Cullen328's t/p days back, this is a situation which has grossly spiralled out of control.Vanamonde has put it quite nicely and, echoing his every wording, I' d recommend imposing an indefinite T-ban on each and every party in this dispute and the one regarding D4ina4 (just below) sans Kautilya3.Give the noticeboards and your capacities at pointy mud-slinging a break..... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justlettersandnumbers

It was I who moved an extended and argumentatious discussion from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 May 10 to Talk:History of Balochistan, as it was not advancing the process of establishing whether there's been a copyright violation or not. There seems to have a great deal too much combative behaviour by a number of editors here, including the OP. It's apparently just the sort of thing the discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent; Vanamonde's suggestion seems appropriate in the circumstances.

Capitals00, could you please tell me, here on this page, in clear and simple terms: does your copyvio report concern only material copied as quotations in the references? NB: it anyway has brought to light another apparent copyvio, which I'll deal with in due course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

I have been quiet because I had been busy and this discussion has been too chaotic for me to make sense of. Now that Vanamonde93 has helped to clarify it, here are my two cents. As for the COPYVIO issue at History of Balochistan, I said in my edit summary "please trim the quotes". NadirAli came back several hours later saying "Trimmed quotes". Till now everything seems normal. However, it wasn't immediately clear what NadirAli had done, because the byte count went up rather than down. Perhaps that is why MBlaze Lightning reverted it again. The next step would have been for MBlaze and NadirAli to discuss it somewhere. I don't know why Capitals00 and JosephusOfJerusalem got involved in this affair. But they did, and things went downhill soon after.

I would recommend a short block for both of them to get their act together, and give an opportunity for the involved editors to discuss things with each other. Why I am recommending it for both of them? Because Josephus's hands are not clean. One of the very first edits he did in his career was this whole-article blanking to help out his friend KA$HMIR, but KA$HMIR got caught with his pants down. We spared Josephus then. I don't see why we should keep on sparing him. He continues to play all kinds of games to help out his friends. Getting rid of this gangsterism is the first step to bringing some sanity to the India–Pakistan pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Capitals00

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

I agree with Vanamonde93 above that, if there is action to be taken here, it should be topic bans all around for battleground attitude, etc. I don't, however, currently have the time or inclination to go through pages and pages of invective to determine who exactly needs a time-out from the topic area. Sandstein 08:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Sandstein here. It looks like there are quite a few editors in this area who are behaving badly and need to take some time away from it, not just one disruptive editor causing issues. It will take some substantial effort to determine what sanctions needed and upon whom, but it is certainly clear that they are needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has got horribly out of hand. So far I've read through this, this, this, this, this and this. Almost everyone involved has completely discarded the idea that Wikipedia is a collaborative project to write an encyclopaedia and has instead taken the battleground option. I'd compile diffs, but honestly it's just about every single comment from the start of this year on those pages. I agree with suggestions above that almost everyone involved needs a T-ban. I therefore propose to ban the following editors from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan broadly construed: SheriffIsInTown, Capitals00, NadirAli, D4iNa4, MapSGV, Mar4d and TripWire.
I intend to make the ban indefinite, with a minimum of six months, after which they can appeal here on a showing of constructive edits elsewhere (they can, of course, also appeal the ban on its merits in the usual ways). Some above have mentioned MBlaze Lightning; while the Sardeeph SPI filing is not impressive as the "evidence" amounts to them both using a bunch of common English phrases ("for a long time", "needs to be a", "I am afraid", "for a long time", "into the article"), if the SPI clerks don't see it as grounds for sanctions then I think we leave it alone at this point (unless anyone has further evidence to offer). Some have also mentioned Kautilya3, who I don't think merits any sanctions at this point.
I would welcome the thoughts of other uninvolved admins before implementing this. I did consider bans from everything related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan (the scope of the IPA DS) but the dispute here does seem to be reasonably focused on India-Pakistan conflict. I consider this outcome fairly lenient, considering that there have also been calls for the lot of them to be simply indeffed. GoldenRing (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4

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 D4iNa4

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: D4iNa4 (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

″your gross incompetence won't do any favor for you. I have been telling you about your disruption for years. ″Only a person with gross incompetence like you would...That's a case of gross incompetence...your incompetence...get over the facts″. WP:PERSONALATTACK and accusations of incompetence. WP:INCIVILITY
″in place of making false allegations why don't you answer the actual question?″ Same as above and below.
″Enough of this WP:DE and WP:IDHT now. Why you are resorting to false allegations of content forking?″ Accusations of bad faith against other editors.
″Please don't engage in deceptive WP:GAMING…So you rechecked my comment after you made a nonsensical response to it? That comment from "different editor" shows how incompetent Farawahar is. You must be having same WP:CIR issues as Farawahar, no wonder he is getting support from you….Same thing. You can twist your words in an attempt to mislead others but the fact still stands that you have a battleground mentality….You don't have any competence to understand simple English.″ Same problems as above. Display of rudeness, incompetency accusations and incivility to other editors.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[160] A history of sockpuppetry.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [161])

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has pretty much the same incivility issues as Capitals00 above. Which is why I have decided to report both together since the problems in both cases are identical. They contribute to boiling our editing environment with hatred and vitriol. And there is just no sign that this is not going to continue. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Capitals00 by JosephusOfJerusalem

This rude response by D4iNa4 is a direct blatant personal attack. It cannot be compared with this relatively lighter and more polite comment by SheriffIsInTown in response to D4iNa4's other ″CIR taunt″. SheriffIsInTown's talkpost at WingedBladesOfGodric's wall is not WP:CANVASSING, he is an administrator.
This diff is far from being ″100% correct″. This comment that you have shown from TripWire was a decent response (requesting a focus on content and clearage from WP:PA) to this WP:PERSONALATTACK by MBlaze Lightning.
The language in this diff is still bad, regardless of the venue being WP:ANI. Read WP:NOTTHEM. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[162]

Discussion concerning D4iNa4

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 D4iNa4

Statement by Capitals00

Just like the above one, this is a frivolous complaint filed only because JosephusOfJerusalem is failing to get consensus for his POV. Neither report discuss any problematic editing, but only misrepresents general criticism as "personal attack".

diff is just a response to personal attacks, canvassing and derailing carried out by other editor.[163][164][165]
diff is 100% correct. "False allegations" is rather a civil way to describe the comment that claims other editor in line with WP:BRD to be engaging in "personal attacks, edit-warring and WP:POV".[166]
diff is again correct. When your opponent is engaging in WP:IDHT and making false allegations of " WP:CONTENTFORK" and that "there's no consensus for the disputed content"[167] despite 100% clear consensus, it is WP:IDHT and WP:DE.
diff is unnecessary and non sanctionable because it was discussion of a conduct of a user in ANI.

Given this is a revenge complaint filed by JosephusOfJerusalem only to get rid of the far more experienced and competent editor who happens to be his opponent. I would recommend admins to read the evidence I have provided above and simply solve the problem by sanctioning JosephusOfJerusalem for his long term disruption. Capitals00 (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBlaze Lightning

See Special:Diff/840836278. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 13:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've filed an SPI report here. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 15:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

See my comments in the thread, just above.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning D4iNa4

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

See my comment regarding the complaint against Capitals00 above. Sandstein 08:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E-960

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 E-960

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: E-960 (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:ARBEE, page level article restrictions - 1RR (+original author as in ARBPIA)

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

0408 11 may + 0420 11 may revert1
1717 11 may + 1725 11 may + 1730 11 may revert2. 1rr on revert1
1814 11 may revert3 (+ original author clause) 1rr on revert1,2.
0702 12 may revert4. This one of an ip that does not count to 1rr, but does show pattern and is gaming of 3rr - 4th revert in 27 hours
1354 12 may + 1249 12 may revert5, again of ip. This one is a 3rr vio in relation to revert2,3,4.
1701 12 may. revert6. 1rr in relation to revert2,3. 3rr - 5 reverts in 24 hr window in relation to reverts2,3,4,5.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

228 8 May will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours. If disruptive tagging is an issue, another request should be made, with evidence that will allow admins unfamiliar with the sources to understand the issue

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

notified. Also previosuly discussed here on 7 May 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I chose to focus on the narrow aspect of 1rr/3rr given this is easy to demonstrate and previous discussion here. User returned to article 1.5 hours after the 72 hours were up and proceeded to revert multiple times.

RE E-960's comments below:

I did not add any tags or comments removing text (in relation to the 6 reverts reported) - so it is unclear to me I've been gaming the system here. I will not that E-960's has been adding dubiously sourced information (based on the Facebook posts of a Polish ambassador) - however that is a content issue (there is a RfC presently running on the article talk-page regarding the use of the ambassador's observations on research methodology).
It seems that E-960 in addressing the diff list was referring, in some comments, to the previous edit - not to their own.
1717 11 may + 1725 11 may + 1730 11 may - reported as one-consecutive edit (FR did make an edit and self-revert it in the middle - in 1726-7- however this was ignored for reporting purposes - lumping 1730 with the consecutive edits of 1717 and 1725).
Revision as of 18:14, 11 May 2018 - E-960 reverted changes by Volunteer Marek - consecutive diffs in 1757-1809 - restoring the changed image caption and quote that VM removed - [168]. E-960 added this information in 1717-1730 - so very shortly before VM's removal of the new information. I would not have filed AE over a single quote and image caption - but it is a clear revert.
Revision as of 13:54, 12 May 2018 - Icewhiz did not place the tag. The tag was placed by 198.84.253.202 at Revision as of 12:47, 12 May 2018 - E-960 should take care in attributing actions to users. I will note that I agree with 198.84.253.202 - the article does indeed overemphasize Polish views, while ignoring wider Holocaust and World War II history (for instance, it would seem that Jewish views (which have addressed this topic at length, which are long standing, are almost lacking all together in terms of opinions/assessment of the Polish role in the Holocaust - there is also an overemphasis in the use of Polish sources - which is a problem given that NOENG has us preferring English when available at the same quality and of BALASP as the sources selected do not reflect the wider world-wide scholarly consensus) - however, I did not place the tag.
Revision as of 12:49, 12 May 2018 - E-960 should retract his accusations of vandalism against the 198.84.253.202. This text is not agreed upon. While most editors agree, on the talk-page, that Gazeta Wyborcza is a WP:RS - many editors have failed to see the relevance of a statement which repeats the previous statement and says nothing new. If at all, WP:ONUS is on E-960 to include not on 198.84.253.202 to exclude.
E-960 reverted, in the 6 reverts, at least 4 different users - François Robere, Icewhiz, 198.84.253.202, and Volunteer Marek. Some of his edits may be justifiable in and of themselves. And perhaps I was nit-picky in counting reverts in one case - however the aggregate of 6 reverts in 37 hours on a 1rr article is not how a 1RR article should be edited.Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified

Discussion concerning E-960

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 E-960

This report filed by Icewhiz is nothing short of a dishonest MANIPULATION, and I would request that sanctions are placed on Icewhiz for filing a false report against another editor. If you notice (and go through the actual sequence of the edits [169]) you will see that these are reverts of DISRUPTIVE edits done by Icewhiz, François Robere and IP 198.84.253.202 including placing of more shame TAGS into the article and removing text using the  code.

Exampels:

Revision as of 17:17, 11 May 2018 [170] - reverted edit by François Robere who placed yet another shame TAG into the article
Revision as of 17:21, 11 May 2018 [171] - added a quotation earlier into the reference source citation and for clean up removed Polish word in parenthesis, how is that a violation of any kind
Revision as of 17:27, 11 May 2018 [172] - reverted my own edit, due to all the disruptive changes made by François Robere who himself reverted his own edits earlier, how is that a violation of any kind
Revision as of 18:14, 11 May 2018 [173] - restored the quotation that was added in the reference citation, since François Robere was making more changes to article and Volunteer Marek was reverting all the disruptive changes, and accidentally removed an unrelated edit I made
Revision as of 13:54, 12 May 2018, 12 May 2018 [174] - reverted another shame TAG placed by Icewhiz in the article
Revision as of 12:49, 12 May 2018 [175] - reverted a vandalism edit by IP 198.84.253.202 who place the  code to hid the text that was agree on in on the Talk Page [176], pls notice the Edit Summary caption made by another editor (→‎The Holocaust: Per talk), and this is where earlier IP 198.84.253.202 tried to remove the text outright from the article [177]... after being revered he decided to use the  code to blank the text.

This type of behavior by Icewhiz is nothing short of trying to game the 1RR rule, and create enough disruptions in order to level a false change against an editor who is simply reverting VANDALISM, because when you  or keep placing random shame TAGS you are causing major disruptions to the article. I think that users GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek, Nihil novi and MyMoloboaccount can all confirm what is happening because they all at some point were forced to revert all the TAGS and disruptive editing on the page. --E-960 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I have no time to measure this but I would like to make an honest plea to the evaluating administrator. Please (please) review this especially thoroughly since Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of filing dubious claims.[178]. Also please consider the frequency Icewhiz arrives here denouncing his opponents of violations [179] [180] [181] - 3 times in the last five days alone. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning E-960

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

@NeilN: These are your page restrictions, could you evaluate this report? Sandstein 08:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] "Nun rape and church vandalism: The fringe is now mainstream". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.

[4] "Nun rape and church vandalism: Hindutva idea or land-grabbing technique?". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.

[5] "Christians Say They are Under Siege in India After Nun's Rape, Church Attacks". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2018-05-10.

[6] Today, Christian. "Christians Outraged at WB Nun Gang-rape, Vandalism of Haryana Church". Christian Today. Retrieved 2018-05-10.

[7] Kumar, M. Kumar R. (2009). Women Health, Empowerment and Economic Development: Their Contribution to National Economy. Deep & Deep Publications. ISBN 9788184501346.

[8] Finkelman, Paul; Wintz, Cary D. (2009). Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present: From the Age of Segregation to the Twenty-first Century Five-volume Set. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 9780195167795.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 718: / Line 718: @@
 *I agree with Vanamonde93 above that, if there is action to be taken here, it should be topic bans all around for battleground attitude, etc. I don't, however, currently have the time or inclination to go through pages and pages of invective to determine who exactly needs a time-out from the topic area. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 08:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 *I tend to agree with {{u|Sandstein}} here. It looks like there are quite a few editors in this area who are behaving badly and need to take some time away from it, not just one disruptive editor causing issues. It will take some substantial effort to determine what sanctions needed and upon whom, but it is certainly clear that they are needed. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 18:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
+* This has got horribly out of hand.  So far I've read through [[Talk:India–Pakistan_border_skirmishes_(2016–present)|this]], [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018_May_10|this]], [[Talk:History_of_Balochistan|this]], [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Capitals00/Archive|this]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive982#Sockpuppetry_case_review|this]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Article_about_Hookah_and_sources|this]].  Almost everyone involved has completely discarded the idea that Wikipedia is a collaborative project to write an encyclopaedia and has instead taken the battleground option.  I'd compile diffs, but honestly it's just about every single comment from the start of this year on those pages.  I agree with suggestions above that almost everyone involved needs a T-ban.  I therefore propose to ban the following editors from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan broadly construed:  SheriffIsInTown, Capitals00, NadirAli, D4iNa4, MapSGV, Mar4d and TripWire.{{pb}}I intend to make the ban indefinite, with a minimum of six months, after which they can appeal here on a showing of constructive edits elsewhere (they can, of course, also appeal the ban on its merits in the usual ways).  Some above have mentioned MBlaze Lightning; while the Sardeeph SPI filing is not impressive as the "evidence" amounts to them both using a bunch of common English phrases ("for a long time", "needs to be a", "I am afraid", "for a long time", "into the article"), if the SPI clerks don't see it as grounds for sanctions then I think we leave it alone at this point (unless anyone has further evidence to offer).  Some have also mentioned Kautilya3, who I don't think merits any sanctions at this point.{{pb}}I would welcome the thoughts of other uninvolved admins before implementing this.  I did consider bans from ''everything'' related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan (the scope of the IPA DS) but the dispute here does seem to be reasonably focused on India-Pakistan conflict.  I consider this outcome fairly lenient, considering that there have also been calls for the lot of them to be simply indeffed.  [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 11:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 ==D4iNa4==

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