Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NomanPK44

Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 21:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: since this has yet to be archived, I'll note that, since having filed this appeal, NomanPK44 has made two edits, both of which in violation of their topic ban. As a result, I have blocked them for 2 weeks (sitewide, this time). El_C 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

Notification of that administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1006403252&oldid=1006403185

Statement by NomanPK44

I removed the edit from here [1] because ThePrint is not a reliable source for Balochistan Liberation Army as it has been speculated that it has been supported by India so only third party sources are considered reliable after that I also added a reliable source on that page for the correct size of them[2]. Now if you look to Smuggling tunnel edit I removed the text because it was added using only INDIAN SOURCES no other media source was present there it clearly looks like to be against Pakistan. Because the section was about India-Pakistan so a third-party source should be reliable in this matter rather than all INDIAN SOURCES. Now if you look into the third one [3] I modified it by linking an closed WP:RFC Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory? while the other discussion here is not closed yet. Now on the last edit [4] another user already told me to go to the talk page and also told me that it is a friendly warning and I already have opened a discussion on the talk page after that [5]NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

The diff that I cite in the sanction notice as an example reads (in full): Undid revision 1004538012 by Georgethedragonslayer (talk) How can an INDIAN WEBSITE become a reliable source? LOL (diff). Need I really say more? It doesn't matter about NomanPK44's contention in this appeal of there needing to be 3rd-party sources. Placing that argument aside, how difficult would it be to just say that, dispassionately? All that bluster about an INDIAN WEBSITE in all-caps and the LOL, that's simply too much for this fraught topic area. And that's just one example among several.

Not sure if other AE admins are with me on this (hopefully!), but I am at the point now of just not wanting to let IPA misconduct be overlooked any longer, for whatever reason, and generally am interested in setting a higher standard in this key topic area with respect to following up trouble with enforcement, firmly so. Noting also my pervious AE action against the appellant a month ago, involving a 2-week partial block from the Insurgency in Balochistan mainspace article due to a 1RR violation (see WP:AEL#India-Pakistan for my log entry). El_C 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's worth noting that I regret being too lenient with disruptive IPA users in the past. An example could be seen here: User_talk:El_C#Casperti. And though that particular ban reinstatement happened after this appellant was sanctioned, it is nonetheless emblematic of this excessive leniency on my part (excessive not just in this topic area, but in general, though that is a tale best told elsewhere). So, the time to pivot is due. El_C 08:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Srijanx22

As the filer of the report which resulted in topic ban, I would recommend declining because NomanPk44 sees nothing wrong with any of his edits and justifies his edits over what "has been speculated" and continued doubling downing with his poor understanding of what is WP:RS. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NomanPK44

Result of the appeal by NomanPK44

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

Not seeing any actual argument for overturning here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think NomanPK44 would benefit from using the topic ban as an opportunity to practice identifying reliable sources and resolving disputes in less controversial topic areas. Independent publications are not automatically considered primary or unreliable due to the country they are based in, regardless of whether the topic is related to the country. If a section that cites Indian sources would benefit from available Pakistani sources, the preferred action would be to add those sources rather than to delete the existing Indian sources. Alternatively, one can tag the section for due weight and discuss it on the talk page. The explanation for editing against recent consensus in Special:Diff/1006082702 is unsatisfactory, since it does not admit error. Violating 1RR twice in the topic area in just over a month is another negative indicator. I recommend declining this appeal.
@NomanPK44: I noticed that you violated the topic ban by editing the List of wars involving Pakistan article at Special:Diff/1007087462 on 16 February 2021. Please refrain from making any edits about India-, Pakistan-, or Afghanistan-related topics, broadly construed, until your topic ban is successfully appealed. The standard time frame to wait before appealing an indefinite topic ban is a minimum of 6 months. During this period, please focus on less controversial topics, and review the reliable sources guideline and the guide to dispute resolution. — Newslinger talk 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hard decline. The user appears to genuinely believe that Indian sources are inherently unreliable simply because they're from India, to the extent that they're even basing this appeal on it. I mean they're literally here typing "INDIAN SOURCES" as if it's some type of appalling concept. No way. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mclarenfan17 (follow-up IP report)

Although some limited communication with Mclarenfan17 did occur at User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement, they continue to sidestep the point (as of mere minutes ago, even) about their usage of multiple accounts to circumvent the sanction. Per Black Kite's suggestion, I have indefinitely blocked the Mclarenfan17 account for socking. Black Kite has also noted that range blocking isn't feasible at this time due to high collateral, so we're down to semiprotections — Robert McClenon has compiled a list of these, which I have since applied. From this point on, protections for affected pages may be requested at WP:RFPP, noting specifically that this is ~~an AE protection~~ request. I can't speak for the other admins who participated, but users are free to ping me to any such requests. El_C 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Bradv has informed me that, since DS isn't actually a remedy in this case, such protections are not authorized as AE action. Just noting for good recordkeeping. Standing offer to expedite remains, of course. El_C 16:50, 25 February 2021 (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 Mclarenfan17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mclarenfan17 (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/Motorsports
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mclarenfan17

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm reporting 1.129.108.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per the instructions in the outcome of the recent arbitration request. The IP made a number of edits in the same generale style and purpose of the edits of this user and edited the a group of articles they frequently edited. The IP also strems from the range they generally use.T v x1 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The user has now directly reverted an edit of mine (in fact a blanket revert of a series of edits I had executed), which is another direct violation of the interaction ban.T v x1 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One remark to Robert McClenon's statement. I think requiring that the person simply limits themself to using the Mclarenfan17 account could also be an option. As far as I can understand it has been truly established that they cannot access that account anymore.T v x1 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: what concerns me the most is that the first of the edits you referred to directly reverted a set of edits of mine, which is a clear violation of the interaction ban.T v x1 02:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12 February 23:02 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Mclarenfan17

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 Mclarenfan17

I find Tvx1's claims to be made in bad faith. I am largely retired these days; I have been doing a bit of editing recently because of virus restrictions. When he first posted here, he could not cite a single edit that he believed that I had made. He even posted to this page a few days ago and was told that he needed something more concrete. Furthermore, Tvx1 made this edit at 22:31 GMT. It ignored a consensus which was established on the article talk page. Then at 23:01 GMT, Tvx1 posted here at arbitration enforcement claiming that I have been circumventing the terms of arbitration, even though he had no proof of it. Tvx1 is well aware that there is only a small handful of regular editors to that article. In effect, he has made an edit that ignored a consensus, them came here almost immediately to try and have sanctions imposed against me to shut me out of the editing process, if I was ever involved in it to begin with; I was, but given that he could not point to any edits that I had allegedly made, this has clearly been done in bad faith. He has not made any other contributions to that article except to circumvent a consensus, and his interest in the topic waned when I went into semi-retirement last year. Tvx1 has a history of ignoring consensus and of wikilawyering, both of which were acknowledged in the original arbitration discussion by the arbitration committee. I think he is trying to use arbitration enforcement to shut editors he disagrees with out of the editing process so that he can then ignore a consensus that he personally dislikes.

Furthermore, the device that I edit from has a dynamic IP address. While I am aware of this, I do not know how to switch it off. So while I might appear to be hopping between IP addresses, everything that I have done has been done in good faith. I am not trying to circumvent the arbitration ruling and have generally avoided Tvx1 since I became active again. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I don't know exactly what is meant by an explicit one-account restriction, but I will either suggest or agree with the idea that unregistered editing should be disallowed in the motorsports area, at least in articles that User:Tvx1 has edited.

I have tried in the past to be neutral in this dispute because I was previously trying to act as a neutral mediator, but McLarenfan17 has made it impossible for me to be neutral. As a scientist and a historian of science by education, I apply Occam's Razor, which is to use the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation of this motorsports dispute between two editors is that Prisonermonkeys / Mclarenfan17 is gaming the system by the use of IP addresses. It no longer matters whether they have lost their password a second time, or whether they lost it a first time. They know how to create a third account, and their failure to do so can only be explained by trying to game the system and evade the interaction ban.

Their statements that Tvx1 is acting in bad faith are a handwave to distract attention from the way that they are acting in bad faith. The way that they can re-establish good faith would be to create a third account.

I think that the human who has been User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Mclarenfan17 should be given a choice of two options. First, create a third account and edit only from it, and never from IP addresses. Second, completely retire from Wikipedia and make no edits in the motorsports area. In either case, motorsports articles should be semi-protected. If the human who has been Mclarenfan17 does not agree to one of the two choices, then either the admins at AE or the ArbCom or the community should ban the human, and treat all such edits as edits by a banned user.

That's my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay - They aren't being allowed to edit logged out. They are editing logged out. The last time that this happened, they said it was because they had lost their password. Either they have lost their password again, or they are choosing to edit logged out. One of the key aspects of this case is how to restrict them from editing logged out. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the block evasion is to particular articles, why don't you semi-protect them instead. I have tagged the World Rally Championship 2021 article for indefinite semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why the accounts are not banned? Yes, this may be a silly question because they will evade the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C - I haven't identified a list of pages at this time, but I can provide you with a list within less than 12 hours. It's basically any pages being edited by either Tvx1 or by Mclarenfan17, but the tedious part is identifying the pages being edited by Mclarenfan17, because the whole thing about this case is that they are improperly bouncing around on IP blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C - I suggest that you start by semiprotecting the following pages:

2021 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2020 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Formula One drivers from the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
2022 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2007 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 FIA Formula 3 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 Arctic Rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 Formula 2 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 World Rally Championship-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:2021 Australian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unfortunately, it's a Whac-a-mole exercise. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Clarification needed. Why is any editor being allowed to edit signed-out, when they have a registered account? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His IP range should be blocked, as it appears as though the editor-in-question is giving the figurative 'middle finger' to the project. There comes a point, when the project has to acknowledge when an individual 'may be' -bleeping around- with them. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mclarenfan17

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

Tvx1, a lot of IPs edit those high-traffic pages. Is there a way that you're able to better connect the IP to the original account? Because I don't feel that I have that much to go on here, though possibly other admins are able to see what I'm missing. El_C 23:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it is them — self identified, see: User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement. But seeing as communication has began, perhaps there will be a simple resolution that will spare any possible whac-a-mole worst case scenario. El_C 00:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, for what it's worth, I've already insisted on that. El_C 01:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I'm happy to apply semiprotection to multiple affected pages. Is there a list of these that you are able to compile? El_C 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, thanks. Sounds like a plan. El_C 20:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, thanks. All Done. Do you think there's any more, or can we close this report now? El_C 22:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C My temptation here is to just indef the original account anyway since they're not interested in replying, and then any edits can simply be reverted. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I have done this. Robert McClenon, never mind, I overlooked your final sentence. Will close with a suitable summary momentarily. El_C 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very tempted to ask arbcom for an explicit one account restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 01:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely in agreement with Robert McClenon. There's no point in an interaction ban if it is to be gamed like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's edit-warring on 2021 World Rally Championship (history), currently up to 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I wonder if we should range block 1.129.108.0/24 --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've partial-blocked the /24 from Article and Talk namespaces for a week. He can still come and discuss the issue here then. Didn't want to make it much longer than that because there is a (small) amount of collateral. Black Kite (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero Back on a different range? 1.144.105.189? It's impossible to block Telstra, it's a massive range and there's so much collateral. Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

The user removed with confidence a huge amount of data of the past of politician Alexei Navalny (approximately 7 years of documented pro-nationalist facts and political views from 2007-2013), mainly the controversial one (together with RS), justifying itself in the many (on purpose?) engulfed wall-text-discussions we had [6][7][8][9][10] mainly in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography",[11] abusing everywhere, in my opinion, of the magic word "Undue weight". Or "his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant",[12] confusing Wikipedia for LinkedIn.

03:51, 9 February 2021 Removal of controversial Narod movement (2007), accusing weak sources, instead of seeking RS, justifying it with "Undue weight" (RS [13] [14] [15])
16:51, 12 February 2021 Not collaborating: He questions Narod's existence and asks for the website url.[16] I gave him the archived website.[17] His answer: "This is internet garbage".
21:29, 9 February 2021 Removal of references to Navalny on Anti-Georgian sentiment (RS [18] [19]) for "Undue focus". Read the answer [20] from User: Kober
20:40, 15 February 2021 Removal of the Russo-Georgian war and racial slurs, (RS [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]) and the nationalist campaign, (RS [26] [27]) denying that the consensus for that part was reached in TP. [28]
00:57, 17 February 2021 Not accepting consensus, changing argument in front of evidence in the summary of the user's statements [29]
04:24, 11 February 2021 Deliberate distortion of the RS, to omit that Navalny declared himself a "Nationalist-democrat", as User:RenatUK reported [30]
04:27, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on the support to 2013 ethnic riots for "Undue weight" (RS [31] [32])
04:06, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on Russian march and nationalist campaign, including RS, for "Undue weight" (RS [33] [34] [35] [36])
21:01, 12 February 2021 Removal of controversial NAROD-Navalny's videos and accusing TheGuardian,[37] Telegraph,[38] NYTimes,[39] FinancialTimes,[40] Politico [41] having produced "defamatory content".[42]
23:06, 13 February 2021 Removal of any reference to the nationalists, despite what the RS says.[43]
18:25, 16 February 2021 Coincidences: supports the innocence of a banned user accused of sockpuppetry who took sides for the removal of contents on Navalny.[44] At the same time he supports the guilt of a user accused of sockpuppetry [45] who was in favor of maintaining the contents. Wasn't it better to avoid taking sides?
06:21, 11 February 2021 wikihounding: reverts my old edits of 25 May 2020
21:41, 15 February 2021 wikihounding/defaming?: reverts one of my first edits of 28 January 2015 and accuses me of sponsoring terrorism.[46]
21:49, 15 February 2021 wikihounding: article Vitalii Markiv, he reverts my old edits of 1 October 2020 with RS (controversial content) for "Undue weight" (his last edit on the article: 27 July 2019)
15:37, 16 February 2021 wikihounding: article Myrotvorets, he reverts my old edits of 9 October 2020 (controversial content) and warns me that I used an "extremist" source[47] (actually a Security Service of Ukraine website)
23:32, 25 February 2021 wikihounding: article Herashchenko, he keeps following me after I edited the article just few hours before.[48]

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)

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I am "forced" to answer to the slanderous accusations that the user is addressing me again. In this diff[49] I demonstrate how both MVBW and Nicoljaus targeted my edits from last year, removing them. What I wrote on Nicolajius' tp was a sincere invitation to be left in peace,[50] and now MVBW is even trying to accuse me of provoking them![51] Keep in mind that this is the level of how MVBW distorts reality, which is why I ended up making this AE request: I need someone to tell me if I went crazy all of a sudden, or if there is something wrong with this user's behavior.--Mhorg (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My last answers (I hope) to MVBW's statements; collapsed to follow word limit

At first, I want to specify that I didn't add much to the article, all the controversial parts were already there. I just added tons of RS (from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), released hundreds of comments in the discussions in a polite manner (I hope), always open to mediation. I find myself compelled to fill this request because I am exhausted and I think the user is acting disruptively, skillfully walking on the edge of Wiki rules.

The user now says [52] he did some self-reverts too (23:39, 13 February 2021), but coincidentally happened once he got to know the report [53] I was doing about him, about 1 hour later.(22:34, 13 February 2021). He also claims that the article continues today to have those controversial parts; Yes, they are there not thanks to him, but to those who tried to defend them. If no one had intervened, there would have been a 7-year gap of pro-Nationalist views and facts in the politician's career.--Mhorg (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I think MVBW has proven is that he acts, at least for the cases that have been reported, in an aggressive manner with content removals even in fields that are not his competence. User:Bob not snob statement, in this AE request, reported the example of removals of contents on articles related to Poland that MVBW doesn't even know about (by his own admission).[54] The same thing happened on the Myrotvorets article (he knows a little about the subject, in fact he ended up on the article only for Wikipedia:FOLLOW\Wikipedia:HOUNDING [55]), where the user intervenes to remove some content (always controversial, coincidentally) warning me that I am using an extremist website as source,[56] not knowing that the website is managed by the Security Service of Ukraine: for the more inexperienced, there is even written in the article's lede! Not even a small commitment to read what Myrotvorets is.

Going back to the Navalny issue, the user wants to make it appear that he disagrees with me on only one topic: clearly the user don't want to click on the diffs which show that he has removed practically every controversial part of the article. This seems to me is his strategy, first he removes everything, then in discussions he abuses everywhere the term "Undue weight" and engulfs them, always remaining vague (I don't know if there is already a Wikipedian term to describe this behavior). I know that the discussions are long, but I invite the admins to scroll through them carefully, the user always tries not to get to the point.

About the Consensus: it has been reached (not only about the RS-reliability, but also about the content to insert) at least on the Georgian issue, but the user simply won't accept this. He talks about contextualizing (I'm always in favour of contextualizing), but his proposals are smoky, it never gets to the point.[57] He simply wants to remove this fact. In a normal discussion, something like this would have ended quickly:

✓ User:Jurisdicta: "Mhorg, your sources support that he backed the Russian war in Georgia."

✓ User:PailSimon: "Its evident through the sources provided above that the sources support the content, lets not whitewash"

✓ User:Darkcloud2222: "Those five reliable sources are sufficient to consider the text previously entered valid. I also believe you can also use the blogger's source, it will not be difficult for someone who translates Russian to report the statements, and it should not violate any WP rules."

✓ User:Ohnoitsjamie: "Non-involved opinion (I ran across this issue from a recent ANI post); the material about his prior stance on Georgia is backed by several sources that easily meet WP:RS"

✓ User:Alaexis: "WP:NPOV: it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used. WP:UNDUE: this does not occupy too much or too prominent space in the Policies section"

✓ User:Mhorg: "I propose for now to restore the part about the Georgia, combining the primary source with the RS."08:23, 16 February 2021

Among the users against it there is the same user suspected of being a sockpuppet and that MVBW himself contributed to unblock (a disinterested action, of course), and that user was blocked at that time of the summary about the Georgian issue (unblocked the 20:10, 16 February 2021, so he couldn't be counted as one of the 3 users against he talks about. On the Georgian issue, the contrary users are MVBW and Nicoljaus only. Distortion of reality, again.

Finally, since MVBW is making controversy about this thing, if I have violated any of the Following\Wikihounding reporting rules, I deserve the penalty. I just want to specify that I did not know the rule, and that I promptly substantiated in the following comment[58] the diffs that show that he and Nicoljaus, both involved in the discussion, have targeted my old edits on purpose.--Mhorg (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user, after following me on the Myrotvorets article, continues to follow me also on Anton Herashchenko article, modifying a part related to the Ukrainian website.[59]
Then, I made a research and I discover that Myrotvorets lured nationalist gangs against Svetlana Alexievich (Nobel Prize in Literature), who forced her to cancel a reading meeting in Odessa for security concerns. Quite a relevant question, whereas the practice of publishing personal information in Ukraine has led to several murders and fleeing abroad of journalists,[60] don't you think? So... I'm going to put the content, reported by RS, on Alexievich's article[61] (which MVBW last modified the 9 October 2015), and guess what, the magic word "Undue weight" pops up.[62] Any controversial content, in his opinion, can be omitted with this justification. Could it be all these cases a coincidence?--Mhorg (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[63]

Discussion concerning My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

[64] - This is a typical accusation by Mhorg in response to my self-revert on the page to restore "his" version [65], a subject of further editing of course. See also a typical edit summary by Mhorg. He say that I want to remove all "controversial issues", but I never proposed or tried it. In fact, the entire BLP page of Navalny is one continuous controversy. The content was there all the time. For example, his "nationalism" is now described in the 2nd paragraph of this section. I did not remove it, and I did not try. The diffs by Mhorg only reflect my attempts to properly summarize multiple RS, use neutral wording and exclude duplicate or arguably undue content from the very large page. But in the end, there is only one specific content disagreement between Mhorg and me on page Navalny (below).

Here, on talk page of El_C, Mhorg tells: I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician...I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. "Fighting" (actually a content dispute) about what? He wants to include this text about Georgians described as "cockroaches", "rodents", "rotten teeth", etc. That was discussed on talk page. For example, here - Mhorg himself marked bold all words he wants to emphasize on the BLP page. I believe Mhorg wants to disparage the most famous anti-Putin activist by selectively citing the worst one can possibly find in polemic journalistic sources. I agree that something about Georgia can be included, but not this specific wording by Mhorg.

There is no consensus to include such specific version by Mhorg. He started a thread on the talk page, here. (note this edit by another user that makes a part of this thread to appear as started by me.). Looking at these threads, do they look like consensus to support anything? I started another thread to clarify what consensus could emerge. It appears that people are more or less agree on sources, but disagree on specific text to be included. Mhorg is the only user who advocates his version in this thread, while 3 other users (me including) object. I think this content disagreement could be easily resolved by submitting an RfC.

Additional responses (roughly in the same order as in the complaint by Mhorg):

We actually agreed with Mhorg to include the content about "Narod" long before he submitted this AE request, i.e. I self-reverted [66], and Mhorg re-edited this text as he wanted [67]. However, Nicoljaus removed it with a reasonable justification [68]. This is not a disagreement with me.
Yes, the sources in this diff by Mhorg here if not an outright "internet garbage", but definitely something we do not want to use. Please check these links.
Anti-Georgian sentiment. Here is discussion [69]. This is a typical content disagreement, and I think it was already resolved.
Vitalii Markiv and Mitotvorets. Actually, we quickly came to consensus with Mhorg on both pages [70], [71], including full agreement on talk page (here, on the bottom). Why bring this here? I checked these pages again though.
No one accused Mhorg of sponsoring terrorism. That was my comment, and it was summarized in edit summary. That was not about terrorism at all. Yes, I had a concern here, and asked Mhorg about it [72], but it was more along the lines of "links to avoid" and using unrelibale sources (anonymous YouTube videos) with content about living people in WP.
"a banned user accused of sockpuppetry". That user was actually unblocked by admin. See discussion here. I hope they will contribute constructively. If not, they will be re-blocked.
"Wikihounding". Mhorg and me edited a few common pages (there is an interest overlap), but in all such cases that was a productive collaboration, i.e. we quickly came to a better version of the page and consensus, excluding only a single remaining content disagreement on page Navalny (see above). There was no wikihounding. These diffs are just a few examples of my edits on these pages. For example on page Myrotvorets, Mhorg reverted my edit after 8 minutes [73], but that was totally OK. We had a friendly discussion on talk and came to consensus that only one link needs to be removed [74]. End of story. Page improved. I do have a habit of (re)visiting pages if they appear in discussions on ANI and AE. This is all.
Collapsed insert by Mhorg ("My last answers"). Mhorg uses selective citation out of context, and it is not clear what specific text these people support. I could also say "yes" if it was a reasonable specific text under discussion. Actually, at least some of them do not. For example, in the last/latest thread on the page [75] Alaexis responded specifically to the "summary" by Mhorg (same as he now posted to AE) and said this: [76].

My discussion with Mhorg during this AE: [77].

@Mhorg. Yes, I saw your comment on talk page of El_C. Hence my comment: [78]. Here, I just tried to explain the BLP policy to Mhorg. That did not work. He continue inserting undue content, such as "controversial elements about the Ukrainian state" in his own words) to BLP pages right now [79].

If one looks at talk page of article Navalny [80], it was very much peaceful and constructive until Mhorg started this thread on February 3 (I started commenting there only later, on February 9, after an invitation by another user [81]).

Statement by Nicoljaus

I think it's enough to look at the "Top edited pages" of Mhorg [82] and the VoxKomm main page [83] to see almost a complete intersection by topics. Obviously, the user here is just WP:NOTHERE.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it -- "almost a complete intersection by topics", as Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

It looks like AE is being used to win content disputes to me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MVBW ---> "forced" ---> [84] - It could be the language thing.. They could mean "I had no choice." Possibly, I'm not sure, but I believe that's what they meant. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

The filing editor filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on 10 February, which had to do with a survey that had been disrupted by sockpuppetry. The DRN request listed eight editors, the eight who had responded to the survey, which is more than DRN can normally work with effectively. I recommended that the survey, which was sort of an informal RFC, be converted to a formal RFC, with the assistance of a volunteer. Mhorg then requested to put the DRN on hold, which was done. Mhorg then said that there was a complex mix of content and conduct issues, and that they wished to withdraw the DRN in order to file a conduct report, which is this thread. They have now asked me a question on my talk page about the word limit. I can see that they are using a lot of words. I haven't researched the details of the conduct dispute, and have nothing more to add at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bob not snob

Over in the Western side of Eastern Europe, I encountered My Very Best Wishes in this recent edit in which he restored information sourced to Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza. This is an "anti-socialist" webpage or blog, that is right-wing extremist, and is not a reliable source for anything. The extremist nature is quite obvious, on the archived source itself there is an image of Donald Tusk with a German and Polish flag, with text expressing opposition to the election of a "German candidate" to the Polish presidency. The about page describes how this website was initially the website of the Masovian district of the Real Politics Union, a small extremist political party. The site itself is mainly the work of one individual, Krzysztof Pawlak.

When I pointed this out to My very best wishes, he first reverted my post and then later posted on my talk page: "Unfortunately, I do not know Polish, and I am not sufficiently familiar with Polish sources and politics to respond to your comment".

Moments before placing this extremist source, he removed content from an academic source.

If My Very Best Wishes is unable to assess Polish sources, why is he restoring content removed with the edit summary of "This is not a reliable source"? Bob not snob (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alaexis

I participated in discussions with both users on the talkpage of Alexei Navalny article, from which most of the diffs in the request come from. It is a content dispute, primarily about what constitutes due weight, and should be dealt with as a content dispute. I don't think that either editor has displayed bad faith in those discussions. Alaexis_¿question? 06:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

I think this case should be taken very seriously, because Mhorg's words: "My very best wishes, You keep mystifying everything, everything" are absolutely correct. MVBW's contributions look perfect until you examined them more carefully, but my impression is that admins usually do not like to go into such details.

Below, I describe just four incidents, and I respectfully request for an extension of the 500 words limit, because a short description does not provide a full picture. If the word limit extension will not be granted to me, I will probably address directly to ArbCom, because, as I see, other users are being negatively impacted by MVBW's activity too.

Incident 1 False accusation of disruptive editing supported by multiple false claims.
~~This commentary was made by MVBW on me at ANI: The post was made by MVBW on 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC) in this archived discussion)~~
"Indeed. However, the problem is not only the number of edits, but POV-pushing. OK, these subjects are big and complicated. Let's take a small a simple page, like Gas van, see discussion here. I argue that a book by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. should be used as a scholarly book that tells something exactly on the subject, along with other sources. This should be simple, right? Wrong. An extremely long discussion follows, after which I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired (see also this part: Paul fight with every author who does not fit his POV, even a Nober Prize winner; the discussion includes some Russian texts; Paul is a native speaker, just like me). The "winner" happily removes the reference to the book, along with direct quotation from the book [85], and he does it with false/misleading edit summary (no, the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"). That is what Paul do on many pages. That was the reason for my WP:AE report [86]. (signed by MVBW) 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)"

MVBW was not previously involved in that ANI thread, and his post triggered an avalanche of negative votes during the ANI discussion (which eventually lead to my topic ban). Unfortunately, I didn't try to refute MVBW's ridiculous claims during that discussion (I thought that was obvious to everybody they were fasle), which was not wise. Now I am fixing that my mistake.
What really happened during the discussion MVBW is referring to is an example of a perfect work. I am still proud of that. We (User:Assayer, MVBW, and I) analyzed a large number of ostensibly independent sources that described ostensibly different cases of usage of Gas vans during Stalin's Great Purge, and we found that all those books and articles are based on a single report published in one Russian tabloid. By the end of the discussion, we reached a consensus, and Assayer and I continued to stick to it afterwards. That is what MVBW described as my "disruptive" editing in his ANI post. Detailed analysis of his statement is presented below: Detailed analysis of MVBW's false claims
First, that "extremely long discussion" resulted in a consensus, and the last MVBW's post does not create an impression that he was driven away by me. Contrary to his claim ("I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired"), MVBW would return to that page in 2019, and break the consensus, but that is a separate story. Conclusion: False claim
Second, under "Nobel prize winner" he meant Solzhenitsyn. I objected to that source because the author de facto accused Jews of invention of gas vans, but I didn't remove that source from the article: that source was present in the consensus version supported by me, Assayer and MVBW, and it was me who restored this source later, after it was removed by someone else. Conclusion: False claim

Third, he provided the diff where I removed the Albatz's book, however, he forgot to mention that was not a final version: our consensus decision was to keep Albats (as I summarised in the same diff; I typed a wrong number of tilds and misspelled her name, but it was me who supported Albatz. That source was included into the consensus version; it was later restored by me along with Solzhenitsyn, see above). I am honest, I DISLIKE both sources, because they add no fresh information (they, as well as several other books, just reproduce the information from one tabloid), but I did not attempt to remove them after a consensus was achieved, because I respect consensus.Conclusion: False claim
Fourth, he said "the winner happily removes...", but I didn't remove any source that was supported by a consensus, which is easily verifiable (don't need to prove negative). Conclusion: False claim

Fifth, I never claimed to be a native Russian speaker, although I do know Russian. What was a reason for posting that personal information about me, and, no matter if it is true or false, where he obtained it? Conclusion: Disclosure of a non-verified personal information

Sixth, he says that "the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"", which is supposed to imply that I made a false claim that it does cite it. However, the statement he ascribed to me was made by Assayer, and, importantly, that statement was correct (later, MVBW reproduced it). Conclusion: Doubly false statement.
Moreover, MVBW de facto ascribed his own sins to me. It is easy to see that during that discussion he was opposing to two editors, me and Assayer, and that discussion became "extremely long" not because of me, but because of MVBW's refusal to get a point. The Assayer's opinion on MVBW's behaviour can be found here.
MVBW's false statements mislead good faith users at ANI, which negatively affected an outcome of the ANI discussion.
Incident 2 False accusation of sockpuppetry, with a subsequent attempt to conceal that fact.
1. MVBW accused me of sockpuppetry
2. Additional accusation
3. discussion at admin's page
4. MVBW edited his previous post, secrfetly removed the direct accusation of sock/meat puppetry (instead of striking them through) and "summarized" that he didn't accuse me of sockpuppetry (as if that were his original statement).
Comments:
The MVBW's attempt to conceal the evidences of policy violation confirms he himself was perfectly aware of them. And, that was a double violation: baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, and editing his own comments after others commented on them. Incidentally, an accusation of sockpuppetry was thrown by a user who himself was involved in off-Wiki communication (see Incident #4).
This case is very close to what we see here: this diff draws some hypothesis about similarity in Mhorg's and El C's political views. Is there any legitimate reason to post that information here?
Incident 3 Vandalising the article to support some fringe theory that whitewashed Hitler
MVBW is making some very questionable edits with misleading edit summaries. Thus, he removed ca 70% of the Icebreaker (Suvorov) article supplementing that with an innocent edit summary. Another user reverted it, his edit summary was partially inappropriate, but it was clear from it that MVBW (probably, unintentionally) restored some pro-Nazi vandalism by some IP (that IP was a real pro-Nazi vandal, because it vandalized the Holocaust article). Instead of taking this information into account, MVBW repeated the same vandalism, and, after having been reverted, continued to remove the article's content piecemeal. These edits were by no means innocent. They removed a criticism of some fringe theory that puts a major part of responsibility for WWII outbreak from Hitler to Stalin and makes Hitler looking better. This theory is being enthusiastically supported by many German right wing politicians, and neo-Nazi. (For the record. I already attempted to draw admins attention to repeated restoration of pro-Nazi vandal's contribution by MVBW, but I used not completely correct wording, which resulted in my topic ban for 3 months, and these MVBW's actions had never been analysed by admins.)
This incident perfectly fits into Mhorg's description (" This seems to me is his strategy, first he removes everything, then in discussions he abuses everywhere the term "Undue weight" and engulfs them, always remaining vague ... etc").
Incident 4 An attempt to obtain a personal information for subsequent malicious usage of it (WP:EEML)
This incident happened in 2009, but I learned about all details only recently. I believe that story is relevant to the current case.
MVBW was previously known as User:Biophys. This account is currently deleted, but his second account, User:Hodja Nasreddin is still active. Biophys was a member of WP:EEML, whereas Hodja was not used for that activity, and not mentioned in the WP:EEML case. However, a user Hodja Nasreddin made this post at my talk page, where he "friendly asked" me about the origin of my user name. I responded, but didn't pay attention to that until 2019, when MVBW posted a lie about me at ANI (let's be frank: it was a direct lie, and the above analysis perfectly demonstrates that). Before 2019, my attitude to the EEML story was pretty neutral (see this discussion for more details). However, since I was previously informed by a User:Viriditas that they privately discussed me, I decided to read the EEML archive (only those emails where my name was mentioned), to figure out why MVBW asked me about my username. That reading was by no means pleasant. I found that Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin, a.k.a My Very Best Wishes shared my response to his "friendly question" with other EEML members, and ... I do not know if I am allowed to disclose details of that private discussion, I can only say that they concluded that the information obtained by MVBW was insufficient for making anything to me (and probably that is why I was not among EEML's victims). Clearly, MVBW's "friendly" question was by no means friendly, and his edit summary was deeply deceptive (what a surprise).
All said above confirms my previous feeling that that user cannot be trusted, and all his posts and edits must be carefully checked for factual accuracy. That means MVBW's contributions by no means improve Wikipedia. I believe the evidences presented here (and other evidences that I am ready to present upon a request) do allow me make that statement, because only those accusations that lack evidences are considered a personal attack, per our policy.
In my opinion, this user should be permanently banned from the EE area, because the history of his disruptive activity is long, and it leaves no illusion that some temporary ban may have any positive effect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~El C, thanks. I shortened it a little bit. If you believe it is too long for AE, I may file a full scale arbitration request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]~~

Understood, El C. Then I propose the following solution. Take a look at this my proposal. It may partially resolve the conflict, because, from my experience, I know that when only the best quality sources are being used, that minimises a probability of conflicts. I propose to close this case by imposing additional restriction on the Navalny related topics. Meanwhile, I will start working on filing a full scale arbitration case regarding MVBW. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Uncollapse per El C. Unfortunatelly, I cannot just delete it, because others already commented on that. However, I withdraw my statement, because all of that deserves a full scale arbitration case. Please, disregard it in the context of this request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning My very best wishes

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

Note that I was asked to investigate this dispute, singularly (User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article), as an AE matter, but declined. I still don't really have time to look into this in too much depth, but I would like to reaffirm Mhorg's citation of what I said to My very best wishes a few days ago about the nation of Ukraine not setting the tone in designating pro-Russian separatist groups as terrorist organizations (diff). Ukraine certainly does not have anything remotely resembling the gravitas of such designations as listed by the US Dept. of State in their United States Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Also noting a recent related warning from a few days ago which I had issued Nicoljaus with in the course of this dispute (diff). Their extremely terse accusation above that Mhorg is NOTHERE does not inspire confidence, I'm afraid, about Nicoljaus toning down on the WP:ASPERSIONS. What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus.

That said, not sure why Mhorg would call attention to MVBW's edits to their own sandbox (diff). That space is for MVBW to do with as they see fit. I'd also point out to Mhorg that in one of the pages where they claimed MVBW was HOUNDING them, MVBW had actually edited that page before them. Notwithstanding all of that, my first impulse (such as it is) is that this isn't actually as one-sided as some of the participants above make it out to be. Finally, Mhorg, remember what I told you about the AE noticeboard having a word-limit? Please make note of that (didn't count, but it does look pretty close to the limit, at the very least). You may wish to trim in order to continue participating. El_C 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, the point is that there are more than a few nations out there (like WP:ARBAA2, etc.) who may designate hostile groups as "terrorist" or "extremist," but that does not imply that this is something which we necessarily are required to observe on the project, as such, overall. El_C 18:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, if you are unwilling or unable to substantiate, it's best to say nothing. Doubling down on WP:ASPERSIONS is not a good look and may be a cause for sanctions. El_C 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, you presume incorrectly. I had no knowledge of that edit. The warning, as mentioned, revolved around Nicoljaus' most recent comments to Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Narod_movement. El_C 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that I have imposed an indefinite topic ban on Nicoljaus from the EE/Balkans topic area, broadly construed. Obviously, the previous AE sanctions that I had imposed on them in the past did not produce the desired effect. El_C 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, I only noted the sanction here for the record. But, in any case, the actual reasons that immediately prompted it are noted here. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the sanction, nor are 3rd party AE appeals a thing. El_C 23:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, extension granted. Though, I can't guarantee I'll get to review your lengthy submission or otherwise follow up on this case. (Possibly, there's a misapprehension that I am to fully attend to every request at the AE noticeboard, but I wish to relieve anyone of that mistaken notion.) El_C 21:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I really don't know enough about either this case or MVBW's editing overall, for that matter, to meaningfully advise you. I think you've participated in enough AE complaints by now to probably get a feel for what's needed. Anyway, if you're saying there's merit to this case —or to a case about MVBW, in general— that certainly gets my attention. That said, I'm sorta focusing on misusing Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST right now, so, again, not sure I'll get to follow up on any of this. To that, spamming two new pages: Songs from the homeland & Buck Flower (security guard). El_C 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, just letting you know that I've responded to your proposal at WT:RFAR. El_C 05:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus

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

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

Appealing user: Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite topic ban from any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBEE topic area (including the Balkans), broadly construed. It was imposed at User talk:Nicoljaus#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Eastern_Europe

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

Notification of that administrator: I notify you that I have filed an arbitration enforcement action appeal

Statement by Nicoljaus

The administrator who imposed the restrictions put forward two reasons. The first one, as he himself admitted during the discussion on my talk page [87], is irrelevant (he claimed that I admit my HOUNDING of the user and even justify it). In fact, the situation is completely reversed and El_C even warned the user that I "hounded" [88]. So, one of the reasons for the indefinite topic ban can be discarded and I think we should expect some easing of sanctions.

The second situation is more complicated. I found in the contribution of Mhorg some features that seemed suspicious to me. When Mhorg submitted an AE request to another user they were "fighting" with, I shared my observations so that a non-involved administrator could evaluate them by making a decision on the request [89]. The administrator El_C in response made some claims that I may have misunderstood. Later, during the discussion on my talk page, he mentioned that the site I link to was in Italian. But there was no indication of this in his message [90] (actually, I don't read Italian either, but I didn't have any problems). I felt that it was necessary to specify more precisely which part of the rule WP:NOTHERE I refer to and specified the corresponding line, that's all. Reaction of administrator El_C seems excessive. I may have underestimated how serious the charge of violating the WP:NOTHERE rule is (my previous wiki experience doesn't give a reason for this). It is also possible that my observations do not provide sufficient grounds for such accusations, but I have not received direct explanation for this.

As a result, I find the measures taken, on the one hand, unnecessarily harsh, and on the other hand, do not allow me to understand what is wrong. I write a lot on the subject of the Second World War and the history of Russia and usually had no problems with my fellow Wikipedians. My previous blocks is usually arose from the fact that I was constantly attacked by the sockpuppets of disruptive users such as Crovata or Umertan. (With Mikola22, there was a special story, and I admit that I was wrong). I'm asking for lifting, or, at least the modification of the topic ban) – guys, seriously, what are the problems if I write articles like Dmitry Krasny, Battle of Belyov, Izyum-Barvenkovo Offensive, Alexander Bubnov, 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism (except for my poor English, of course)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made my statements in "terse way" just in attempt to follow the demand "dial it back" and not to BLUDGEON the discussion. I gave only references, indicated what I paid attention to, and the corresponding rule.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The language issue; collapsed to follow word limit

I don't think that the expression "tone down rhetoric" should definitely be perceived as "dial it back". Now I no longer understand what you were asking me to do - to stop pointing out any behavioral issues associated with the user Mhorg? I doubt that this is in your right, there are other non-involved administrators here, to whom the links I have given might be useful (as I thought, maybe I'm wrong).--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so I was surprised by the new claim about "tone down rhetoric". In fact, stupid Google translate give it exactly as "reduce the rhetoric" (I'm not sure that this link will display correctly: [91]). I didn't really understand your phrase about "dial it back", when I saw it for the first time, but I took it as a requirement not to say too much (I admit that this was the case in the topic you referred to). --Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the charges of Levivich and Svarm - I believe that they were dropped by SILENCE.

@Levivich I don't understand why I can't mention that almost all the users I had problems with, were sockpuppets? I was blocked based on the results of the interaction with Themanhascome and Ctvaughn555 (as well as many other user and IPs that attacked me), who were sockpuppets of Umertan aka UkrainianSavior. Miki Filigranski was a sockpuppet of Crovata. The latter, unfortunately, involved the then-inexperienced user Mikola22 in the conflict. I didn't mean that the Mhorg is a sockpuppet, and I didn't make any hints about it (and, moreover, twice), I just want people not to be afraid of my block log.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Thank you for the clarification. But now I can't figure out what I did wrong. What is the rule that forbids someone to cite links, and to assume that they indicate certain behavioral problems, with a direct reference to the rule? And, I think, I did it exactly in the place where the administrator sent me in his warning of 15.02.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Your accusation is seriously disappointing. I strongly reject the accusations of WP:HOUNDING, and it is rather my life that has turned into hell, as it is my edits adding valuable information from the book of a leading historian that have been irrevocably deleted: [92], [93]. And after that, I get accusations that I edit articles in order to annoy someone, and not to fix an obvious WP:Content forking. I politely (as I could) pointed out to the Mhorg the problems with his belligerent behavior, that's all. A valid attemptе "to smooth things over" on the part of the Mhorg would be to withdraw the request against the colleague My Very Best Wishes and help to recover the information from the book of Khlevnyuk or otherwise resolve the problem of content forking, rather than continue personal attacks by playing the victim.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Please don't misrepresent the situation. It is not "Nico's repeated insistence", it was Mhorg who explicitly stated in his attempt to smooth things over that I was "removing or editing articles just to annoy him": [94].--Nicoljaus (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request for an extension of the 500 words limit to expand the collapsed part, as the user claims WP:NOTSILENCE: [95]. The new word counter will be about 850--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Unfortunately, the appellant barely touches on the main reason that immediately prompted the sanction in question, but goes on at length on the ancillary one, devoting nearly the entire length of their appeal for that purpose, despite my previous explanations about that on their talk page. Well, I am here to set the record straight. On the 15th, I had warned them, in no uncertain terms, that they need to tone down their rhetoric, or the likelihood that they would face AE sanctions again is high (diff).

Then, yesterday, they had accused the filer of an AE request of being NOTHERE by drawing a parallel between their editing focus to items on some non-English external website, and doing so in extremely terse way (diff). So, I had the warned them about that, too, also asking (in part): What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus (diff).

As a response, instead of providing any substance whatsoever so as to clarify the matter as was requested, the appellant rather astonishingly doubled-down on more of the same by simply refactoring the very same terse reply a second time (diff). Needless to say, I found that to have been highly inappropriate.

As for the more ancillary reason immediately prompting the sanction, after the filer of said AE complaint (Mhorg) accused Nicoljaus of HOUNDING them —notably, without evidence, for which I have also warned them against (diff)— instead of responding with something like no, I am not hounding you, Nicoljaus hinted that they may well be doing so, but ostensibly not to "annoy" them as that user had claimed, but in the interest of the project or whatever (diff). I found this also to have been inappropriate, though not as egregious as the violation noted in the paragraph above.

Beyond all this, long since I had originally imposed a sanction on the appellant, exactly one year minus a day ago (2020 log entry), I have noticed a return to problematic editing on their part in the topic area, though the volume of their editing was initially very low for this to be too noticeable. But now that it was right in my face, I felt compelled to warn them, then warn them again, then sanction them (this time with a sanction which was not set to expire). I don't recall what last year's sanction was about exactly. Possibly, something about medieval Balkans stuff...? In any case, I think it's well time that Nicoljaus proves that they are able to edit in other topic areas productively and without incident. El_C 11:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that Mhorg may well be deserving of sanctions, as well. I'm not sure. Frankly, I find it quite difficult to parse what they're saying, overall (including directly below). Their writings are just not coming across as coherent and cogent enough for me to able to make that determination at this time. El_C 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, to "tone down rhetoric" means to dial it back, not to trim it. That was made clear in my warning to you about the VoxKomm aspersion (that it needed substantiation, rather than merely refactoring!), so this explanation which you are now suddenly providing — that is something which I find rather puzzling. El_C 11:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, I'm not asking you to do anything. The sanction has already been imposed. You're appealing it here. I just pointed out that "tone down the rhetoric" does translate to "dial it back." That you think it can mean other things, that isn't on me. Not to be harsh, but I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension. El_C 12:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, check this out. In this appeal, I described my warning to Nicoljaus on the 15th as me asking them to "tone down the rhetoric," which they now say isn't the same as saying "dial it back." But looking again at that warning (diff), I actually did say "dial it back." I'll just quote (in part): If you contend that there are violations, the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is that-a-way. The article talk page is not for that. You need to take immediate steps to dial it back, because you won't get many more chances. Weird. El_C 12:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, when an inexperienced user comes to me to ask that I investigate something EE (direct link), but I tell them that I don't have the time and that if they have a solid case they should take it to AE, what are they supposed to do? Regardless of whether their AE complaint has merit or not (again, I'm not sure about that at this time), you painting them as some topic area regular who is using AE to win a content dispute — that is an unfair charge, I challenge. El_C 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, I never mentioned you having said anything "improper" about me because I know you didn't (in all the years of me having known you, in fact). I submit to you that you have misread. El_C 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, from my perspective, I'm not sure all of your WP:NOTTHEM points are that conducive to the success of this appeal. I, for one, think that if there are pressing issues with Mhorg's editing, as well, these should be attended to separately, in their own right. El_C 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mhorg

My accuses of Following\Hounding come in relation to this AE Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes. User:Nicoljaus was trying to find something to discredit my work on Wikipedia (which is public, and I am still waiting for someone to tell me when I have acted maliciously) looking in my edits history... In fact, the user first made an edit[96] to contest an old edit of mine of 25 May 2020, then accidentally removed all my edit[97] (with the motivation that he was fighting with an anonymous user, I don't know...).
The accusation that I made to him (actually asking him to limit the conflict to a certain area and basically to leave me in quiet because I'm really exausted),[98] does not come from nothing, because in the same days this thing happened with User:My very best wishes (they are defending each other in the AE request)[99], who made the same deletion of the same edit of mine[100] in these days of harsh discussions. Again, MVBW removed[101] my old edit of 1 October 2020, and again he removed[102] my old edit of 9 October 2020. I think there is a connection to all of this. I think that I, unlike you, have tried to question your actions by remaining on a very specific topic (and my edit history confirms it).--Mhorg (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C sorry for my bad english, I tried to explain at the best what pushed me to make those accusations. I didn't know the rule of how to report a wikihounding case (I don't know how to do 99% of the things on the English Wikipedia, as you can see). Seeing the same deletions of the same old content, from the same two users I'm having trouble with, seemed like a good reason to ask them be left in peace. Sorry.--Mhorg (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes I didn't understand what you want to imply that I'm an "experienced user who edited 6 years in Italian WP". We have different rules and in 6 years I don't remember ever needing to call an admin, not even to know if a user was right or not to delete all the controversial content of a politician.--Mhorg (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes You keep mystifying everything, everything. My edits are public I can't nor want to hide anything, everyone can see the topics I deal with. When you talk about the banner, I don't know what you mean, Ymblanter was the only admin I met in a thread. The banner is this,[103] and it refers to his health conditions. I met El C when he stopped the sockpuppet LauraWilliamson, so I asked him how to deal with this issue. What are you implying? Regarding the Voxkomm channel, you talk about things you don't know, it may seem like a blog but in Italy it was a point of reference for the war in the Donbass, it was also quoted sometimes by RS such as "IlManifesto" [104]. But what does this have to do with it? Explain it to me, please... Why don't you answer for your actions instead of talking about others users?--Mhorg (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved editor My very best wishes

We have had a discussion with El_C about it on the talk page of Nicoljaus. Yes, I know: admins have discretion. Sure, El_C had a reason for issuing the topic ban.

But I do not think Nicoljaus behave so badly to deserve the topic ban. For example,

the "last straw" comment by Nicoljaus [105]. My reading of this is different from that by El_C. ~~I think Nicoljaus just said he edits pages to improve them.~~. Mhorg tells: "Let's try to limit the conflict in a certain area. Don't you think?" Nicoljaus clumsy responds, yes, in the "passive aggressive" manner which obviously support the existence of the conflict between them. But it takes two to tango.
In his comment on this noticeboard, N. gives a couple of links and claims an "intersection of topics" (hence "NOTHERE"). Sure, this is not a proof of anything, and it is hard to say what exactly N. means in their statement. This is just a very clumsy comment, obviously with intention to "help" me, although I did not ask. He went as far as asking Mhorg to submit also an AE request about him [106]. Sure, this is not helpful, but a reason for a topic ban?
In their warning El_C did not provide any diff to clarify what it was about. Here is it (diff to to last of the comments by N.). A reason for a topic ban? I do not know. I am not an admin. Please look at all these diffs and decide.

However, I can tell one thing. N. is a highly knowledgeable contributor, at least on the subjects related to Russia, and he did work to actually improve the content in this subject area. Ultimately, this should be all about improvement of content, and I think N. does just that.

Collapsed as less important.My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C. No, I only said in complaint about me it was just a content dispute. Yes, I think it was. Also, I do not imply anything improper about you. I only think you did not make right decision about Nicoljaus. To the contrary, thank you for explanations! As about Mhorg, he does not know much about Russian politics (although he knows Russian), but I think he is an experienced contributor. First time we interacted in 2019 (#1 in my response). I should say though his comment on your talk page looks strange to me. "I have been forced..." Forced by whom? By me? No.

EL_C. It appears that Mhorg is an experienced user based on their editing in Italian WP. I think you underestimate him. I mean he is probably a fan of VOXKOMM International, apparently a left-wing YouTube channel (he posted their videos in WP [107],[108] that clearly belong to "links to avoid", VOXKOMM International also features fabricated propaganda/hate videos about Navalny and Markiv, subjects that are edited with passion by Mhorg), then Mhorg see the banner on your talk page and therefore decides to act, exactly as he said himself [109]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhorg. I thought you were talking about the banner of Che Guevara on talk page of El_C (which would make perfect sense in such context). My apology. My very best wishes

@El_C. "if there are pressing issues with Mhorg's editing" Reporting Mhorg to AE? Oh no, my point was precisely the opposite: I am not going to report anyone to AE just for making bad comments, unless they also do something more serious, and Mhorg did not do anything more serious, at least until he submitted his report to AE about me. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm. Yes, the comment by Nicoljaus does not look good. But consider this comment [110] or this edit summary by Mhorg. Is it better? During editing in such subject areas I saw a lot of such comments and worse. I just ignored all them unless the contributor was doing real and significant damage to content in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm. Yes, Mhorg provided a link to the policy. But did Nicoljaus actually harass Mhorg? If he did, such sanction would be completely appropriate. But I do not see any evidence of that in the conversation [111], just a bare claim by Mhorg, which can be even regarded as a violation by Mhorg (making an accusation without providing any evidence), plus reminding that "hey, we are in a conflict!" ("Let's try to limit the conflict in a certain area. Don't you think?"). Hence the angry denial by Nic, and the sanction for Nic. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly checked their editing history and think that claim by Mhorg about wikihounding (intentional harassment) was false, which of course made N. angry. Mhorg tells "My time spent here on Wikipedia is becoming hell." Yes, that well may be true. This always happens with contributors who are trying to push their views against consensus up to the level of submitting an AE request to gain an upper hand in minor content disputes. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mikola22

As for our conflicts in the past is concerned I think they were unnecessary, childish and fight about irrelevant information's, but with violation of revert rules. These blocks are now counted in every possible report against me or editor Nicoljaus. We do not meet in the articles after these conflicts and even if we meet I think we would resolve possible problems in good faith. Current editing of editor Nicoljaus I don't follow so I can't say anything about it, but if our conflicts ie blocks are also counted in this procedure I can only ask the authorities not to take our blocks too seriously, if this can be asked at all (I say this from the present time perspective when these conflicts seem ridiculous to me). Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 4)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus

Cutting through the TLDR, these diffs are sanctionable conduct [112] [113] [114]. It's not OK to casually accuse people of socking in an AE thread (and then double down on it) and the third one is an admission and justification of WP:HOUNDING, and IMO it borders on WP:GASLIGHTING or DARVO. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nico: I wrote "socking" but I meant it more broadly, to include WP:MEATPUPPETing, WP:PROXYing, WP:POVPUSHing, generally WP:NOTHERE, etc. I should have just said "disruption" or "policy violation". There was a warning on Feb 15 about this and those three diffs are a continuation of that pattern. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nico: WP:NOTSILENCE: As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to the collapsing. I object to the inference stated in the collapsed header. Now I'm in the awkward position of posting here to clarify that nothing should be inferred by my not continuing to post here. Well played, Nico. Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus

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

I agree with Levi's assessment above and I think all the context provided by El C demonstrates that this user was on thin ice for a long time and he eventually had to draw a line. The hounding responses read to me like outright trolling and bullying, it's really painful to read. Mhorg comes across as a completely sincere and good faith user trying to smooth things over, and Nico's replies come across as mean-spirited and passive-aggressive. I don't buy for one second that that's a good faith denial that is being misread. If someone comes up to you and says "please stop stalking me, you're making my time on Wikipedia a living hell", in no way does a good faith reply ever phrase their response as "are you accusing me of trying to annoy you? That's a serious accusation." No, this isn't a misunderstanding, El C picked up on obvious passive aggressive trolling and now the user's trying to misrepresent the situation. Good call by El C. Decline. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nico's repeated insistence that "hounding" means "annoying someone" is bizarre and disingenuous. He was literally linked to the harassment policy that explained the meaning of "hounding" right off the bat. There is absolutely no reason that he should be claiming that he wasn't trying to "annoy" someone. Harassment isn't an "annoyance", it's a severe safety threat that is prohibited by the ToS. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd

Withdrawn by filer (without prejudice). El_C 19:40, 20 February 2021 (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 KidAd

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

30 December 2020 Accuses me of "scrubbing" the article Luke Letlow for switching the infobox template from {{Infobox officeholder}} to {{Infobox person}}.
30 December 2020 Repeats the "scrubbing" accusation and argues I'm trying to declare the election void because Letlow died.
30 December 2020 Doubles down when I call them out at Talk:Luke Letlow, and accuses me of condescending to them.
31 January 2021 Accuses me of Wikilawyering for pushing back on their argument that readers don't care what year a picture was taken in an RfC at Talk:Joe Biden on whether to include a caption on the infobox image.
2 February 2021 Calls me a stalker for commenting at User talk:KidAd#Captions, which concerned a matter I was directly involved in.
20 February 2021 KidAd agrees to self-revert after I inform them they have violated the 24-hour BRD cycle remedy at Hillary Clinton. However, they tell me they do not plan on engaging with me and intend to simply repeat their edit later.
20 February 2021 After I inform them on their talk page that they are required to discuss content disputes on the article talk page per WP:DR, they respond to me at Talk:Hillary Clinton. The response, however, is uncivil (alleging that I don't know that the year 2020 came after 2013).
20 February 2021 KidAd states that I'm arguing time passes non-linearly.
20 February 2021 After I implore KidAd on their talk page to be nice, they once again claim that I'm arguing time runs non-linearly, and call me insane: It certainly is insane. Glad we can agree on that (twisting my description of the ridiculous claim that I don't know how time works as insane to repeat that I believe that and am therefore insane).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

29 November 2018 3-month AP2 topic ban (expired)
30 November 2018 1-week block for violation of topic ban
7 December 2018 1-month block for violation of topic ban
25 January 2019 3-month block for violation of topic ban
23 April 2019 talk page access revoked for 3 months for violation of topic ban

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KidAd and I share an interest in AP2, and often run into each other. I've noticed a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors, myself included. Often, it takes the form of rude and/or sarcastic responses to others' arguments. Additionally, KidAd often chooses, sometimes defiantly, not to engage in talk page discussion. I've remained collegial and civil, and had been hoping that KidAd and I would come to get along. After a tense discussion at User talk:KidAd#Captions ended in KidAd agreeing to work together with me on an RfC, I'd hoped that this was behind us. Unfortunately, after interacting with them today regarding Hillary Clinton's infobox, that does not appear to be the case. They first flat-out told me they intended to force their change in without discussion, and when they did engage me in discussion, they responded to my argument by suggesting it reflects that I don't know how time works. I implored them to stop on their talk page. However, they repeated their insulting comment immediately after I did so. I'm at the point where I feel I can either give KidAd their way when I disagree with them, or ruin a fun day of editing by interacting with them. That just doesn't feel right to me. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[115]

Discussion concerning KidAd

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 KidAd

Especially when compiling a recent log of interactions between myself and Tartan, it becomes clear that our exchanges have been largely negative, though I object to the statement a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors. When Tartan and I have disagreed, the topics have been formatting, not content-related. As for the recent dispute at Hillary Clinton, please note that I self-reverted my most recent edit as soon as Tartan made me aware of the WP:DS violation. This was an oversight on my part. My comment to Tartan, For issues like this, where there is no clear policy to support changes either way, a discussion will only provide unnecessary frustration was meant to prevent conflict, a decision directly based on our last negative interaction. Reviewing the Clinton discussion, I see no harsh language, only disagreement. The statement The current infobox structuring should remain in place when it is agreed upon that the date of January 2, 2020 occurred after the periods of 1993 to 2001, 2001 to 2009, and 2009 to 2013 was not written to convey sarcasm. It was written to convey my point that dates should go in linear order. Given that sarcasm is usually communicated using inflection, deriving a particular meaning from text is highly subjective. Responding to Tartan's 9th point in particular, this dif does not include a personal attack or accusation of insanity. I am fully willing to comply with an WP:IBAN between myself and Tartan. KidAd talk 06:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KidAd

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

Just a quick observation. Though the article subjects are all clearly and unambiguously WP:AP2 ones, these series of disputes do not seem to involve AP2 so much as infoboxes, infoboxes and more infoboxes. My sense, then, is that this is an WP:ARBINFOBOX2 rather than AP2 matter. In any case, I have attached the relevant DS alert to both users, just to be on the safe side. El_C 09:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krao212

Krao212 is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed (WP:ARBIPA). Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2021 (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 Krao212

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Krao212 (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

18 February 2021 adds egregious original research. The cited source does not at any point state that the INC is responsible for "playing minority appeasement politics"; the attributed opinion in the source makes a related accusation, but does not relate it to freedom of religion; and the cited source, in any case, is an opinion piece, and therefore unreliable for statements of fact. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions.

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

~~alerted by Doug Weller in January.~~ notified by Doug Weller in August 2020 (amended diff per Newslinger below). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A lengthy string of warnings and notices on their talk page, including for original research. This editor has been on thin ice for some time. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: Thanks for the correction; I don't think it changes the substance of my report, though. Indeed, it makes edits like this (use of partisan sources, some OR) more concerning. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff.

Discussion concerning Krao212

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 Krao212

@El C: I agree with the complaint that the content had nothing to do with "Freedom of religion" and that's why it was my bad that I added this WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. I am a new editor who happened to jump into controversial areas maybe this is why I had enough warnings on talk page but I have continuously improved my edits and will work on them further and avoid controversial topics unless I can totally justify the edit with highly reliable sources. Krao212 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newslinger

@Vanamonde93: Actually, Krao212 was alerted at Special:Diff/970673229 on 1 August 2020 about the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area. The 28 January 2021 warning at Special:Diff/1003325068 was for post–1992 American politics. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Krao212

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

Hah, one diff! How spartan of you, Vanamonde93. Respect. Anyway, agreed, it looks bad. And then there's the nonsensical claims from right wing muslim supremacists edit summary provocation from 3 weeks ago (diff). Talk page littered with unheeded warnings. Recommend indef BROADLY IPA TBAN. El_C 01:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck

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 Noteduck

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Final_decision

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

Edit warring Reverted editors include myself, Conan The Librarian, Shrike, Visite fortuitement prolongée, Mcrt007, Pincrete, Kyohyi. While wp:ONUS puts the burden of making the case for inclusion on the editor trying to include new content, Noteduck feels the burden is on those rejecting the change.

The PragerU (trimmed):
- [[116]]
- [[117]]

At Douglas Murray (trimmed):
- [[118]]
- [[119]]
- [[120]]
- [[121]]
- [[122]]
- [[123]]

Behavioral Standards: Bludgeoning

Long discussion regarding the Bridge Initiative as a SPS here: [[124]]. Editor tediously says consensus is reached because they feel objections have been addressed. [[125]], [[126]], [[127]]

Behavioral standards: Edit summaries disparage editors (trimmed)

[[128]] "Given that (from your talk page) you've engaged in edit wars on this page and given that you called the PragerU page "critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter" (20 November 2019) you may be struggling with bias. I see you and [editor] know each other - please don't collude to remove material"
[[129]] "a warning was given for disruptive editing which was ignored. Lvl3 vandalism given on page User:[editor]. Please refrain from deleting material on the page without evidence. Go to talk page for commentary on article and discussion"
[[130]] "I am concerned that your revision was not made in good faith and can be considered tendentious editing. If these edits are removed again a warning for vandalism may be due. You betray your biases with your description of academic sources as "absurd" and "nonsense" on the talk page. Please refrain from unjustly removing evidence thnx"

Behavioral Standards: Casting aspersions/inappropriate talk page comments: (trimmed)

[[131]] If you cannot view this subject neutrally and objectively it may be best not to edit this page
[[132]] In particular, this comes in the form of right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects, resulting in a kind of whitewashing by omission or status quo stonewalling
[[133]] "I've noticed that certain editors on this page have a regrettable tendency to revert large blocks of recently-added material wholesale, especially material that might be controversial." - Admin deleted the section [[134]]
[[135]] "have a look at WP:ROWN when considering whether to discard this edit"
[[136]] Created section "Blatant partisan politicking on this page" - "This is the last attempt I'm going to make to put a stop to these tendentious edits. The editors engaged in this process of tendentious editing know who they are and I'm not going to ping them for now.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

NA

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [[137]]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Noteduck account created 19 Dec 2020 (prior account Spungo93 from April 2020). Battleground mentality including include edit warring, uncivil talk page behavior (unrelated comments about editor, tendentious editing, refusal listen to others). Editors have reached out to discuss issues [[138]], Callanecc (uninvolved) commenting[[139]][[140]]. Myself before filing this complaint [[141]]. Noteduck complaint at the Treehouse. An uninvolved editor said Noteduck needs to listen to others[[142]].

Dialog was ignored or treated as examples of the unreasonableness of other editors. Noteduck does not follow concepts like BRD and CONSENSUS, repeatedly reintroducing disputed content absent consensus or sometimes discussion. This resulted in extensive, slow edit warring. Noteduck is quick to use article talk pages/edit summaries to cast aspersions and or inappropriately focus on editors. Affected articles include PragerU, Roger Kimball, Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo.

Edited for length Springee (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

and again Springee (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Noteduck's replies illustrate why they are problematic. Rather than address their own behavioral problems (edit warring, attacking other editors etc) they have bludgeoned the discussion with text, much of totally misrepresenting the facts. As an example, in "Update 5" Noteduck falsely said I removed "Reuters and Fox News(!)[281]". The link in question shows I moved the text, removed nothing. This sort of false accusation yet again illustrates the issue. It is not possible to have a good faith disagreement with this editor. Until they learn the ropes they should be restricted to less contentious areas of Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, your Update 5 accuses Pudeo of colluding on some of the disputed pages:

It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal have all edited together and largely backed each other up on pages like Andy Ngo and PragerU

The editor interaction tool is telling here [[143]]. Pudeo has never edited PragerU or its talk page. They did edit Andy Ngo... over 2 months ago (2 edits total). Their edits to Douglas Murray (3 months back) and Roger Kimball (3/4 years back) are even further back and less than 3 edits each time. Falsely accusing editors of collusion is an example of the disruptive behavior that we are concerned about. Springee (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized reply to Loki and Shadydabs

If you look at the diffs in most cases Noteduck isn't reverting my edit or replying to my comments. Absent diffs claims that I was edit warring, POV pushing etc have no merit. Springee (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, your edit here fails to noted the talk page discussions that went along with the edits. Most of this talk page is about the content in question[[144]]. Note there were more editors in the discussion. Can you say there was a consensus for any of the edits you cited?[[145]] Why have a consensus policy if we don't expect editors to respect it? Springee (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear Noteduck still doesn't get that they should comment on the edits, not the editor. In the last few hours they accused Hipal of ROWN.[[146]] Springee (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Cedar777

Cedar777, your accusations against me misrepresent the facts but also miss the point. For example, when looking at the examples of casting aspersions, Noteduck is attacking a large number of editors, not just myself. Even with this active ARE they decided to accuse Hipal of ROWN just a few hours ago. Springee (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to dlthewave

Dlthewave, I think you are confusing disagreements regarding content with editors casting aspersions etc which is the heart of the issue here. Your last point, saying I refused to review a list of sources, is not entirely accurate. Noteduck dumped a large list of possible sources on the talk page and asked which I would reject which is already borderline failing to AGF. Since there was no text to accompany the source we have no way to know how the sources would be used. I did provide an answer [[147]] but it had to be limited to just the sources which were either not green or not green for this topic. You also neglected to mention that you are an involved editor. Springee (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to El_C

El_C, I've thought about what is the correct remedy here. As I said to Noteduck here [[148]] I want the problem to stop. I think a clear warning that comments about users are not acceptable on talk page. Any comment that is about the editor not the content of the article should not be on the talk page. The one sanction I think would help is a consensus required restriction. This would force Noteduck to slow down and listen to editors who object to changes but aren't willing to engage in the edit wars. Being forced to slow down and trying to address objection or otherwise establish consensus is only going to make Noteduck a better editor overall. Springee (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you comment is one of my concerns. The real issue here is the volume of inapropriate comments, edit summaries, examples of large changes made without consensus. In filing this complaint one of the hard parts was figuring out which examples to leave out[[149]]. Springee (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, even with this AE open, Noteduck's edit warring and failure to follow BRD continues. Just last night they added new content [[150]]. The material was removed, ND restored it with a demand that the objecting editor make the case for removal [[151]]. {u|Peter Gulutzan}} subsequently agreed and removed the content. Noteduck's failure to discuss disputed edits and expectation that others should have to justify removals is contrary to ONUS and BURDEN and leads to more edit warring. A BRD restriction or similar on ND's edits would be helpful. Springee (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[152]]

Discussion concerning Noteduck

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 Noteduck

I believe 1RR allegations are factually incorrect, as LokitheLiar said.

Given block reverts and vandalism I will concede that I got somewhat cranky around the Douglas Murray (author) page. As a newbie I was sometimes ignorant of policy - eg I know now Springee can delete material from talk page even if I'd prefer they didn't - and I apologize. It seems I edit-warred on several occasions and I apologize - happy to learn from any arbitration decision.

A counter-claim - if not the right forum I will happily withdraw it for now: I contend Springee is highly partisan and doesn't edit pages with any objectivity. Springee's talk page history has many claims of partisan bias and misunderstanding of policy (these just from the last 3 years),[153][154][155][156][157] including worrying claims of firearm advocacy,[158] behavioral problems,[159][160] edit-warring,[161] vandalism,[162] and canvassing[163][164] Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. Stalking has been raised by another editor.[165][166] Springee has followed me around Wiki, aggressively editing pages they previously had no involvement with right after I edit them.[167][168] I believe Springee sometimes follows my user contributions, looking for material to challenge. Springee's MO seems to be stonewalling any potentially unflattering material from pages on conservative subjects. It's worrying that Wiki pages of powerful conservative groups have become one-sided and whitewashed thanks to Springee. Full disclosure - I have discussed these problems with other editors via email who have concurred.

I appreciate Loki's criticism - it's ironic of Springee to accuse me of ignoring requests for help. On several occasions my posts on Springee's talk page were rapidly deleted without engagement.[169][170]

As Loki mentioned this is a boomerang but I believe Springee in fact has serious behavioral and POV problems that need addressing. Noteduck (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I went back further through Springee's talk page history, and there are a large number of accounts of behavioral problems and failure to meet Wiki standards going back years, including some serious allegations including hounding and harassment. I'm not sure how to deal with it but it needs attention Noteduck (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 2: I'll get to the other points but first, what is the actual contention of impropriety on the Roger Kimball page? Two primary sources referring to Kimball's endorsement of the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden rigged the 2020 presidential election (which he has done on quite a few occasions, hence the term "repeatedly") were deleted by Springee and I reverted them once. Multiple previous primary sources in the same paragraph that were more flattering to Kimball were not touched. At any rate, after discussion on the talk page and a BLPN discussion initiated by Springee I did not end up restoring the contested source and provided two independent sources for the claim, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Pudeo, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Australian journalism, but Creighton and Newman are VOCAL about lockdowns and climate science respectively, so I don't see how this material is improper in any way. I didn't know the Epoch Times was depreciated at the time and don't see how that's relevant, but I apologise, I should have done more research. I never said Springee hounded me - I said that Springee's pattern of apparently going through my user contributions in order to contest material was concerning given previous accusations of stalking and hounding. Pudeo, given that you made vociferous, detailed, and baseless claims of sockpuppetry against a new editor (myself) on my talk page, and declined to remove them when I asked, your accusations of incivility are something of a pot-kettle-black matter[171] Noteduck (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[To El_C:] what sanctions are potentially enforceable? I've learned more about Wiki's rules over the last two months and I'll aim to be more mindful of Wiki policies. I still think I have a strong counter-claim though, which I'll support with more evidence soon Noteduck (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, I've presented robust claims of partisanship, POV-pushing, stonewalling and behavioral problems from multiple editors on Springee's part in formal and appropriate language, based on dozens of diffs (with more still being added). I've taken two days off my new job to make sure my arguments are as thorough as possible. This is a forum for resolving disputes between editors, and I hardly think presenting my side of the case constitutes "battleground behavior" Noteduck (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I don't quite understand your comments. I am just making my defence that I am not in conflict with a disinterested editor, but rather somebody who is highly partisan and experienced at whitewashing Wikipedia. Is this not the appropriate forum for this? I think my sometimes scrappy behavior needs to be understood within this context, but nonetheless I'll strive to improve and be more relaxed in the future. I believe that my contributions to Wiki, such as creating Soon May the Wellerman Come, Draft:Osman Faruqi(waiting on assessment for this one) and my additions to Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo, as well as innumerable grammar and syntax corrections, are high-quality and demonstrate my commitment to improving this site in good faith Noteduck (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I wanted to tell you this privately, but it was bound to come out sooner or later at any rate. I'm disabled - I have bipolar disorder and struggle with mania from time to time. I should have been more proactive about looking up Wikipedia disability policies but I see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility page and a Template:User bipolar2 tag. Over the summer (I'm Australian) I was unemployed and had nothing to do, and nothing to look forward to or be happy about except editing Wikipedia. I think this is trenchant information that demonstrates that I have no ill intent or lack of good faith in editing. I'll cut down the statements in the morning Noteduck (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, no problem with the trim. For full disclosure, I do plan to launch a claim against Springee, which is in my sandbox for now Noteduck (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, please cease repeating the misrepresentation that I "accused" Hipal of anything. I simply mentioned being mindful of WP:ROWN when considering whether to revert material - a reminder of established policy is not an accusation Noteduck (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

As someone who's been involved in some of the disputes above, I would like to say that Springee's above portrayal of themselves as neutral or justified in all the above is not true. So for example, take the PragerU page from January 5th to January 7th. It's my contention that that history pretty clearly describes a two-sided slow moving edit war, with one of the sides being Noteduck and the other being Springee and Shinealittlelight, and that it's eventually ended by the edit-protection of the page by Callanecc and the starting of this RfC a few weeks later. Or in other words, Springee was also edit warring, they just had a partner making their edit warring less obvious.

I also think the characterization of Noteduck as having broken 1RR on PragerU is incorrect. This edit, which Springee characterizes as a revision of this previous edit adding that entire sentence to the page, is not in fact a revert. It's just an edit. A revert, according to WP:3RR is an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part. Simply changing the wording of a sentence to be less credulous towards Ngo's claim does not undo the previous edit regardless of what Springee feels about the purpose of including that sentence. (And I'd also like to point out that asserting that it does undo the edit to reword it would be evidence of POV-pushing, as it would indicate that the purpose in including that line was to support Andy Ngo and not to document the facts.) Noteduck made only one revert to that page, this one, in accordance with 1RR.

I'm less familiar with the situation on Douglas Murray but a cursory glance at the page history reveals a similar slow motion edit war that Noteduck is only one of many participants in. Several editors, most of whom appear to now be blocked, remove large parts of the page without going to the talk page, and Noteduck and several other users add them back in, including Springee themself at one point. My impression here is that the side mainly at fault is the side with all the socks that repeatedly tries to remove large sections of the article without talk page consensus.

Some of the above behavior from Noteduck is still concerning. Obviously, edit warring is not good even if many other people are also edit warring on the same page, and I'd really rather Noteduck had just gone to ANI with their complaints rather than cast all the WP:ASPERSIONS they've been casting. But TBH I'm tempted to call for a WP:BOOMERANG here because Springee's case against Noteduck is pretty directly parallel to a similar case that could easily be made against themselves. At the very least, this is not a problem with Noteduck, it's a content war across multiple pages that Noteduck is one member of one side of.

E: Quick reply to Shine: I don't believe that anyone here is casting aspersions, nor do I believe that aspersions can even be cast here,as this is one of the appropriate forums for dispute resolution that the guideline mentions. The whole point of the guideline is to get people to raise concerns about editor behavior here and not on article talk pages. Furthermore, I gave evidence that Shine was a party to a slow motion edit war, and Noteduck seems to have given plenty of evidence for their accusations, so I really can't help but see this as attempted WikiLawyering.

E2: Because both Springee and Shinealittlelight again have asked me to provide evidence, I am providing a timeline to substantiate my accusation of a slow motion edit war on PragerU (and fixing the broken link above, sorry, my mistake):

Timeline

03:15 on Jan 5th: Noteduck adds some material to the Critiques of Videos section about a video on Robert E. Lee, and points people to the talk page in the edit summary.
03:49 on Jan 5th: Springee reverts Noteduck's edit, asserting existing consensus on the talk page was against inclusion.
04:04 on Jan 5th: Noteduck reverts Springee's revert, again directing Springee to the talk page and asserting previous removal of the material was based on poor sources.
04:38 on Jan 5th: Noteduck adds more material to the Critiques of Videos section, this time significantly expanding a paragraph about a video narrated by Douglas Murphy.
15:09 on Jan 5th: Shine reverts Noteduck's older addition about Robert E. Lee, and points to talk page consensus as the reason.
02:42 on Jan 6th: Springee significantly cuts down the material Noteduck added about Douglas Murphy, again pointing to discussion on the talk page.
02:53 on Jan 6th: Noteduck reverts Springee's partial manual revert, claiming it is "totally unjustified".
06:28 on Jan 6th: Shine completely reverts Noteduck's addition to the Douglas Murphy paragraph, again pointing to the talk page.
06:43 on Jan 6th: Noteduck reverts the revert and accuses Shine of edit warring and POV-pushing in the edit summary.
08:43-11:45 on Jan 6th: Noteduck adds a bunch of material to the Reception and Critiques of Videos sections.
16:04 on Jan 6th: Springee makes a small edit adding context to Noteduck's new material but does not remove it. They also explicitly say they do not endorse the new material.
17:07 on Jan 6th: Another user named Hipal comes in and manually reverts all Noteduck's edits up to this point.
01:05 on Jan 7th: Noteduck reverts Hipal's manual revert and asks them to be more specific about what exactly they object to.
03:10 on Jan 7th: Hipal reverts Noteduck's revert.
11:41 on Jan 7th: Callanecc full-protects the page.

Also for full context, this RfC about Noteduck's various additions was opened weeks later through processes that apparently did not entirely occur on the PragerU talk page.

In total, over a three day period, that's two reverts each for Springee, Shine, and Hipal (for a total of six reverts by their "side") and four reverts by Noteduck, for a total of ten reverts over 3 days.

@El_C: Could you be a little clearer about what part of Pudeo's comment is causing you to lean towards sanctions? I'm personally not seeing anything interesting/new there.

Statement by Shadybabs

Having come into conflict with Springee in the past I can say pretty confidently that it is Springee, and not Noteduck, who is the primary problem with contentious edits and extremely biased application of wikipedia policy to whitewash factual information with respect to right wing individuals or organizations.

Statement by Shinealittlelight

Noteduck admits to being sometimes ignorant of policy and states that Noteduck edit-warred on several occasions. Noteduck then quotes editor complaints on Springee's talk page over the last three years, which don't show anything without providing diffs of alleged misbehavior. Noteduck then alleges that Springee was hounding him. But this isn't true: WP:HOUND says Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. Given that Noteduck was violating policy (as Noteduck admits) it was reasonable for Springee to check on Noteduck's edits to be sure that Noteduck wasn't continuing to violate policy. Noteduck says Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. What is the evidence for or relevance of the claim that Springee has "fixations"? He then accuses Springee, without evidence, of whitewashing. To me, without diffs backing these statements, Noteduck is repeatedly casting aspersions here. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence. LokiTheLiar apparently concurs that Noteduck has cast WP:ASPERSIONS elsewhere as well. I agree, per the evidence Springee gave above, and I would add that Noteduck has shown an unwillingness to stop this behavior despite being repeatedly warned (again, per the evidence in the complaint). That and his repeated editing against consensus has been what is most frustrating to me.

@LokiTheLiar: accuses me and Springee of slow-motion edit warring. This is an outrage. I'm extremely careful not to edit war. If evidence cannot be produced, then I'd ask Loki to strike that statement. I thought Noteduck was pushing content about Douglas Murray and Robert E. Lee into the article against consensus, which I politely removed one time each here and here. Because Noteduck kept reintroducing this content against consensus, other editors, including Springee but also notably the most experienced editor on the page, Hipal, removed the material, e.g. here. These additions went to arbitration, which produced a massive RfC which seems to be split at present (no consensus so far). This is how editing contentious pages works: we slowly improve the page. Casting ASPERSIONS and editing stuff into the article against consensus is going to drive good editors away. I'd like to also note that Hipal and I have often disagreed in the past; there's no attempt to "team up" here. I see Springee, Hipal, and I just trying to do our best to deal with a disruptive editor.

@Shadybabs: do you have any diffs showing what you're saying about Springee? Otherwise that's more WP:ASPERSIONS.

Noteduck is new, and I don't want to be too hard on new editors. But Noteduck needs to apologize for casting aspersions, and to be sternly warned that continued editing against consensus and casting of aspersions is unacceptable. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: The "evidence" you allegedly provided is that broken link to the history page? That's not evidence. And no, we can't cast aspersions, even here at AE, without evidence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipal

Per the evidence offered by Springee, Noteduck needs to be constrained from involvement with AP2 topics, otherwise we're going to be back, after even more disruption from Noteduck. Noteduck's statement above shows what we can expect until it is stopped: bad faith assumptions of others, an inability to respect content and behavioral policy, and the battleground attitude typical in AP2 topics. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck's subsequent comments above show an inability to take responsibility for their own behavior, in addition to what I wrote above. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck is now arguing above, without any diffs, that editors agreeing with Springee (It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal..) are doing so because of similar biases. [172] This is absurd and assumes bad faith. Noteduck provides no diffs because it's nonsense. --Hipal (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On January 27, I provided Noteduck with 13 diffs showing evidence demonstrating you've been working from the perspective that other editors are pov-pushing against your edits [173]. The response from Noteduck was agreement: right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects [174]. Almost a month later, Noteduck continues with this battleground mentality in this very discussion. --Hipal (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck has redacted the accusations against me made here.[175] Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, we're dealing in this discussion here with an editor, Noteduck, that I think would be best blocked or banned from PragerU completely for the reasons already given. In this context, I believe my very slow and cautious approach to his latest comments at Talk:PragerU are perfectly fine, especially if one were to assume good faith. Even if this discussion wasn't happening and there was no problematic editing going on, slow and cautious is always advisable. --Hipal (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

Noteduck could have been blocked as a "sock of someone" (seen such a block rationale), after Spungo93 was CU-blocked and their explanation for that did not make sense. Noteduck explained: I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it. This was not correct because Spungo93 had been created on 18 April, 2020 (log entry), meaning Notedeuck misremembered the date by years. Furthermore, the "forgot about it" part did not make sense because they had edited with the account 4 days before registering this one. (After more review, I don't think Noteduck is Perspex03 based on their timecard, though).

Noteduck has used self-published / WP:PRIMARY sources to make contentious claims: 1) Using Dennis Prager's own National Review column to say he rejects scientific consensus on climate change 2) Using Roger Kimball's own columns to say he has "repeatedly" contended that there was voter fraud, then after someone changed "fraud" to "irregularities", they changed that and their own original wording to say he has repeatedly made "false and debunked claims", while claiming white-washing in the edit summary. They once reverted the removal of these primary sources, accusing Springee of hounding. One of Kimball's own columns that Noteduck used as a source was in The Epoch Times which is a deprecated source in Wikipedia. 3) Using Maurice Newman's own column to say he rejects consensus on climate change 4) Using Adam Creighton's own column to make critical claims on his lockdown stance. I think it's unusual that someone would link to The Epoch Times or the person's own columns to make negative claims about the subjects, so it's clear these were WP:OR claims, and editors should err on caution per BLP like Springee has done.

They also initiated a declined RFAR with a focus on four editors on January 7. They seem to be constantly accusing other editors of partisanship: "partisan politicking", "problem with partisan bias", problem with politically partisan editing" "ideologically motivated -- sabotage" etc. Some of their statements had to be hatted in the PragerU DRN thread due to personal comments. While this isn't too unusual in the topic area, it's usually done by ranting IPs, not by regural editors. --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cedar777

My familiarity with this dispute is limited to the Andy Ngo article. Noteduck has made a number of constructive, if imperfect, comments and edits. The article has benefited after Noteduck pointed to WP:ROWN and MOS:LEADCITE. I do not agree that there was a 1RR violation or that Springee is a faultless party here.

Springee has repeatedly removed reliably sourced content from the article that, if retained, might reflect unfavorably on conservatives. The bar set by Springee (with support from Shinealittlelight) for inclusion of content critical of Ngo is impossibly high such that they have disallowed content from the NYT, the WP, along with a number of other sources listed in green at WP:RSP when the content is not flattering to conservatives. In observing these patterns and engaging with editors on the talk page over several months, the phrase "moving the goal posts" comes to mind. Even innocuous statements such as Ngo has been the subject of wide ranging media coverage (when there were already 77 citations) have been sanitized from the article by Springee as in this edit.

Meanwhile, the door has largely been left open to contributors sympathetic to Ngo where the quality of their sourcing receives limited scrutiny, as with this edit sourced to Sky News Australia followed by more disparagement of RS at talk where the NYT & Wapo were referred to as "fourth rate sources". This pattern is also reflected in efforts to enforce 1RR: sympathizers get gentle proactive advice from Springee here, while opponents are warned and/or scolded here and here where a user restored sourced content that happened to mention a political figure. Overtime, these actions add up to a skewed article that does not reflect what the bulk of RS actually say. Sanctioning Noteduck is not going to address this underlying issue.

Noteduck has been direct at times about the reverting of unfavorable content but is otherwise respectful. Springee and Shinealittlelight have had issues with what is known as "talking out of both sides of your mouth". For example, Springee claims this NYT article can be used to support that Ngo must be called a journalist diff. . . but once a summary of what this same NYT article was discussing about Ngo was added, the source was deemed no longer usable or relevant when it came to criticism. Diff A second instance is where user Springee, in a slow motion edit war, reverted content that was added by 3 different editors, sourced to WP, Bellingcat, and Daily Dot:

The original contribution Nov 19 from Snooganssnoogans: Addition 1a + sources in Addition 1b Springee deletes content: Deletion 1

Content restored on Dec 1 by LokiTheLiar: Addition 2 The second deletion by user Springee: Deletion 2

The most recent addition Feb 12: Addition 3 Which was again deleted by user Springee: Deletion 3

Noteduck is a newer editor, with much to learn. While I cannot speak for the disputes at the other pages, in my view their contributions have been a net positive at Andy Ngo. Cedar777 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

User:Noteduck filed a Request for Arbitration concerning PragerU. I said that I was willing to mediate the content dispute, and the arbitration case was closed, and a DRN case was opened, which was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU The result of the mediation was a six-part RFC, which is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#RFC_on_Various_Proposed_Edits The calendar is about to run out on the RFC, so that the bot will remove the tag, and the RFC will be ready for closure. One editor took issue with the RFC, saying that the sources were unreliable. My view was that reliability of the sources could be considered by the community in the RFC discussion. The same editor, User:Hipal, also said that there were behavioral issues that needed to be addressed. The behavioral issues were not addressed at DRN because DRN is a content forum.

I don't have a strong opinion on either the content, because I was maintaining neutrality in order to mediate, or on conduct, because DRN is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

I have concerns about whitewashing at PragerU, where it appears that several editors are working to block any negative content. The general attitude towards Noteduck comes across as condescending and there seems to be no effort to work collaboratively or help Noteduck develop their editing skills.

Example #1:

00:07 19 February 2021: X-Editor adds "In 2020, a joint analysis conducted by counter-disinformation consulting firm Alethea Group and the nonprofit Global Disinformation Index found that PragerU was one of the five most common sources on the Internet that spread COVID-19 misinformation.^[1]"
12:12 19 February 2021: Springee reverts with the reason "Opinions of a red linked group (Alethea/GDI) are not DUE", an argument that has absolutely no basis in policy. Springee has been around long enough to know that WP:DUE concerns the reliability of the source, which in this case is MSN/Yahoo News, not Alethea/GDI.
Discussions follow on Springee's talk page [176] and the PragerU talk page [177]. Springee repeatedly claims that Alethea and Yahoo News somehow do not meet WP:DUE, and Hipal repeatedly claims that the source is a "warmed-over press release" (read it, it clearly isn't). Both editors provide little to no evidence or correct interpretation of policy, and there is little effort to acknowledge that Noteduck and myself have a valid point of view, yet these spurious arguments are effectively blocking inclusion of this content.

References

^ Dickson, Caitlin (2021-05-01). "Exclusive: Pandemic relief aid went to media that promoted COVID misinformation". Microsoft News. Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2021-02-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Example #2:

17:38 24 February 2021: Noteduck proposes a "Criticism" section along with 13 sources.
18:53 24 February 2021: Hipal immediately suggests a bizarre and tedious approval process - "How about picking the best reference out of that bunch and telling us what you believe is encyclopedic and due from it? If we don't agree on it, we can go to the next, until we have some agreed-upon references or we run out of references to consider." This bears no resemblance to our normal consensus building process, and I struggle to see it as anything other than the start of another drawn-out effort to block content that Hipal doesn't like.
20:23 24 February 2021: Springee refuses to look at the sources and instead insists that Noteduck bring a proposal to Talk before editing the article. This appears to be an effort to require Noteduck to bring a publication-ready proposal that will not be approved until it is perfect, and the entire burden will be on Noteduck to satisfy any concerns.

I've seen this abuse of the consensus-building process before and it's a very effective way for a small group of editors to control article content while maintaining superficial civility and complying with 3RR. I'm concerned that a "Consensus Required" restriction would only grant Springee, Hipal and others more power to block content by refusing to reach consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to address Pudeo's BLP concerns. I would generally argue against the use of these primary sources, since they would need secondary coverage to establish WP:WEIGHT and The Epoch Times has been deprecated. However, I fail to see how Noteduck's edits [178][179][180][181] can be construed as contentious or negative. They're literally repeating what the subjects say about themselves which falls under WP:ABOUTSELF from a verifiaility standpoint. Again, this content shouldn't be self-sourced, but it's not the big BLP brouhaha that Pudeo is claiming. –dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

Result concerning Noteduck

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

Springee, your request greatly exceeds the 500-word limit, so please trim accordingly. Thanks. El_C 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface by saying that I've only glanced at this still lengthy complaint (with me, Spartans!), but from the several random examples I viewed, I'm not seeing anything too egregious. Just a tendency to call out partisanship, which runs both ways, in a way that certainly exceeds article talk and user talk pages usage. Overall, the less said on any of that the better, except in forums such as this. Not sure what the filer or the respondent to this complaint are really asking for. Are they asking for sanctions? A logged warning (to that, to those interested, see my latest clarification request about logged warnings at ARCA)? An un-logged warning?

Regardless, an evidentiary basis needs to be established with both the recent and the egregious prioritized, if one expects any sort of an outcome from this process. Finally, I plead with several participants to significantly trim and otherwise aim at concision. Us AE admins are not paid staff, we are volunteers like you. I submit that you are asking too much out of available volunteer resources. El_C 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I'll re-emphasize that the evidentiary burden for sanctions (CR or otherwise) doesn't appear to have been met in your complaint. Just from what I've seen so far. El_C 16:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I'm afraid I don't have any additional advise beyond those general recommendations at this time. Perhaps another uninvolved admin will see it different...? Who know. El_C 17:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Pudeo's evidence, now starting to lean toward sanctions. Will wait to see what other admins think, though. El_C 02:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, you probably don't realize this, but your various updates (word limit?) are doing you a disservice. "Partisanship" is in the eyes of the beholder. Even if much of everything (everything!) that you've written has a sound basis in fact, I doubt that, in this case, that's something AE admins would wish to address — if anything, that would probably be a Committee matter. You're basically making the complainant's case for them right now. Thought you should be aware. El_C 13:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, two things. First, to re-emphasize: word limit? Secondly, in answer to your question: no, with respect to what you allege about Springee (which, hey, may well be true), I contend that this goes outside the purview of admins at AE, but rather, that this would be a Committee matter. I suppose other admins' mileage may vary, though. El_C 13:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, while Wikipedia takes a strong anti-ableist position, as it does against all other forms of prejudice and discrimination (for example, with WP:ACCESSIBILITY and so on), I'm afraid that when it comes to the realm of the psyche, that isn't something for which many allowances can really be made. BTW, sorry for declining your request to correspond privately (I now realize about this), but as a matter of principle, I don't usually do that with users whom I don't already know (well enough). Best wishes, El_C 13:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, thank you for the significant (20K) trim. Much appreciated. El_C 23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I still seem to be the only one contributing to this section, so maybe a couple of additional notes. Noteduck, you should make your case here. If you are to file a new AE request, it is likely to be viewed negatively. Folks may well end up asking: why didn't they just present their case in the original complaint? I'll stress that the filer of an AE complaint faces no less scrutiny than the its subject. Springee, you still need to trim (hopefully, with no more collapsing). The requirement is an upward of 20 diffs, whereas you are now approaching 40. El_C 17:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rtr315

Rtr315 blocked for 72 hours after multiple warnings to avoid WP:CIRCULAR referencing (expressly so) continued to be ignored. Being new does not immune oneself from what is generally expected from experienced users (or, at least, it only hold to a certain degree). El_C 18:04, 24 February 2021 (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 Rtr315

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Chariotrider555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rtr315 (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:GS/CASTE

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

[182] User removed reliably sourced content and replaced it with original research.
[183] User removed reliably sourced content and replaced it with poorly sourced content such as caste association websites and Hindi Wikipedia pages.
[184] User added info sourced to the Hindi Wikipedia and a website about a television show.
[185] Same actions as above, but this time with assumption of bad faith and a personal attack in the edit summary.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User continues to remove reliably sourced content and replace it with original research and poorly sourced content from Hindi Wikipedia, caste association websites, and other poor sources. Sanctions against this user must be placed in order to enforce the ruling of WP:GS/CASTE due to this user's disruptive edits in the topic area. User was warned several times but did not heed them, as seen on User talk:Rtr315.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[186]

Discussion concerning Rtr315

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 Rtr315

Statement by Chariotrider555

User:Rtr315 continues to bear no heed to Wikipedia's policies of WP:RS, WP:OR, or WP:V, as stated above and seen here. [187] The user continues their disruptive and damaging behavior despite User:El C's stern warning on User:Rtr315's talk page. Sanctions must be placed and enforced on User:Rtr315, as they have shown they have absolutely no care for Wikipedia's policies and will continue their disruptive behavior even after all warnings. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Rtr315

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

Looking at their rather sparse contribution history, this user seems quite inexperienced, having made very few edits, so I don't think AE sanctions (or even a logged warning), are due at this time (unless there's something egregious that I missed). I'll try to impress upon them the need to observe WP:ONUS, WP:RS and to avoid original research and WP:CIRCULAR referencing. El_C 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that my warning to Rtr315 remained unheeded (and, as well, was not responded to). Escalated warning now issued, with impending sanctions now imminent absent a response. El_C 13:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani

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

Request concerning SpicyBiryani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIP

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

Since his return from a 3 months topic ban from WP:ARBIP:

4 December 2020: Removes "thenews.com.pk" with false edit summary "figures are Indian claims".
20 January Unsourced WP:OR and marks such a major edit as 'minor'. Not sure how I forgot to add this diff earlier. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
25 January 2021: Changes "93,000 captured" to "90,368 captured" by marking such a major edit as 'minor' and inserts false edit summary that "Pakistani POW count now matches the rest of the page", despite the lead mentions "Approximately 90,000[36] to 93,000 Pakistani servicemen were taken prisoner by the Indian Army".
20 February: Falsely accused me of adding "unsourced figures to the infobox", and when he was provided clarification and additional sources, he still fails to agree with the validity of the "93,000" figure.
23 February: Misrepresents source and makes the edit without edit summary.
- SpicyBiryani: "Pakistan gained control of roughly a third of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan), whereas India retained the rest (Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh)."
- BBC source: "To the west of the ceasefire line, Pakistan controls roughly one third of the state."
21 February: Adds report from months back to decide about a conflict that is currently on-going and has gone through series of changes including widely reported "complete pullout". See WP:CIR.
23 February Doubles down with his WP:OR. Claims that thenews.com.pk is a "random article from 2014" and asking me "how exactly is GlobalSecurity not a reliable source". See RSN discussion for globalsecurity. In this message he also mocked me by imitating my earlier message ("Your personal research does not carry weight here.") by saying "assumption you made is your own personal WP:OR and carries no weight here". See WP:BATTLE.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned for 3 months WP:ARBIPA on June 2020.[188]
Blocked for violating the topic ban on June 2020.[189]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [190]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note, that this account has only 107 edits. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [191]

Discussion concerning SpicyBiryani

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by SpicyBiryani

NOTE: Since the above request was modified after I made this statement, the numbering here may be slightly off. Refer to this diff to match the old numbers. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox (collapsed to reduce wordcount)

4: The source in the infobox states, To the west of the ceasefire line, Pakistan controls roughly one third of the state. A small region, which the Pakistanis call Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir, and the Indians call Pakistani-occupied Kashmir, is semi-autonomous. The larger area, which includes the former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar, called the northern areas, is directly administered by Pakistan in present tense, and is not describing the territorial changes as they happened up till the ceasefire. What I wrote is that as a result of the war, Pakistan captured present day Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, while India defended the rest of the state which is now known as Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. I don't want to copy paste the entire article here, but reading from here onwards will give you an idea of the territorial changes that took place during the war. The state acceded to India, and following that the Pakistani army and irregulars captured what territory is administered by Pakistan today.

There has also been a discussion on the talk page which supports this/my wording.

6: Here are some excerpts from the RSN discussion on GlobalSecurity.org, which is what I based my argument on:

It is a reliable source. It is used by the mainstream media as a source, it is cited in 240,000 books in Google books and by 17,600 articles in Google scholar. It has a page showing support from third parties[82] and despite its disclaimer for errors, bills itself as "reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security."[83] Its director is John Pike, a leading expert.
Examples from NYT of links to globalsecurity.org: 2014: An NYT "editor and researcher" selected reference to the site as a resource on Iran's Guardian Council, Also in 2014 as a resource on Pakistani ISI director Ahmed Shuja Pasha, 2013: globalsecurity "Iranian rocket expert" cited in NYT article, 2012: Cited as a "defense website" for historical information on a US military exercise. There are several other references that can be found by searching globalsecurity.org on NYT. Washington Post has used them more recently: 2016, 2015, 2014. Reuters has most recently used globalsecurity as a source in 2016, CNN in 2015 and Fox in 2016
globalsecurity.org is cited in:

Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War / Oxford University Press
Gulf Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars / Preager
Handbook of International Electrical Safety Practices / Wiley-Scrivener

John Pike, one of the founders, "directed the Space Policy, Cyberstrategy, Military Analysis, Nuclear Resource and Intelligence Resource projects" [1] at the Federation of Atomic Scientists. In terms of reputation and expertise it appears better than the average RS.
[81] Edwards Air Force Base usage of source

In short widely used by reliable sources, and by a US government agency.

1/6: As for Aman's source, last I checked, according to WP:HISTRS, a single news article from nearly a century later is not considered as a reliable source. If it is, then I don't see how GlobalSecurity, a prominent defence website widely cited by mainstream media and thousands of articles and books on military history, is not. The rest of what he said is completely WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS so I'm not going to bother with that. To me, his refusal to accept sourced content and belief that his personal opinion carries more weight looks like a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Aman countering original research with his own original research resulted in me, assuming good faith, reminding him that that his WP:OR is not considered RS either. Obviously, the wording will be somewhat similar, since you can only phrase "Original research does not carry the weight of a reliable source" in so many ways.

PoW count conflict (collapsed to reduce wordcount)

2,3: The article does state that 90,368 PoWs were taken in total. On the talk page, it is agreed upon that 93,000 servicemen were not captured as Aman claims.

Many other reliable academic sources support the 93,000 total, although Bose disputes the ratio of military to civilian prisoners, and several authors assume all the POWs were soldiers, which is sloppy.

After going through multiple sources, one can see that the total number of PoWs (civilians + military) taken differs from 90,000 to 93,000 among sources. Therefore, I suggested that instead of 90,368, the infobox say 90,000-93,000 PoWs or 90,0000+ PoWs were captured. I have at least 10 more reliable sources supporting the figure of 90,000 but for the sake of not cluttering this section I won't cite them here. I will provide them if asked for. I have not edited the page and left the figure of 93,000 in the infobox. However, it seems Aman is under the impression that having a different opinion on a talk page, backed by multiple sources, is a sanctionable offense. Again, WP:IDONTLIKETHEM.

China-India skirmishes misconception (collapsed to reduce wordcount)

5: There seems to be a misconception here: China did capture territory from India during the conflict, and I cited every single one of those claims with reliable neutral and Indian and sources. I did not state that China currently occupies that territory, nor did I say that China has permanently annexed the territory. I was simply adding relevant events of the conflict to an empty section that needed expansion.

Other (collapsed to reduce wordcount)
I hardly see why Aman is going around calling me incompetent -see WP:NPA- when he is trying to get me sanctioned for having an opinion supported by reliable sources that differs from his original research. SpicyBiryani (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Replies about CIR etc. (collasped to reduce wordcount)

@El C: The block in question happened because I was initially under the impression that the sanctions were not extensive to the point that that any article related to Pakistan in the slightest was included; rather, that it was limited to Afghan-Indo-Pakistani matters. Additionally, the edit I made was not controversial, disruptive, or POV pushing in any way, and I avoided similar risky articles until the sanctions expired. SpicyBiryani (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Yes, I am aware I did not completely familiarise myself with the sanctions. Moreover, I had also personally witnessed the PSX attack - I live in Karachi - and as you'd expect, the shock factor clouded my memory and caused me to briefly forget the extensive details of the newly imposed sanctions. But let's move on from that now, I already got penalised for it nearly a year ago anyway. I read through CIR once more, and:

I am able to communicate in English, and have not introduced incomprehensible text into an article
Every source I have cited is reliable, except for GlobalSecurity whose credibility Aman disputed. However, the RSN discussion above concluded that it is reliable, if anything even "better than the average RS."
I have not edited articles without abiding by consensus. If I made an edit and someone on the talk page brought it up, I always discussed it over there before making any changes to the article. In the specific examples Aman cited, for Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, as mentioned above there was a talk page discussion which concluded that my wording was appropriate. For Indo-Pakistani war of 1971, to prevent an edit war, I also started a discussion on the talk page that is currently ongoing. I have not changed the article without waiting for a clear consensus here either.
I haven't edited outside the scope of my own knowledge, like medical articles or other advanced scientific topics such as quantum physics.

However, reading WP:CIRNOT, I do now feel that Aman is trying to go full WP:BRICKS on me, especially considering he labelled me as incompetent despite me possessing all four competencies listed at WP:CIR. Furthermore, even if I did not possess these competencies, WP:CIR states that he should explain the problems he has on my talk page and refrain from labelling me as incompetent, neither of which he did. Instead, he went straight for requesting sanctions simply because he disagreed with me, despite WP:CIR stating that this should only happen in the event that I consistently exhibit total incompetence. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Regarding the new diff Aman just added, the article had obviously been vandalised and needed quick correction. A ballistic missile's top speed is not Mach 0.1, that's slower than a Suzuki Mehran. I changed the speed back to what I last remembered it being before the multiple instances of vandalism. My memory did not fail me, as the page had said Mach 18 for at least the last three years. I have not introduced this number without reason, nor have I attempted to add it back after a fellow editor pointed out it was unsourced.

Now that we have gone over all of the diffs and WP:CIR, avoiding too much repetition, I would like to summarise Aman's complaints so far:

Globalsecurity is an unreliable source, figures are original research - False, see the RSN discussion and statement(s) above.
Changed articles without consensus or source - Also false, I consulted the talk page and provided my argument backed with many sources - see above statement(s). Even if he still believes I did not, the validity of my edits still stands and they are not sanctionable offences - see WP:BRD.

This just leaves,

I "fail(ed) to agree" with him - case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also see WP:RCD.

I would also like to add, that WP:RUCD states, If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration. Aman is effectively wrongly trying to use ARE as a tool to resolve content disputes when he is unable to respond to or simply doesn't like a reasonable argument that's backed with sources. Whether this is unintentional due to lack of knowledge about Wikipedia's policies or not, isn't an assumption I can make. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow, I might be slightly late in responding here due to Friday Prayers. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I've collapsed everything except the GlobalSecurity section of my statement to reduce the wordcount and make it easier to refer to. Since you asked specifically about GlobalSecurity, here's what happened: The infobox contained Indian claims for the casualties of both sides, and these were presented as neutral claims. So, I started this discussion on the talk page to find neutral figures, and cited two sources, the Researchgate one, and the GlobalSecurity one.

Researchgate turned out to be unreliable. I had no issues with this. It didn't give any figures anyway, just stated there were no reliable numbers. Aman claimed that GlobalSecurity is unreliable but didn't specify why. To prove it was indeed reliable, I headed over to RSN, and ended up at the same discussion which he has only now decided to link. In the above statement, I already quoted excerpts from the discussion which concluded that GlobalSecurity is reliable, so I'll post them here in collapsed form.

Quotes from RSN discussion on GlobalSecurity

It is a reliable source. It is used by the mainstream media as a source, it is cited in 240,000 books in Google books and by 17,600 articles in Google scholar. It has a page showing support from third parties[82] and despite its disclaimer for errors, bills itself as "reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security."[83] Its director is John Pike, a leading expert.
Examples from NYT of links to globalsecurity.org: 2014: An NYT "editor and researcher" selected reference to the site as a resource on Iran's Guardian Council, Also in 2014 as a resource on Pakistani ISI director Ahmed Shuja Pasha, 2013: globalsecurity "Iranian rocket expert" cited in NYT article, 2012: Cited as a "defense website" for historical information on a US military exercise. There are several other references that can be found by searching globalsecurity.org on NYT. Washington Post has used them more recently: 2016, 2015, 2014. Reuters has most recently used globalsecurity as a source in 2016, CNN in 2015 and Fox in 2016
globalsecurity.org is cited in:

Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War / Oxford University Press
Gulf Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars / Preager
Handbook of International Electrical Safety Practices / Wiley-Scrivener

John Pike, one of the founders, "directed the Space Policy, Cyberstrategy, Military Analysis, Nuclear Resource and Intelligence Resource projects" [1] at the Federation of Atomic Scientists. In terms of reputation and expertise it appears better than the average RS.
[81] Edwards Air Force Base usage of source

In short widely used by reliable sources, and by a US government agency.

As you can see, the discussion concludes that GlobalSecurity is a reliable and widely cited source run by experts. So unless Aman didn't read past the first few paragraphs where people were confusing it with other random websites, I don't see why he is citing RSN. Additionally, the GlobalSecurity article also cites these sources:

^[1]
^[2]

So, even if GlobalSecurity's credibility as a source is under question - which it shouldn't be, considering the points made in the RSN discussion - in this specific article it is further citing other neutral and reliable sources. Therefore, I believe GlobalSecurity qualifies as WP:RS, especially in light of the RSN discussion. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:

1. Aman calling GlobalSecurity unreliable^[3]

2. My response ^[4]

I did insert these diffs as links above but for some reason they aren't appearing on your end. Maybe it's a formatting error or something.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert L. (1996). India : a country study. Washington, D.C. : Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.
^ Sarkar, Bhashkar. (1999). Kargil War: Past, Present and Future. New Dehli: Lancer.
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1003156922#Casualties_claims
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1008484498#Casualties_claims

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SpicyBiryani

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

Barely 100 edits and already having been subject to a 3-month IPA TBAN and blocked for violating it? That's not good. There are valid concerns relating to the misrepresentation of sources, some fairly innocuous, but others less so. For such a fraught topic area focus that Kashmir and the 2020 China–India skirmishes represent within IPA itself, an indef BROADLY IPA TBAN is probably the only way to go here. Let this inexperienced user prove that they are able to edit other areas of the project productively and without incident. Then, after a considerable time period has passed, a convincing appeal may be considered. So, that is my recommendation. El_C 17:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, two things. First, you are responsible for familiarizing yourself with the scope of any sanctions, otherwise, querying anything that is unclear. Secondly, charging that an user lacks editorial competence isn't necessarily a personal attack — see WP:CIR. El_C 13:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, I'm sorry you went through that (truly), but with respect to editing, dispassionate detachment is expected in any and all mainspace submissions. Also, I'm not sure why you're going on and on about CIRNOT — I submit to you that it is a distraction from the matter at hand and isn't worthwhile pursuing further. El_C 17:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, also, not intended as a CIR reproachment, but please sign all of your comments. El_C 17:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, in your relatively short tenure on the project, you have already been sanctioned about the topic area before, so, though Aman.kumar.goel may ought to have engaged further with you (if they, indeed, had failed to do so), I don't think that annuls this complaint. Further, you are still going on at length on matters which do not seem that germane to this dispute — also with you having grossly exceeded the word limit at this point, so please trim accordingly to align with that requirement. Finally, as a followup to my first point, diffs are missing for some of the more important issues raised, like the GlobalSecurity.org matter (diffs, please), while quite a few others which seems largely irrelevant, are quoted at length. So, please be more selective with your submissions here, overall. Thank you. El_C 19:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, way too lengthy, still, including quoting to an excess, quite unnecessarily so. And, the key matter of Aman.kumar.goel challenging GlobalSecurity is still without diffs, for some reason. I'm not sure how to articulate this better, but your response to this complaint is still highly lacking. I would recommend that you condense, a lot more. There's simply no need to expand in this much detail. Brief, concise summaries with a detailed collection of relevant diffs attached, that'd be best. As a side note, I'll point out that I, myself, had used GlobalSecurity as source for various military and weaponry -related pages for many years without incident. El_C 17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Casperti

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

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

Appealing user: Casperti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Casperti (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, here: [192] based on the comments of a user (Aman Kumar Goel) on El_C talk page here: [193] because of my edit here: [194]

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

Notification of that administrator: [195]

Statement by Casperti

Hi,I wanted to appeal my hasty ban that I recently got from Admin El_C and to lift it. Here[196] reported by Aman Kumar Goel Here [197], where the user did not tell all the truths, Within less than an hour I was permanently banned by the admin after this user reported this edit: [198]. Claiming that this edit was the same reason I was banned before, Which was not the case. Also, claiming that there was a consensus on the subject I edited here: [199], Which was clearly and clearly not the case (2 vs 3), me and the other editor who did not see the source as reliable asked for another source to be mentioned in the infobox. In short, where the discussion is about: in 2019, this source: report-khan-abdul-gaffar-khan-s-great-granddaughter-seeks-citizenship-for-phastoons-in-india-2584887 was added by user:Anupam as purpose for using it as source for the population count of Pashtuns in the infobox, this was in 2019 already discussed about: [200] and also in 2020 and also now in 2021 I saw a discussion on the talk page about the same source and it's reliability. to summarise this source it's an interview with a famous person who claims there are 3.2Million ethnic Pashtuns in India, this was used as source for the population count of Pashtuns in India while there is nowhere where we can verify this specific claim of this interview no ethnographic or census source backs this claim up. You can check the link up, it is an interview where in the interviewee (famous person) claims there are 3.2M Pashtuns in India...without any support of any census tools or papers (please check it). So this was basically where the discussion was about due to WP:DUE this subject was difficult to get a consensus on . We have never reached consensus to begin with so the claim of the user that I went against consensus is certainly not true which can be checked by anyone here. 9 months ago before I got banned for behavioural issues (which I admit was 1000% correct to be banned for) I opened a WP:RSN "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard " to solve the problem the result of that can be seen here:[201], the result was also clear: Delete the source. This is why I was banned for 6 months last time:[202], For edit warring mainly, which I could understand and it was my mistake and deep fault. But certainly it was not for editing this subject as Aman Kumar Goel claims on the report on El_C's talk page, so basically a false claim. Here is the report of 9 months ago: [203]. I have certainly made mistakes in the past by not properly edit constructively and how I should have engaged with others. But it seems to me that Admin El_C is now taking it a bit more personal even in September I got a 48h block from El_C because someone wished me and I wished back a "Happy Afghan independence day". I hope others can look at this as well and hopefully it is not personal from El_C side towards me. Anyways, I wanted to solve the dispute of 9 months ago around this source claiming there are 3.2M Pashtuns in India in a civil way so I though I will open a WP:DRN [204] because I did not want to have edit conflicts and I thought it is the most civil way to solve a dispute, and I edited after the advice of that Dispute resolution board So I was banned for this edit while I did not engage any edit warring or edit conflict with anyone and only did this 1 edit(s) and only because I took the advice of the DRN Board which was "delete the source and replace it with a reliable one". If someone approached me and said do you want to discuss this, I would have agreed but I got banned instantly with the claim: "you have been banned for this before" while it was not the case and I wanted to resolve this dispute by opening a WP:DRN and I edited after the advice of that Dispute resolution board for this issue/dispute. Quote:

"This is a clear case. A quote from a person is not a WP:RS for census information. This information needs to come from official reports only. If there is some kind of controversy over the numbers- that can be covered separately in a section of an article as appropriate- but not in an info box. This was already explained at the WP:RSNB and the DRN is not going to overturn that consensus here. My recommendation is to remove the source and find a better one. But an Infobox is just that- a box with information. If you need to hash out details- do it in an article somewhere, not there. 21:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)"

After this on 11 February 21:18 I took the advice and removed the source on 12:00, 12 February 2021‎ at Pashtuns [205] and on 04:33, 13 February 2021 I was banned by El_C by the claim that I have been banned for this before. Which is not true + I wanted to solve this dispute that is what I had in my head. Why would I open a WP:DRN? I wanted to be civil in resolving the matter. Never there was a consensus so I assumed this was the right thing to do. the past 3 months since I have been unbanned for the topic I have contributed normally on this project with the aim to improve it not to disrupt it. For example a major edit what I have done in the past 3 months in this topic: is the addition of a 1700 years old Greek-Bactrian document that refers for the first to the word "Afghans". This document was unknown to Wikipedia before I added and very rare. It's the first time such a document was added to the project here it is if wondering: [206]. What my point here is that I am here on Wikipedia to work on this whole project of Wikipedia and I am certainly not here to destroy or disrupt it. I have made mistakes in the past (partly because I was not a very experienced user and personal mistakes). I wanted to show my good side but I didn't even got the chance. If I violate anything, any admin is allowed to give me a permanent ban on the whole of Wikipedia. Which sounds fair, but I hope I can go on the chance of being be back on this topic again because I have been banned wrongfully per evidence given and I hopefully further prove that I am not here for "Bad faith". Hopefully I gave enough information, Thank you. Kind regards, Casperti (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to El_C's comment: I have shorten it now. Casperti (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer @El C:, Thanks for the comment but what do you want to say with that comment? This is different case so a different story. Let others see and comment, everyone can mistakes including you. I have been banned without any discussions (if there was I would constructively join it), any edit warring, any violations because of 1 edit that I did after advice of both a WP:RSN and WP:DRN. the user who reported me on your talk page wanted to see me permanently banned 8 months ago so naturally he did the report again based on non truths (never there was a consensus since 2019, 2020 on). There is no need to bring history up, since the ban of 6 months ended I have not been in any disruptions. Everyone can read and decide for themselves there is no need to bring up accusations, everything here above is on topic for the appeal. Even if you got 99 cases right there is always a possibility to be wrong in 1 case. Am I correct? Thanks for understanding and let people check it out Casperti (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

First, seeing this lengthy appeal, it does remind me of the sort of filibustering which prompted me to tell the appellant on my talk page that I expect better reading comprehension from them (having had to do so on more than one occasion). Regarding the reasons behind their (2nd, this time, indef) topic ban, I don't really have much more to add at this time beyond linking to the discussion on my talk page (here) and my sanction notification text itself (here). If any other reviewers of this appeal have any further queries for me, please don't hesitate to ask (and also ping). El_C 21:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti, I mean this with the best intention, because I don't think your appeal will succeed (I'm basing that on the 7 or so AE appeals concerning my actions which were filed during the last month or so, all declined) — but your appeal seems emblematic of the same problems that editors had with you, in addition to your re-insertion of SYNTH data after it was clearly deemed as such by all of the other participants. That problem, again, is all of this filibustering and your overall tendency to WP:BLUDGEON, at length. I submit to you that so long as you are unable to condense your appeal to its salient points, it basically amounts to a collective waste of everyone's time. El_C 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti, sure, sure. Not trying to badger you, really. What I am trying to say (still), just in a breath, is that condensing your appeal further to concise summaries (and paragraph breaks) supported by a detailed collection of relevant diffs, would be in your best interests. I'm basing that assertion on my ample experience in all matters AE. I'll stress that I don't mind being proven wrong, believe it or not (truly), so, if you do have a case, I'd rather see it presented skillfully than less so (i.e. rather than in a way that would contribute to it otherwise faltering).

I'm just saying that, though it doesn't happen often, there are AE appeals that are declined virtually without comment, simply with a closing note that says: since nobody has shown interest in the appeal, it is declined. So, that has happened before, and I would rather it wouldn't here. I'd much prefer for it to be reviewed. Now, it's only been a few days, so hopefully, it doesn't. But maybe help even the odds by condensing and amending, is all I'm saying. One final note about something I just noticed. Above, you've written : hopefully it is not personal from El_C side towards me. I'd like to clarify that, not only isn't any of this personal for me, but I didn't even remember who you were (I don't mean that unkindly, I just didn't), and had to refresh myself with the background. I mean, I've blocked close to 8,000 users, I only remember the details of a very small number of them (obviously). El_C 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Casperti

Result of the appeal by Casperti

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

Flushing Girl

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 Flushing Girl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Flushing Girl (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

This user came across my watchlist last year, making a series of POV edits related to Eastern Europe and particularly Kosovo. They were given a DS notice by Neutrality in January,[207] and I gave them a final warning earlier this month.[208]

One of their main problematic behaviours (repeatedly on several pages) consists of removing Kosovo-related links from lists relating to Yugoslavia successor states, or removing Kosovo-related categories from articles that have categories of other Yugoslavia successor states.

Removing Kosovo-related link from Australia–Yugoslavia relations [209][210][211][212][213]
Removing Kosovo category from same article[214]
Removing Kosovo-related link from Ireland–Yugoslavia relations [215][216][217]
Removing Kosovo-related link from France–Yugoslavia relations [218][219]
Removing Kosovo-related link from Bulgaria–Yugoslavia relations [220][221]
A series of Kosovo-related category removals from similar articles that have categories for other Yugoslavia successor states[222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

They have been reverted by multiple editors, but continue to make the same type of edits, or repeat reverted ones. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Quite a few of their other edits related to eastern Europe show a pretty clear pro-Russia bias – adding the Russian breakaway state Novorossiya to Right to exist but deleting Chechnya.[238][239], inserting (unsourced) views on Russian democrats and liberals,[240], or edits regarding Alexei Navalny.[241][242] I am not convinced that they are able to edit neutrally in this topic area. Cheers, Number 5 7 09:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Flushing Girl

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 Flushing Girl

Okay I will leave any articles about Kosovo alone. Thanks.

Guys I will not edit Kosovo anymore. I just thought that it was something good because I didn’t really approve of Kosovo in these articles and then I got carried away. I will be more careful next time. I also removed the controversial symbol above as well. Anyway thanks.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Flushing Girl

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

Number 57, what sanction do you think would be best? A narrow Kosovo one? A wider Balkans one? Or the widest EE one? (Also, noting that I protected her talk page back in May. That's weird.) El_C 00:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, so long as it's recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary, I'm good with that. Also, am I the only one feeling uncomfortable seeing 👌 being displayed? With respect to [its] OK_gesture#White_power_symbol association, of course. El_C 03:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, right, right, didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just meant, in general. Is it still, erm, ok to display? I'm not sure I've ever seen it used in real life (at least in non-racial contexts) since it's been hijacked by the white supremacists. So, I wanted to know if my notion alighs with others, is all. El_C 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, I'll still respond here, though briefly. My only note is that the lion's share of our readership is American, for whatever that's worth. Hope you have a good ~~night~~ morning sleep! El_C 04:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can take Flushing Girl's statement here to be a voluntary topic ban from Kosovo, broadly interpreted. We might as well go with that for now, if there is disruption in other areas going forwards it can be expanded or other sanctions considered if necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: outside of any context, the OK symbol is exceedingly unlikely to have any racial connotations. I can't see any obvious indication of a white power or similar context in the contribs of Flushing Girl I've looked at, and there is no obvious reason for there to be any in the context of disputes around Kosovo as all sides are predominantly "white". Thryduulf (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: from my awareness, it's only problematic in racist or US politics contexts and explicitly still fine in contexts like diving, but I'm no expert and also in the UK (the racial use seems to be a very US thing). This conversation belongs somewhere else than here though (I'm not sure where, please ping me if you post I'm off to bed - my local time is UTC!). Thryduulf (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was an astroturfed moral panic to retcon past pictures of US politicians as "racist" by people at 4chan. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChandlerMinh

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 ChandlerMinh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ChandlerMinh (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

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

24 February: Falsification of source. The provided source makes no mention of a 'debate' or a 'fact'.
23 February: Same falsification of sources like above. Adds "dated from 1st century BCE and 5th century CE", as dating for "earliest reference to the story of the Ramayana is found in the Purananuru" but the cited source makes no mention of this dating, nor do the whole book.
18 February Removes sourced content of 500 bytes + and marks the edit as 'minor'.
17 February Removes sourced content of 500 bytes + by depending on his own knowlege and repeats his revert [243] while making zero contribution on talk page.[244]

Same edit warring on 23 January and no contribution on the talk page.

17 February "Any sane person would ideally prefer to quote Tesla’s own writing", see WP:NPA.
8 February violating WP:NOTFORUM even after he was warned for it just 4 days ago.[245]
2 February: Adding unsourced WP:OR he is himself unsure about.[246]

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): 2020, 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [247]

Discussion concerning ChandlerMinh

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 ChandlerMinh

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ChandlerMinh

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

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

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

[3] Dickson, Caitlin (2021-05-01). "Exclusive: Pandemic relief aid went to media that promoted COVID misinformation". Microsoft News. Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2021-02-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[4] Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert L. (1996). India : a country study. Washington, D.C. : Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.

[5] Sarkar, Bhashkar. (1999). Kargil War: Past, Present and Future. New Dehli: Lancer.

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1003156922#Casualties_claims

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1008484498#Casualties_claims

[a]

[b]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

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