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

Hyper9

Hyper9 is indefinitely topic banned from all Wikipedia pages and discussions connected with Indian history including languages/linguistic history, and Nagadeepa is indefinitely topic banned from all Wikipedia pages and discussions connected with with Indian languages. Both editors are encouraged to appeal the sanction no sooner than six months from now, with evidence that they have contributed constructively in other parts of Wikipedia or in our sister projects in the meantime. Such appeals are likely to be viewed favorably. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

Request concerning Hyper9

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nagadeepa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hyper9 (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

To ban Hyper9 from editing the Malayalam page (and other Indian history pages) where he has been propagating fringe theories not widely accepted by most scholars. Hyper9 has also been repeatedly deleting accurately referenced widely accepted views on the history of the Malayalam language. He has also been brazenly distorting the following accurate source and completely misinterpreting it to suit his fringe theories:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24157306.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Finally, he has refused to engage in dispute resolution procedures on spurious grounds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_160#Talk:Malayalam

I note that this not a new problem and he has been banned in the past for similar disruptive behaviour.

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

- 18:38, 12 February 2018‎ Accurate history of Malayalam language with scientific references. Hyper9 has consistently been deleting these referenced edits of mine based on the work of reputed linguists and historians which jettison the theory that Malayalam had an independent origin from Tamil.

16/2/18 14:47 This is the current version of the page where Hyper9 has ensured that a biased and fringe history of the Malayalam language is left unchallenged.

A full argument between Hyper9 and two other editors Cpt.a.haddock and me Nagadeepa can be seen in the talk page. Anyone who reads the whole exchange and particularly the research article by S.V Shanmugam (which I have quoted from extensively in the talk section) can see that Hyper9 has been distorting this source and is being disruptive and obstructive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malayalam#Debates_on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[1] Hyper9 was previously banned on 7th July 2017 from all articles related to Indian history for the exact same reasons that I am submitting this request.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [2] (7/7/17) by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs). @SpacemanSpiff: @Doug Weller:
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [3] 7/7/17.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [4].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Apologies for not attaching correct diff links earlier. I am new to wikipedia editing. I think this is what is requested as a 'diff':

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayalam&type=revision&diff=825503445&oldid=825317310 Nagadeepa (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)-->[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyper9#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagadeepa (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Hyper9

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 Hyper9

The article under dispute has a problematic regional history to it. It is therefore understandable that it can be controversial - but that is true for a lot of other topics as well. I have searched for sources for these pages and all of the content that I have added are from reputed and estabilshed sources. I have also addressed this filing editor properly, despite his abuses, incivility (I have already been called - 'dishonest', 'charlatan', 'madman' on WP by this editor) and a series of incoherent arguments on the Talk:Malayalam page. Yet, no action has been taken against this editor.

Not only this, this other editor was never interested in a discussion, but after one response from me, went ahead and opened a DRN on 10th Feb. The response after which this editor raised the DRN can be viewed here - and only highlights their unwillingness for discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=prev&oldid=824718203 (Only the bottom part where I have signed off is my contribution)

This editor, who has filed this complaint, has been resorting to all sorts of tactics to get the version of the page that he wants without any discussion on the Talk:Malayalam page. The first action that he did is to file a DRN even before we had any serious discussion. I would like to point out I have made exactly 5 responses to this editor, which can be viewed here - 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=824981462&oldid=824944902 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825312813&oldid=824983593 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825504100&oldid=825366118 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825548041&oldid=825531524 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825954678&oldid=825879648

I have been extremely polite and restrained in my responses in this stint - and if there is something that the WP administrators would point out as inadmissible in my replies above, I would be surprised. In my previous experience, the Appeal procedure to a ban request on me did not even allow me to respond to accusations. In this instance, I do hope that my case would be considered more carefully by the Admins. I have contributed significantly to improving these pages as any editor who will examine these pages can tell and much of the sources that I had added in my previous Enforcement case have not been removed - even after the disputing editor cross-checked them. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, User:Dennis_Brown, User:Sandstein, User:RegentsPark - It would have been fair if you could have at least waited for me to provide a First response before arriving at conclusions. Also, to base the present dispute on any previous dispute is to fail to see what is going on now. I am eager to be shown anything that amounts to a transgression in any of my edits and I have been extremely patient in dealing with this filing editor. This filing editor begins their edits on February 8th, 2018 and by February 9th-10th - they file DRN cases thinking that it is some form of 3rd party judgement. This clearly indicates that they were never interested in resolving the dispute through discussion. They have in fact, been trying to use such blocking mechanisms from the beginning - knowing that they can harp about how I was banned previously (which is a whole different story on a different page Chera_dynasty). The discussion on this page had been in fact settled by me and the other disputing editor with a consensus DRN version and can be viewed here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=prev&oldid=787916353

In the lede on this page Malayalam, the portion on origins has been made neutral to show the existence of Two views after all this effort by me. There is no need for me to sit and take all these attacks by these other editors if there wasn't any substance to it. All these editors including the previous ones have been trying to push the first view in that origin portion all this while. In fact, before I edited this page, all these disputing editors sat on this page without allowing for the second view to be expressed at all. It is in attempting to neutralise this bias that I have had to do research and add good sources and have been the subject to all these attacks. I dare say that it would be patently unfair as responsible WP Admins if you do not look at my responses more carefully and the nature of the disruptive behaviour and personal attacks by this other editor. If you can then genuinely provide any conclusive examples or reasons why such a drastic action such as a ban on me is warranted, I would accept it willingly. Hyper9 (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by Hyper9

I am surprised to know now that it was this same editor who tried to edit Talk:Malayalam using an anonymous IP earlier. There was no attempt by this editor to clarify that it was them earlier, which is obviously some form of deception. User:Francis_Schonken: As I have mentioned somewhere in the talk pages, I am perfectly willing to take part in any process for dispute resolution. I have done so successfully in the past and I have shown that I can maintain decorum.

In my defence, I did not know that the 1st DRN case would be closed down because I requested an apology (which this other editor has still not been decent enough to provide). I was under the impression that there would be an apology (as I have done in the past) and we would carry on into the main discussion. Despite this having happened, in the 2nd DRN case, this editor opens a case using words such as "madman" in their opening statement. Obviously, this editor is not interested in having a discussion purely on content as a DRN case ought to be. I must point out that it would be ridiculous if the one editor can launch personal attacks in every alternate sentence in a moderated discussion - and the other editor has to focus on content only. If anything, I have been patient with this immaturity and not responded similarly, but have only asked for such statements to be deleted or an apology given. Hyper9 (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Francis_Schonken - For whatever its worth, in answer to your question - I dont have any problem in participating in a content-only discussion. I have done so once in the past and arrived at a consensus with the disputing editor. Hyper9 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The filing editor resurrected their old ID solely for the purpose of disruptive editing and filing a slew of disputes and cases against me. And they still have not shown any sense of basic civility or change in their behaviour. Despite discussing in a wholly reformed manner and being patient with this highly disruptive and uncivil editor, I see that a greater sanction is being called against me with barely any supporting evidence for this. In a sense, I am not surprised by this irrational position by the Admin User:SpacemanSpiff. I have pointed out the biased behaviour of this Admin in the past as well (in July 2017). I am sure that they are a great Admin in other areas but as far as these topics are concerned, unfortunately I have not seen anything but biased and illogical interventions. However, there is probably very little that a contributor can do in this regard and once the Admins conclude the discussions, I am sure I can adhere by whatever decision is reached. Hyper9 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is not "just a content dispute". It is a content dispute that is compounded by conduct issues. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Malayalam . As you can see, there has been incivility on both sides. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that User:Nagadeepa is ranting at great length. My original comment had been that there was incivility by both editors, and Nagadeepa seems to be proving that sometimes the Original Poster gets hit by the boomerang. In other words, I concur with the pending result of topic-banning both parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nagadeepa

It is very clear from my extensive comments on the Talk:Malayalam page that I have exhausted all avenues of discussion with Hyper9 (whether moderated or non-moderated) and his claim that I want to edit the page without discussion is an outright falsehood.Nagadeepa (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"While we are at it, it is necessary to look at the conduct of Nagadeepa, who has been frequently repeating himself by copy pasting same messages, [13][14] typing in caps."

This message by D4iNa4 has angered me. The only reason why I repeated that message in caps is because Hyper9 had repeatedly ignored it and refused to address it. Hyper9 himself requested me to highlight the quotations from the said scholars to differentiate them from my own words. In fact, this quote alone from the paper by S.V Shanmugam exposes Hyper9 whole argument and shows he has manipulated the paper. He did not directly address any of my critical questions and would instead go on a tangent with his responses. Debate with him was impossible hence why 3rd party mediation was crucial.Nagadeepa (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that D4iNa4 has been tagged as a suspected sockpuppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogesh_Khandke/Archive Nagadeepa (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify IP address 80.229.155.49 in the talk page is also me. I have been engaged in discussion with Hyper9 for a much longer time than has been implied.Nagadeepa (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try MagSGV. That is not sock puppetry by any stretch of the mind. I only searched for my log in details when I needed to open the DRN. There was a gap of many days between my eventual log in. Nagadeepa (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken I accept that my behaviour has not been perfect, and I should have restrained myself from referring to Hyper9's character. I was infuriated by his stone walling and his brazen distortion of S.V Shanmugam's source.

Regarding the assertion that Tamilakam refers merely to a political structure, I dispute that strongly. Both S.V Shanmugam and Prof. Sreedhara Menon (Kerala's foremost historian) refer to it as a linguistic/cultural region. For most of its existence it was divided into three warring states all of which spoke Tamil.

The internal evidence from the ancient literature also supports this.Nagadeepa (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MapSGV well that was clearly was not my intention. It was a case of me not bothering to dig out my long forgotten log in details with my initial discussion. You can believe what you want. But that was not my motivation at allNagadeepa (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis yes I would be open to take part in a 3rd party mediated discussion.

"Hyper9 seems to correctly indicate that some of the scholars quoted by Nagadeepa rather speak about political and other historical splits".

Could you please direct me to which scholar I quote says this. S.V Shanmugam, my main source clearly states that ancient Tamil Nadu and Kerala (Tamilakam) was a Tamil linguistic region i.e. region where the Tamil language was spoken. There is no consciousness in the ancient literature of any other language being spoken substantially.Nagadeepa (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis I will be willing to take part in a 3rd party meditated discussion and will refrain from making any offensive comments to the other editor.Nagadeepa (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis one of my main concerns regarding any 3rd party mediated process, is that will the 3rd parties actually read the source material under scrutiny? There has been blatant untruths said about one reliable source which anyone can see if they can actually read the research paper. If this does not happen then it will degenerate into a "his word against mine" argument which will go no where. Nagadeepa (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Is there a way to combine both 'Language and linguistics' with 'History and geography'? This dispute is easily resolved when these two disciplines are looked at together and not in isolation. The linguistic evidence coupled with the historical evidence (garnered from the ancient literature and inscriptions of Kerala which are all in Old Tamil) leaves no doubt that Hyper9's position is a fringe theory. The fringe academic that Hyper9 depends on (Govindakutty) is completely silent on the historical record for example.Nagadeepa (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'posting unexplained poetry' @Bishonen: the poetry is self explanatory to anyone who has basic specialised knowledge of the topic (which Hyper9 has). It's an ancient poem from an Old Tamil anthology Pathitrupathu which was composed in Kerala during the early centuries of the Christian era (1st-2nd century AD). It proves that the people from Kerala regarded themselves as being part of Tamilakam, the common Tamil linguistic cultural region.Nagadeepa (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"their jumping from an IP to their account on the talkpage without acknowledgement was beyond nonchalant (if not outright deceptive)".

I did not realise it was such a big sin. The whole premise of the talk page in my estimation was based on the merits of the arguments/evidence, not on who says it. I did not think it was huge deal whether I wrote it under my old handle which I had to dig up from obscurity (so i could request the 3rd party meditation) or written under my IP. To call it deception is extreme. To have such an innocent mistake used against me is unfair.Nagadeepa (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well now the gloves are off, and I'm expecting the inevitable ban, I'm not going to bite my lips. Everything I said about Hyper9's personal character I genuinely believe. Was it uncivil for me to say it out in a public forum? Yes and I should have restrained myself. However, I know I will be vindicated in the future when Hyper9 comes up again in yet another dispute mechanism with yet another editor. As for me I am not going to waste any time with editing Wikipedia anymore and I would prefer if you would give me a permanent ban from all topics (disable my account please). If I could delete my complete account including all online evidence of it that would be preferable. Thanks.Nagadeepa (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

While we are at it, it is necessary to look at the conduct of Nagadeepa, who has been frequently repeating himself by copy pasting same messages, [5][6] typing in caps. Such disruption only creates hostility. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I am afraid talking to you does feel like I'm talking to a mad man."[7] Clear violation of WP:NPA. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagadeepa: if my above message really "angered" you so much then I am sure you can't deal with content dispute. You believe that because next one is not agreeing with you that means they are not reading your messages and you can copy paste same messages until next one stops.

Your failure to address your bludgeoning, personal attacks, is visible. Talking about a 4 years old block of mine is not going to legitimize your ongoing disruption. Your IP edits seem to be violating WP:NOTFORUM.[8]

Nagadeepa has CIR issues and since he came with unclean hands, he needs to be sanctioned as well. Or otherwise close the report as content dispute (per Sandstein) and urge the users to try an RfC. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nagadeepa could have apologized but this recent comment[9] further confirms that he is going to personalize these incidents and refuse to accept any mistakes. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MagSGV

@Nagadeepa: did you confessed your sock puppetry with IP on talk page? I wouldn't be surprised if Hyper9 was not aware of it. MapSGV (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nagadeepa can you just answer my question? Yes that is sock puppetry. Trying to show up that different people are saying same thing when there is one person using the IP and account. — MapSGV (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, still Nagadeepa had to confess on talk page that he is behind the IP and he had enough time for that. This issue is not that one sided like you are thinking. Nagadeepa has engaged in disruptive editing. MapSGV (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis

@Nagadeepa: it seems important you realise that your behaviour has been all but exemplary, e.g. at the DRN, as already mentioned by Robert McClenon: "there has been incivility on both sides" (emphasis added). Yours was at least as much a cause to sinking the DRN as Hyper9's (I even thought yours slightly more offensive). You've edited en.Wikipedia for over ten years now, although apparently not always using the Nagadeepa account. Like for Hyper9 it is a pity you apparently rather stayed away than edit outside your area of interest (an apparently very narrow area of interest). Your latest additions to this AE show little or no improvement regarding the tone of your comments, so I suppose at least a symbolical but firm warning to change your ways would be in place. If needs be in the form of an AE sanction.

Re. "... who's right about the content ..." (mentioned by one of the admins below): scholars disagree, classical story, and opponents try to get their preferred scholars in line for being designated as the "mainstream" in the article, thus discussions devolve in a classical fight, and since neither gets the upper hand on content, in a series of insults. From the more interesting content arguments:

Nagadeepa remarks that the scholars which are regarded mainstream by Hyper9 do in fact recognise that the other theory is mainstream.
Hyper9 seems to correctly indicate that some of the scholars quoted by Nagadeepa rather speak about political and other historical splits, which are not necessarily the same as the split of the language from its surmised predecessor languages (which is the topic of the dispute).

So, if scholars don't agree, maybe mention what scholars say in their own name without attempting to distil a "mainstream" indicator for the lead section out of this lack of agreement, which might be a practical application of NPOV instead of this cesspit of a discussion. To me at least Nagadeepa and Hyper9 seem equally lacking in behavioural skills to bring this to a consensus conclusion, and it is a pity that the DRN sank (for which both seem somewhat equally responsible, although Hyper9 should probably have been the wiser one, and Nagadeepa should have been aware that being offensive usually boomerangs), so that the discussion would ultimately have centred around presenting the material in a NPOV way in mainspace instead of being ultimately about editor conduct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagadeepa: would you be prepared, after this AE closes (whatever way it closes) to participate in a content dispute resolution process (RSN, official mediation, RfC, or whatever seems most advisable and gets accepted by those having a say in it) about the topic at hand without launching *any* offence to fellow editors?

@Hyper9: same question to you of course.

It might be possible (but it is up to admins to decide whether anything in this vein would be viable and/or desirable) to close this conditionally, say, that the first incivility by either of you would immediately result in a block of at least a week, with increasing block times when returning from block periods with new insults, etc (and/or other discretionary sanctions if any from the original ArbCom case are still in force). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyper9: I grouped your statements. You didn't really answer my question, at least not too clear whether you could agree with "content only" in the discussions (no transgression whatsoever outside of the content issue that needs to be addressed).

@Nagadeepa: now you started to discuss content here, on a noticeboard that is a conduct noticeboard. I asked a question about conduct (i.e. your future conduct, whether it could adhere to certain principles), which you didn't answer. You had the opportunity to talk content exclusively, at the DRN (and it failed in part while you couldn't). Now we're at a conduct noticeboard, addressing conduct issues, and in your latest replies you seem to try to switch topic to content issues. If unclear about the difference (conduct vs. content), I must say that wouldn't promise too much regarding having future discussions either exclusively on content or exclusively on conduct: separating the two aspects is one of the methods used in Wikipedia to bring interminable discussions back on track. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, placed an IPA-related ds alert on Nagadeepa's talk page ([10]). Reason: Nagadeepa filed this AE request without mentioning any arbcom case (someone else filled it out for them, linking to the IPA case). Formally, this sort of meant Nagadeepa could have been unaware of the ds system. Thought it better to make this clear. In general I still think it best both editors would resume the discussion about the content (which seems interesting enough) without commenting about each others behaviour. This would be the best solution for Wikipedia I suppose: I'm not convinced the current version of the Malayalam article is unbiased, but I'm sure both editors can help hammer it out (if only they'd concentrate on content, not post vaguely related poetry on the article's talk page, walls of texts, boldface repeats of upper-case text, etc.) For that plan to work Hyper9 should be able to take part in discussions too, so I see less benefit in topic-banning them from anything. Nagadeepa seems wise enough not to need mediation in such content discussions: either they stop commenting on co-editors, or they incur the sanctions foreseen by the IPA ds system. Whether or not the discussion is mediated makes no difference. I'd recommend an RfC instead, which might attract other views instead of just two editors running in circles chasing each other's tails. In other words: close this AE request as content dispute, with a stern warning to both editors that IPA's ds sanctions will be applied if any of the former bad behaviour returns (which applies to both now). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagadeepa: re. "will the [mediating] 3rd parties actually read the source material under scrutiny" – at DRN not, afaik. Afaik the same is true for formal mediation. RfC, e.g. when inscribed in the "History and geography" and "Language and linguistics" sets, has a higher potential of attracting people somewhat knowledgeable in the topic area, and interested in reading available sources. It would also be possible to take the source material to WP:RSN, but that is rather for sorting out limited sets of article content (half a paragraph or so) + underlying sources (less than a handful mostly), but this noticeboard is less suitable for the balance in an article as a whole. Other possibility: WP:NPOVN, rather for the over-all balance, but less focus on detailed assessment of actual sources. Or WP:FTN, but that is only if wanting to brandish one of the alternative theories as "fringe" (might give more discussion than it resolves). So all in all, RfC seems best imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hyper9

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

User:Hyper9 was placed under a six-month topic ban from 'edits or pages pertaining to Indian history' in July 2017 by User:SpacemanSpiff. The ban was unsuccessfully appealed at AE in July 2017. The six-month ban expired in January 2018. Edits by Hyper9 of Malayalam during the month of February don't violate any currently active ban, but we might consider whether reinstatement of the ban with a new expiry might be justified. I am filling out some of the fields in this complaint above with the relevant ban information. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though the complaint here is less than perfectly organized, Hyper9's original arguments against his ban don't persuade. To see more background, read the editor's talk page starting at User talk:Hyper9#Discretionary sanctions alert, which was in June 2017. I'm leaving pings for User:MelanieN, User:RegentsPark and User:Doug Weller since they participated in earlier discussions. Note that, when banned from Indian history, Hyper9 stopped editing the encyclopedia for precisely six months and then resumed where he left off, arguing about the same articles. This somewhat works around the rationale for timed bans, which are intended to let the editor contribute in other areas while avoiding the trouble spot. Hyper9's interactions with administrators were very indignant and they suggest two possibilities: either (a) the admins had no idea what they were doing, or (b) Hyper9 was really off the rails but refused to reflect on the problems they were causing. I suspect that (b) is more likely to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory view of the available discussions gives me the impression that an indefinite topic ban might be in order. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm seeing a strong case of WP:IDHT and an unwillingness to discuss in good faith, at DRN or the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging User:SpacemanSpiff who placed the original sanction, as I assume they are familiar with editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is actionable. The supposed diffs being reported aren't diffs. And the explanation given for the report doesn't make clear how this is not just a content dispute. Sandstein 17:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the report as given isn't, but there is a problem to be found if you look elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the topic ban. Though the discussion on the talk page is rather confusing, Hyper9 is clearly obfuscating and not assuming good faith. Given that they've had similar issues in the past, an indef topic ban is warranted.--regentspark (comment) 14:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence, and would like some more information about recent editing. As EdJohnston says, Hyper9's six-month break after he got a six-month topic ban is a striking circumstance. I don't want to make too much of it, though, as "any edits or pages pertaining to Indian history" was a pretty wide topic ban. If Indian history is the user's area of interest, they can't be blamed too much for simply waiting out the ban. Especially as I didn't see anybody telling them at the time that they needed to edit Wikipedia during the topic ban in order to improve their 'Wikipedia CV'. (I may have missed it.) The break is unfortunate, though — editing other areas would have been a learning experience re how to edit Wikipedia and how to fit into a collaborative community. However, Ed, while I too was pretty appalled by Hyper9's complaints against his ban, on his page and in his appeal here, that was in June 2017. I'd agree he was "off the rails" then. But after his return in January he has clearly made an effort to discuss civilly. Dennis Brown, are you looking mainly at the linked June discussions, or at anything recent? And, most importantly for me to form an opinion about a possible re-ban: RegentsPark, could you explain more fully about obfuscation in the January-February discussion on Talk:Malayalam? It's somewhat over my head. P.S., Dennis, unfortunately SpacemanSpiff hasn't edited since 1 February. It would be a big help if he was here. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

His blowing off the DRN really rubbed me the wrong way. You might could argue that it was too early, but it was accepted and he should have accepted a 3rd party mediating. Not all of his recent stuff is bad (I'm on the fence as well) but I'm not convinced he is here to work with others, after just sampling some of his edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, the discussion is confusing because I can't figure out who's right about the content (but then, I rarely can!). My main concern was with the way Hyper9 handled the discussion. We have a newish editor who is bringing sources to the table but getting no traction. They then tried a DR but Hyper9 shot that down leave one very frustrated new editor. There appear to be some ownership issues as well. If they're not willing to go to DR, then I don't see much choice other than banning them from, at the minimum, Malayalam related pages. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm pondering. I'll just point out that Nagadeepa isn't technically a new editor, they've been editing since 2007. However, there was a break between 2010 and 25 January 2018. I suppose that kind of explains their IP editing on Talk:Malayalam from 80.229.155.49 between 22 and 25 January, which they acknowledge above; presumably they had pretty much forgotten about using the account. "I only searched for my log in details when I needed to open the DRN" is a bit cavalier — if you have an account you should either use it or abandon it, not be on and off, which is confusing for others — but calling it sockpuppetry as MagSGV does is overly harsh, and I assume no sneaky motives.

OK. Considering that Hyper9 has made an effort to be more collaborative this time round, and may reasonably not have expected the DRN to be shut down over their demand for an apology (Hyper9 says above that he didn't), I feel another topic ban from Indian history would be overly draconian. I propose a six-month topic ban from all pages and discussions related to the Malayalam language. Better bold that so it stands out in my ramblings. For myself, I would also urge them to stop demanding apologies in any forum, as it never leads to anything good. I see they're still harping on above about how the other editor "has still not been decent enough" to provide an apology. Just move on, please. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I've been away so I haven't followed this issue when it began to unravel but now that I've had time to look at it, I think the original topic ban should be reinstated, indefinitely, with an appeal allowed in six months based on non-problematic contributions elsewhere, or else we're just going to be revisiting this issue again pretty soon (just like this time where the issues started after expiry of the prior topic ban). That said, I don't think the filer's conduct here is any better and they should also be subject to a topic ban from anything related to Indian languages. —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Great to see you back, Space. I'm coming round to your view, they should have identical topic bans from Indian languages (not Indian history this time, right?). I.e., indefinite, appeal allowed in six months, will only be viewed favorably if they've contributed constructively in other parts of Wikipedia or in the sister projects. Apart from the way Nagadeepa gets personal, their jumping from an IP to their account on the talkpage without acknowledgement was beyond nonchalant (if not outright deceptive), and posting unexplained poetry there is a waste of other people's time that approaches trolling. But depending on how other admins feel, I would also be on board with merely a strong warning to both, with a request to them to read Francis Schonken's good advice carefully. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  - I think Indian history which includes history of Indic languages would be the right scope as the problems lie in the broader area, primarily related to the event history, not just this language article. —SpacemanSpiff 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not opposed to both, even if it just a fixed time, to remove the disruption and create an incentive for the future. Not sure a warning would be sufficient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Space, I'll certainly defer to your opinion in this, as you know the area and incidentally also the sockfarms very well. But you wrote "I don't think the filer's conduct here is any better and they should also be subject to a topic ban from anything related to Indian languages". So, are you saying Hyper9 should be indefinitely t-banned from Indian history, but Nagadeepa from Indian languages? With the appeal in 6 months etc for both? I'd be cool with that, if so, but we'd better make sure it's clear. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen, that is my opinion, since we've seen Hyper9 be disruptive in the wider area, however, based on what I've seen currently I can only find disruption by Nagadeepa within the languages area. Therefore I'd suggest an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian history including languages/linguistic history" for Hyper9 and an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian languages" for Nagadeepa. Needless to say, both bans should apply across any and all namespaces of en.wiki and can be appealed here after six months, subject to evidence of non-disruptive editing in other areas. —SpacemanSpiff 04:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Perhaps the easiest is to ban both from Indian languages. That way we get to see if Nagadeepa has broader interests and if hyper9 can edit constructively in the other Indian history topics. But, I will defer to Spiff on whatever they think best. --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has tapered off. @EdJohnston, Dennis Brown, and Sandstein:, do you have any further comments? There appears to be agreement from several editors to defer to SpacemanSpiff's suggestion of an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian history including languages/linguistic history" for Hyper9 and an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian languages" for Nagadeepa, both bans appealable here after six months, subject to evidence of non-disruptive editing in other areas. If no uninvolved admin objects, I will close this request with that result in 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with the closure proposed by User:Bishonen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. --regentspark (comment) 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't followed this request because of the deficient report and express no opinion. Sandstein 22:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, I'll close now. I can't tell the editors they're not allowed to appeal until after six months — an appeal is always allowed, and the AE sanction template says so — but I'll explain that it's only after six months that it's likely to be viewed favorably. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Al-Andalusi

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 Al-Andalusi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Al-Andalusi (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/Palestine-Israel articles

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

Revision as of 07:43, 25 February 2018 revert 1 in Middle East Monitor. Much of the revert is of this Revision as of 12:56, 30 January 2018 edit by an extended confirm user.
Latest revision as of 08:07, 25 February 2018 revert 2 in Middle East Monitor of content added by an extended confirmed user [11].
Revision as of 16:14, 23 February 2018 Addition of category "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" to Middle East Monitor, indicating ARBPIA awareness.
Revision as of 07:51, 25 February 2018 revert1 of Middle East Eye - removal of some 45% of the article's contents. Much of this content by reverted back into the article in Revision as of 11:59, 23 January 2018 by an extended confirmed user (and then some).
Latest revision as of 08:06, 25 February 2018 revert2 of Middle East Eye, of content added in Revision as of 08:03, 25 February 2018.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2017 6 Month Topic Ban for personal attacks and 1RR.
Revision as of 09:57, 9 June 2017 1 week block for not following topic ban

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2017 6 month topic ban by GoldenRing following AE. Revision as of 09:57, 9 June 2017 1 week block by Sandstein for violating topic ban.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Revision as of 03:24, 9 June 2017 and appeal (copy-pasted over to AE) Revision as of 14:46, 9 June 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As may be seen here Al-Andalusi talk page I requested Al-Andalusi self revert [12]. This was replied to with a Nope, I did not. [13]. user:EdJohnston also [14] said this appeared to be a 1RR violation, and urged Al-Andalusi to self-revert. Following a discussion on why this was or was not a revert Al-Andalusi concluded by [15] Like I said, any change to an article can be framed as a "revert" if one wants to push a certain narrative. Here, you are referencing an edit made a month ago, which tells me how ridiculous this revert claim is. I can go back to some of your edits and demonstrate the same, and claim you've been reverting and violating 1RR on articles. As an editor, it's not expected of me to review an article's history and check each and every edit made to an article, before I can make a change to it, and hope that I'm not "reverting" and violating 1RR.. Some 10 hours later - we're here.

While it may be possible to cast a wider net here, the unwillingness to self-revert on a 1RR warning appears to be straightforward, and Al-Andalusi's final talk-page comment is troubling.

Willingness to self-revert - I filed this report after my reading of a long user talk page discussion ended with a stmt indicating clear unwillingness, in my eyes, to self revert or account for edits being reverts - and a day after the inital talk page exchange.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ARBPIA relevance: revert2 in Middle East Monitor and Middle East Eye are clearly both ARBPIA releated as it is directly involves Hamas. Revert1 to Middle East Monitor also involves Hamas, and the organization itself covers Israel-Palestine as its main focus arguably making any edit to it ARBPIA related. It could perhaps be argued that revert1 in Middle East Eye is not ARBPIA (there are merits either way), however as revert2 is clearly ARBPIA and the limitation is per page per ARBCOM decision - Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. and not on a per edit basis - this would appear to be a violation regardless due to ARBPIAness of revert2.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the attack on Capitals00 below - I did not canvass or contact him. He had however filed the previous AE report against Al-Andalusi on Acid throwing (a non-ARBPIA article in general, but ARBPIA related in the Gaza/West Bank section covering usage of this by Islamists against so called collaboraters) which led to the previous topic ban. I would assume he has AE watched.Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: - most of the content in the 3 successive edits by Al-Andalusi between 05:04 and 07:43 - combined diff are reverts of 12:56, 30 January 2018 by User:Zakawer who is in good standing. The grandson bit has been there for a while - however most of the other content removed is quite recent (not that technically this should be an issue - WP:3RR (modified by WP:1RR from 3 to 1, but retaining the definition of revert) does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.). In any event - this is for the most part quite recent material - and as this is not an often edited article - Zakawer was the last major edit prior to Al-Andalusi editing the page - making this very close in terms of diffs.Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: @NeilN: - I had not intended to bring this up vis-a-vis previous requests, however I shall since it has been brought up here. @Shrike: asked them to self-revert [16], as did I [17] this revert violated the original author clause in regards to edits 30 minutes previously - which was not done. I also asked TP request self-revert on original authorship and revert which was not done - they cited BLPCRIME - however this is a PUBLICFIGURE, and this is not relevant (besides other problems here). Excluding the 1RR vios in this report - there were 4 previous requests (1 Shrike, 3 myself), of which 2 were not done (both involved the "original author provision", however they were clear violations of it). I did not report these at the time due to a combination of WP:AGF (e.g. on the first example he wasn't editing for 3 days - so I AGFed he may have been away) and since I do not report everything. What made me report this one - was the talk page reply to the request which treated "reverts" as "narrative", and labelled the request as "ridiculous".Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: The proposed remedy would not resolve the "original author" clause addition to ARBPIA (it would be good on straight 1rr) - a problem above as well as in requests by Al-Andalusi, e.g. this mistaken request (as I was not the original author) for a self revert on my TP Revision as of 04:24, 28 February 2018 - half of which was a category written in Farsi (which Al-Andalusi reverted back in, and requested a self revert on).Icewhiz (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Latest revision as of 07:36, 26 February 2018

Discussion concerning Al-Andalusi

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 Al-Andalusi

There is an ongoing discussion regarding this on my talk page involving Icewhiz and 2 admins (EdJohnston and Dennis Brown) here. I have pinged EdJohnston and have not heard back either from him or Dennis Brown, so I assumed this is a non-issue. Had EdJohnston or Dennis Brown replied back and confirmed the alleged violation, I would have gladly self-reverted, as I did in the past.

Meanwhile, I continue to disagree with Icewhiz's description of events where he digs up edits that are at least one-month old (Jan 30, Jan 23) and I'm not even aware of, and then conveniently re-interprets some of my changes as being "reverts" of them. What he refers to as "revert 1" would not be called "reverts" on a normal day. Also, notice the use of dramatic sentences like "removal of some 45% of the article's contents". If the content is bad, then it should be removed, doesn't matter how large it is. I think everyone will agree with me on this. In this edit, user Zero0000 (talk · contribs) removed the same exact content from Middle East Monitor on Feb 11 on the same grounds as my removal of it from Middle East Eye. Someone had copy pasted the content to the 2 articles. Icewhiz, who clearly spent considerable time studying the editing history of both articles to construct his narrative, would not have missed this change.

One important point: The history of editing on both articles shows that none of the editors treated the article as falling under 1RR. Icewhiz is misleading when he counts edits related to the Muslim Brotherhood as being ARBPIA-related. The Muslim Brotherhood does not even have a 1RR tag. Icewhiz does not explain why he treats Middle East Eye as a 1RR article in his report, and further, why he lists my edits at Middle East Eye before his arrival to the article as being ARBPIA related (point #4 on his list). I fail to see the connection. In the same list, for the other article, he counts my edit here as ARBPIA-related, even though the mention of Hamas is tangential and clearly not the intent of my edit.

I ask that the admins not look at this case literally, as this is the angle that Icewhiz wants to focus on. Instead, ask if it is appropriate for a news organizations to be labelled as the "Muslim Brotherhood" based on sources critical of the news organization? Icewhiz restored the problematic Category:Muslim Brotherhood, knowing fully the problems that comes with it (he recently removed Category:Propaganda in Israel from Public diplomacy of Israel arguing that it is "POVish..."). Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Originally posted in Capitals00's section; moved by User:Black Kite. I don't know you, and I don't know who you think you are to demand a topic ban or a block. Admins: it should be noted that the above user was never involved in the Arab-Israeli space, so for him to show up here uninvited is a sign of either Wikipedia:Sock puppetry or WP:Canvassing. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added - Feb 28:

Per Wikipedia:Reverting (emphasis in the original):

Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

I was not involved in the article around the time the first edit was made by Zakawer, a month ago.
I was not aware that I was actually undoing someone else's edits as part of my changes. As far I was concerned at the time of my editing, I was doing routing editing. So far, NO evidence has been presented that shows that I was aware of this fact at the time (directly or indirectly).
The fact that the admins are split on this indicates that (a) there is no clear definition of reverting, and what properly distinguishes reversions from edits in general, and (2) there is no clear definition of "recent" here. A month old, 6-months old? a year old? I think any admin worth a damn knows what a revert is, and "revert 1" is not one of them.
That said, this is gaming the system of the worst degree. In fact, the originator of the report spells it out here for you guys: the definition of revert does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions. I have no doubt in my mind, and this is already made clear from the report, that Icewhiz would not have found it an issue to cite a year old edit (if it was available) to support his claims that I partially reverted it.
I've had a look around at a few pages, and if that's the rule, then almost every editor is violating the rule many times. I don't really understand the thinking behind this at all. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:, you claim that my intent was clear. What was my intent? Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Sir, your ignorance is showing. You use the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas interchangeably and I think it's time to clarify a few things. (1) Hamas no longer claims that it is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and made that official in their new charter declared in May 2017. (2) the main Muslim Brotherhood is not even a 1RR article to begin with. Of the troubling edit that you are using against me, 95% of it revolved around the Brotherhood, not Hamas. The mention of "Hamas" in the "See also" section is quite tangential and I think you will agree with it. I kindly ask that you re-consider your position in light of the above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: That's not a response. Sorry. Your claim that my intent was to "remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas" is demonstrably false. Look at the Middle East Monitor#Criticism section, and you'll find that I left sourced "pro-Hamas" accusations there. Not to mention, Muslim Brotherhood != Hamas. The diffs speak for themselves indeed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian:. I don't have a problem with self-reverting in this case. This is the very first thing I stated in my statement. I was just waiting for a clear confirmation that my first edit indeed counts as a revert. That said, it is clear that NeilN and GR have made up their minds from day 1, and further discussion would be futile. Their one-sidedness is glaringly apparent. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

I had resumed watching editing of Al-Andalusi since he came off from a topic ban in December. I could see continued POV editing[18][19][20] that led the topic ban before, but this time I had decided not to report Al-Andalusi myself. Unfortunately, it didn't helped Al-Andalusi.

I must say that Icewhiz has made best efforts to mentor Al-Andalusi about his violations,[21][22] however Al-Andalusi is not willing to improve. Continued POV editing[23][24] is concerning. Either a topic ban or a block is warranted. Capitals00 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is deceptive of Al-Andalusi to claim that he doesn't know me because he can't really forget these two ARE complaints: [25][26] that I had filed, yet he claims that this is a "sign of either Wikipedia:Sock puppetry or WP:Canvassing", this alone shows that Al-Andalusi treats Wikipedia to be his WP:BATTLEGROUND. Capitals00 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I have his talk page on watchlist as well, I did interacted him before filing a complaint here,[27] obviously when I said you have "made best efforts to mentor" to mentor him, I was referring to your discussions made on his talk page that I read since last December. Capitals00 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of above WP:IDHT from Al-Andalusi[28] I believe that indef topic ban is the solution. He already had a 6 month topic ban back in June 2017, which he had violated and was blocked for a week. Even after all that there has been a lack of improvement. Capitals00 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I interjected into the discussion only to explain how contacting an admin wasn't "canvassing", and never reviewed the merits of the claim in depth. A cursory glance did show the claims were not so cut and dry; They need to be looked at closer than just the diffs provided. This is the busy time of year for me, so I didn't have time to look further, so I will just stay on this side of the admin line, this time. EdJohnston probably has more information on the merits, and I would welcome his input down below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I don't know if this is 1RR or not, but my general view is that in this area, the rules are so convoluted that nobody knows how they work (including the people who write them). My own practice is to self-revert when asked, whether or not I think the request is right.

This practice saves time and tedious wikilawyering in which one may or may not prevail. You can always make the edit a day later. Why take the risk?

Let's put aside the wording and look at the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy. Let's forget the edit made a month earlier. Only look at edits diff1 (by Al-Andalusi), diff2 (by Icewhiz) and diff3 (again by Al-Andalusi). All of them happened within 24 hours.

Diff1 removed the association of MEMO with the Muslim Brotherhood, diff2 restored it (using a bit different wording), and diff3 removed it again. The "spirit" of the remedy is to ensure that between diff3 and diff1 (made by the same person), there should be a bit of time, and ideally some discussion on the talkpage (which is happening on the MEMO talk page).

I would therefore, ask Al-Andalusi to self-revert voluntarily (they can make the edit a day later if they still think it's justified) and this request be closed as no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "revert 1" cited by NeilN a revert of? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: May I suggest another approach? If you look at Al-Andalusi's talkpage, you'll see a couple more instances where Icewhiz asked them to self-revert due to 1RR and they (eventually) did. That suggests that they genuinely thought that this case was not a case of 1RR. The main point is that the first "revert" was of an edit more than a month ago (actually it has been fought over for years).

In political areas, it is not unusual for things to be litigated over and over by newer people. One can't immediately consider every deletion a "revert" (by the way, by the same logic, any addition could also be considered a "revert" of some removal in the past).

To my mind, the main issue is that Al-Andalusi doesn't understand the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy in this area: one shouldn't make the same edit (perhaps paraphrased) twice in 24 hours. This approach doesn't require refererence to a month-old diff unrelated to the main dispute. I suggest that Al-Andalusi be informed of the "spirit" of the remedy, and only warned for now. To Al-Andalusi, I suggest that they follow the practice I mention above: they self-revert when asked, regardless of whether they think it's right or wrong. This approach would require some WP:AGF which the admins may or may not be willing to extend to Al-Andalusi (considering their past record). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: The case you refer to is almost a year old. If you say that "Al-Andalusi doesn't understand 1RR, period", how do you explain the self-revert here (after this discussion) or here (after this discussion)?

Instead, consider my hypothesis: they don't (fully) understand the "tweaked 1RR" remedy in this area. According to the tweaked 1RR remedy, a person who makes an edit cannot make the same (or similar) edit within 24 hours. In the previous two cases, Al-Andalusi self-reverted after this remedy was pointed out to them. If the same remedy had been pointed to by Icewhiz here, I'd suggest that there would have been less resistance. Instead, a diff from a month ago (which Al-Andalusi claims that they weren't even aware of) was pointed out as the original content which was reverted. In this area, I'm sure you know, people are suspicious of bad faith and wikilawyering.

This is why I say above: let's not refer to a diff from a month ago at all. Let's just work with the "tweaked 1RR rule" which already exists, which only looks at diffs within a 24-hour period. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more general comment: during the last ARCA request, I raised this point (of an edit potentially being the revert of an edit indefinitely long in the past) multiple times. My warnings were pooh-poohed by the Arbs who said the scenarios that I was painting were all implausible and the admins at AE will apply common sense anyway, etc. Now, amirite or amirite? I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) in that section that we block a random ArbCom member when my warnings come true. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Yes, that's what used to be a safe practice to deal with the tweaked 1RR in this area. Unfortunately, with the recent ARCA request, that no longer suffices, because you have to wait 24 hours after the the other person's revert to be completely safe, and what counts as a revert isn't clear. Yeah, it's stupid, but I warned against it repeatedly and ArbCom passed it anyway.

However, your suggestion would work in 95% of the cases, and Al-Andalusi could be asked (or instructed, whatever) that if somebody asks them to self-revert, they do it regardless of whether they think it's right or wrong. This has been my practice for many years, and I have had zero problems. I will also talk to Al-Andalusi on their talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Al-Andalusi

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

This does not appear actionable to me. To begin with, no specific remedy that is to be enforced is cited, but only a whole case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which comprises several remedies. Assuming that the 1RR restriction is to be enforced, the cited diffs don't establish, in my view, clear-cut 1RR violations, but rather situations that can come about in the course of ordinary editing (putting aside the merits of these edits by either side). Because 1RR is a very problematic restriction that is easily violated in the course of even constructive back-and-forth editing, I'm very reluctant to act on it except in the clearest of cases, i.e. repeated direct reverts. Sandstein 10:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert 1, Revert 2. I'd say that was a 1RR violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian, this addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Andalusi You are citing an essay. Policy says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Admins look at the intent of the edits and your intent here was clear. There is also no admin "split" here. Four admins (including EdJohnston) agree you violated WP:1RR. A three to six month topic ban seems appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Andalusi To remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas. I'm not saying the removals were not justified (or were justified). I'm saying the intent of your edits is clear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This response from an editor coming off a six month topic ban in December is not encouraging at all. The diffs speak for themselves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: Looking at this, I would say that Al-Andalusi doesn't understand WP:1RR, period. And looking at the subsequent block, it was again involving Hamas. Is there anything Al-Andalusi brings to the table that would justify always having an extra warning step before reporting? And bear in mind it's pretty easy to duck these self-revert requests by laying low until someone else uses their WP:1RR opportunity and reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: 1) If Al-Andalusi understood WP:1RR there wouldn't be editors constantly reminding them to follow it. 2) We're not applying WP:1RR to only content changed within the last 24 hours. That's a non-starter. 3) A month is hardly "indefinitely long" - please don't resort to hyperbole. Bottom line: If you remove some content and another editor adds similar content then don't remove it within 24 hours of your first removal to be safe. Sandstein, do you have any further comments here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Andalusi: I'm trying to come up with a solution that would eliminate the need for other editors to constantly ask you to self revert. "Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article" would probably work. What do you think? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have scads of time to look into this. I don't think we should be insisting that editors bringing complaints here must fill out the form exactly correctly in every respect or we will simply dismiss the complaint; this is not a judicial proceeding and it seems clear enough to me what the complaint is getting at. I agree with NeilN that the diffs he links seem a clear 1RR violation (not to mention that this also appears to be a revert of a recent edit in the same 24-hour window). And Al-Andalusi's response here is not encouraging. My gut feeling is that spending three to six months away from ARBPIA would be a good thing. GoldenRing (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: ~~actually I think your first diff is a revert of this - the original page creation back in 2015. While this perhaps makes that revert a bit more muddy,~~ I still think it's clearly a revert and part of an effort to remove Islamist associations. And even without it, I still count two reverts in 24 hours. GoldenRing (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Can you please recheck? I don't see where you're getting that from. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Er, yeah, don't mind me. GoldenRing (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edits cited by NeilN were indeed reverts. I think a few months away from the topic might be a good idea as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MapSGV

MapSGV is indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action (not an AE action). Sandstein 22:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning MapSGV

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Elektricity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MapSGV (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

The user MAPS should be Topic banned from India-Pakistan articles indefinitely as they have shown that they cannot engage in debate without antagonizing others and attacking others. If disruption continues on other projects , perhaps a site wide ban.

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

04:56, 1 March 2018 This is one of the long list of perosnal attacks from the user. He has made no contributions to the project since his return some months ago (The contributions log shows only some reverts and the rest is very WP:POINTY content on talk pages etc.)
04:52, 1 March 2018 Along the same lines, accusations, aspersions.
08:02, 27 February 2018 More personal attacks. "Keep your agenda driven disruption out"
09:01, 20 February 2018 Another personal attack.
13:35, 20 February 2018 A somewhat lengthy perosnal attack. Includes, "You are fooling yourself if you really believe such nonsense", " It's a shame that you waste so much time on Wikipedia yet you don't agree with it core principles for the sake of your POV" etc.
13:43, 20 February 2018 More personal attacks.
14:25, 20 February 2018 User also dispalys classic WP:TRUTH attitude.
15:09, 20 February 2018 Another personal attack.
09:33, 21 February 2018 More of WP:POINTY comments, which may be considered benign on thie rown, but as a pattern they are clearly disruptive.
09:57, 21 February 2018 More personal attacks, like "Quit trolling already. It won't help you". "You need to worry about your disruption which is occurring throughout Wikipedia despite your very bad past that is further going to affect your future in Wikipedia. It is funniest when a disruptive POV pusher is trying to lecture."
13:13, 21 February 2018 Another personal attack, calling a troll and "I am editing since 2014, but I never saw this much nonsense ever before on Wikipedia" (He has only 100 or so edits in that period and none of them are mainspace green edits, just reverts or comments like these)
16:04, 26 February 2018 Again, another rude and antagonistic summary.
07:26, 27 February 2018 Edit warring (Diffs continue below)
04:30, 28 February 2018 Again WP:TRUTH
00:13, 1 March 2018 Deleting the RFC template started by another user and accusing them of being a sock.
04:53, 1 March 2018 Twice, added the same accusation as well.
04:58, 1 March 2018 And then again made the same edit to the RFC.
05:23, 1 March 2018 Another personal attack.

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.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [29] 20 February 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has made no contributions to the project and thier presence is just antagonizing others. PErhaps if an experienced editor with thousands of edits messes up and makes a personal attack or pointed remark once in a while, he can be warned about it. But this user has around a hundred or so reverts/comments and out of those this large number is antagonistic. He should be removed from area of conflict. The India-Pak articles are very contentious even to begin with, and antagonizing remarks and personal attacks like this just destroy any chance of collaboration that there may be, causing irreparable harm to wikipedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828219182&oldid=828208089&diffmode=source

Discussion concerning MapSGV

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 MapSGV

I would like to commend the analysis made by Lorstaking below, that I have been constantly harassed by some editors who are doing nothing but personalizing small and rather easy content disputes.

Every of my comment was a reply to actual personal attack that often included false allegations that I am an SPA, sock,[30][31][32] and no evidence was ever provided for these claims.

Civil POV pushing is a huge problem where a person looks to justify his disruption by falsely labelling every kind of opposition to his disruption as "personal attack" while exhibiting clear WP:IDHT, engaging in edit warring, misrepresenting sources, and such disruption is too prevalent here. Finally what degrades the quality of this website is these editors who are socking for a long time or they have been blocked/topic banned still they are insulting other editors (such as me) by calling them a sock/SPA and engaging in disruptive POV pushing, making personal attacks. But when you dispute any of their argument you are misrepresented as someone who is making personal attacks. That is nothing but WP:GAMING. — MapSGV (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBlaze

This request should not be entertained as the filer is a blatant sock of a disruptive topic banned editor, [33] and is on the verge of getting site banned himself. —MBL ^talk 06:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lorstaking

MapSGV's actions are perfect especially when we recognize the fact that he is a productive editor who is unfortunately dealing with a disruptive wikihounding sock of a topic ban evading user.[34] Elektricity is just trying to take wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and by filing this spurious report, where he deliberately failed to notify MapSGV, he is digging his own grave. Lorstaking (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I think you are only reading what MapSGV has said, but you are not reading what he was replying to. Users have engaged in great amount of incivility against him as well as range of false allegations in order to evade their WP:CIR issues. I can clarify the diffs right here:

[35] was a reply to [36] where an editor falsely labelled reliable sources as WP:FAKE not just once but two times.[37][38] Not to mention that WP:FAKE refers to fake/non-existing references, not reliable sources that meets WP:VERIFY.
[39] was a reply to [40] where other editor personalized dispute by telling "80 edits over a 4 year period starts making such POV edits across longstanding war articles out of no where, we have far more to worry about".
[41] was a reply to [42] where other editor called him to "drop your POV stick, because an SPA whose first edits involve adding contentious OR and POV across several articles doesn't have a very bright future on Wikipedia.'' Clearly a personal attack because MapSGV is not an SPA but someone who had edited subjects such as Libya, Egypt, Hinduism, cuisines, India, China, and more before the other editor made such personal attack in place of discussing the article.
[43] was a reply to [44] where other editor made false accusations of personal attacks and ignored the discussion about content.
[45] was a reply to [46], where other editor called him, "You are not only a POV warrior, but an [[WP:SPA]] whose only purpose is to cause disruption. And you are definitely [[WP:SOCK|not a new user]]" (calling him MapSGV a sockpuppet without evidence).
[47] this was a reply to [48], where the editor made false allegations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, despite sources supporting the content without any question.

Above diffs involve interaction with only 2 users, who have a bad block log and history of sanctions for editing in this very same area and even in above diffs you can see clear WP:IDHT. And this all started only after MapSGV argued that results must show that India won the war because that is what zillions of reliable sources say, but these two editors went to make personal attacks on him in place of providing sources that contradict the sourced content. I think they deserves to be sanctioned for their incompetence if anything. FWIW, 6 people against 3 have agreed with what MapSGV wants on talk page.

I wouldn't go on describing rest of the diffs that are either free of ARBPAK coverage or they are a product of wikihounding and other sorts of harassment from the filer, who also was falsely alleging MapSGV to be a "sleeper-esque"[49] and "throw away sleeper"[50] for days before filing this spurious report.

Talking about personal attacks, I don't see even a single personal attack here from MapSGV or false accusations like rest of others have carried out against him. There is no prohibition on much larger level of incivilities[51] in Wikipedia. Though I understand that this allegation of "personal attack" has been overblown in this report because filer failed to find his way to misrepresent sources, use self-published and non-reliable sources on the article for his POV pushing, hence he resorted to filing a spurious report. You can also have a look at the SPI where Capitals00 shows the evidence of him filing same spurious reports from his main account.

I would better recommend this report should closed as spurious or the filer should be blocked for his deception and using the noticeboard for battleground. We should let the SPI have its run. Lorstaking (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MapSGV

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

I would like to see the outcome of the SPI before taking action here. Otherwise, the evidence presented seems to consist of very low-level incivility, though the sheer volume of it could be a problem. GoldenRing (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this is actionable. Personal attacks are prohibited, irrespective of whether the other user is a sockpuppet. @MapSGV: please respond promptly. Sandstein 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The response by MapSGV is unsatisfactory, as it only attempts to excuse MapSGV's misconduct, rather than convince us that it will not reoccur. Incivility by others is no excuse for incivility of one's own. The scope of the problem as demonstrated by the diffs in evidence requires action. MapSGV has made only 223 edits so far, which of course raises socking questions of its own given the user's fluency in Wikipedia jargon, but it matters here insofar as this means that the 18 diffs reported here constitute close to 10% of the user's total edits. This is an unacceptable signal-to-noise ratio. I am indefinitely blocking MapSGV (as a normal admin action) as a net negative for Wikipedia. If they are unblocked, I anticipate imposing a topic ban. Sandstein 22:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson

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 Andrew Davidson

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Andrew Davidson (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:ARBIPA :

What appears to be a long-term fundamental inability to understand the complexities of the Indian caste system leads to often lengthy and wikilawyered discussions such as here, here and here. There is no easy way to explain the complexities in 500 words, sorry, but, for example, in the last diff AD argues use of sources that simply do not refer in any meaningful way to the subject, in the linked Samra discussion he argued at length to use unreliable sources, causing Drmies to issue a sanctions alert, and in the first of these diffs he argued using both unreliable sources and with a clear lack of understanding of how the caste system functions. As some of those diffs infer, they are not the only examples but I'm struggling with the interaction tools at the moment - they keep timing out or simply not returning a result.

We've currently got this, where AD is perpetuating his previous stances, again without any apparent understanding of the caste system. In that discussion, he seems even to think that we should keep an invalid statement rather than remove it and so cause an article to be blank. He has also been arguing at length about the validity of the most recent sanctions alerts here, indulging in yet more time-consuming litigation of dubious merit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None known

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here, soon after expiry of one issued issue a sanctions here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have filed this under the username Andrew Davidson but some past discussions were under another username, Colonel Warden, which he allegedly agreed with ArbCom to stop using but actually has not. The AD account is more active of late.

It is ok to have an opinion but to tendentiously pursue it can be problematic, as can misrepresenting what sources say even if it is due to a lack of understanding. I'd like to see a topic ban from caste-related matters, broadly construed, because I and probably others feel like we're banging our heads against a brick wall.

Replying to AD's edits here. It is nothing specifically to do with one AfD. It is a general pattern of lack of comprehension that, in fact, you are even demonstrating in your comments here. The problem is, you mention expanding your interests into editing caste-related articles but you cannot even demonstrate understanding in the AfDs, throwing in irrelevant sources (the Oxford book being one), unreliable ones and arguments that are non-starters because the caste system does not operate in the manner that you seem to believe. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: then you are unwittingly part of the problem. I know that CIR is not a policy but when someone like Andrew Davidson gets involved it just creates a shedload of issues that need to be addressed. Just one example: this not only fails WP:V on the relevant point but makes a grossly incorrect assumption that "important" = something special in terms of Reservation in India. It doesn't. There are plenty of "important" communities - politically, economically etc - that do not conform to the original research which AD insists makes this impossible list meet LISTN. Yes, AD is a quite extreme inclusionist and, yes, way back he gave me my first barnstar for rescuing an article at AfD, but if people cannot understand that caste-related issues need understanding then there is no hope, sorry. And when the same easily verifiable point is made again and again but AD refuses to accept it, well ... It is just a timesink and it is a timesink that can have quite peculiar consequence because these articles are not particularly well watched (Catch 22?). In this instance, I strongly suspect that AD's fake references in the first AfD caused it to be determined as not suitable for deletion, yet he protests when the thing is blanked because there is nothing verifiable. Then comes back umpteen years later and says he can make it verifiable but in fact he cannot, as anyone familiar with the topic would know. The same applies to his insistence that unreliable sources are in fact ok to use.

I admit that I am struggling to explain here. I know for sure that there are people who think AD is being absurd but this is a topic area where scrutiny is poor and one of the consequences of that is examples such as the current AfD, which comes out of a previous AfD that had no merit other than the fake refs, a complete lack of comprehension, and an admin who presumably saw some mention of sources and thought "that's ok". But, as I said at the outset, this is not a one-off issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I acknowledge your comment about a lack of diffs. I was utterly bemused regarding how I could possibly give specific diffs in such a complex matter but if you can suggest a way to disentangle then that would be great. As it is, I am sort of hoping that common sense could prevail here: if people really cannot see the problem just reading a few example threads then, frankly, I despair and may as well give up. We have two sets of sanctions regims for the topic area for a reason.

@D4iNa4: I have had little involvement in this process and couldn't possibly comment except to say that I used the word unwittingly on purpose. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Andrew Davidson

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 Andrew Davidson

What we have here is an AfD – note that I have not edited the article in question at any time. I'd be quite happy to stop arguing about the matter and just let the AfD process take its usual course but it's Sitush that keeps coming to my talk page to belabour the matter (8 times already today). There are some content issues and I understand them just fine. What Sitush doesn't seem to understand is our policies and guidelines such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:BLANK and he states openly in the discussion that he's not heard of them before. My position is that there's some scope for improvement here and so our policy WP:PRESERVE would have us prefer this alternative to deletion. In the course of discussion, I have produced good sources such The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies – a respectable and recent work from a university press. I have also pointed to other related pages such as List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism which no-one else seemed to have noticed. I'd be quite content to have both these pages merged to Sikhism#Sikh_castes which contains a similar list of Sikh castes and so am quite flexible about the outcome. All that needs to happen now is a period of quiet so that other editors can contribute to the AfD and then the closer can settle the matter in the usual way. Compare, for example, Manchu studies, which is about a similar weak page but for which I have found a good source. I have no strong feelings about these topics but am entitled to my views on them, as is common at AfD, and I contribute usefully to the discussions, arguing from sources and policy, as we're supposed to. Note that the previous AfD referred to (Samra) was over two years ago and so these issues don't arise often enough to warrant special measures. What might require attention is Sitush's insulting incivility, for example, "how dense can you be ... your incompetence". In that previous AfD, I noted that Sitush seemed to be violating WP:OWN, WP:PA and WP:BLUDGEON and we have the same pattern again here. Andrew D. (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Andrew Davidson

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

I don't see how this is actionable. To begin with, the request contains no diffs of edits by Andrew Davidson. As to the caste-related discussions linked to in the request, I don't see anything substantial, at first glance, that might amount to sanctionable misconduct by Andrew Davidson. Even if one assumes with Sitush that Andrew Davidson is mistaken or ill-informed with respect to the questions at issue, that is not a violation of Wikipedia conduct policy. I don't see how this is more than a content dispute coupled with strong disagreement on the inclusionism / deletionism axis. Such disputes should be resolved through normal dispute resolution rather than through arbitration. Sandstein 22:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, AE is a bit strict on policy, evidence, etc for pretty good reasons. To act, we need clear cut diffs that show obvious misconduct. Nebulous patterns of behavior don't fit into WP:AE very well. Keep in mind. AE isn't a consensus board, when an admin acts, they act unilaterally, and they have the authority to ignore everyone else, or take those opinions to heart. We usually work together and often a majority agrees with the outcome, but whichever admin closes and acts, s/he owns those actions, and must be able to articulate the issue via WP:adminaccct. Looking briefly at your case, I don't see a solid case being presented, even while admitting one might exist. My advice is to have actual diffs along with SHORT explanations for each, and take it to ANI, which is better suited for long drawn out ordeals, and allows input from everyone. ARBPIA restrictions can still be issued from there, but if this situation is as you describe, it transcends ARB and would be getting into general policy, which is easier to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

No action. GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Rambling Man (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/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited :

The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

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

TRM asks if anyone in Women in Red has articles to nominate for DYK for March 8 Not a vio, obviously
"Well, yes, it was just an opportunity to promote women in general. I understand if you're no longer interested in that. Sorry I mentioned it." Insulting the motivations of the two editors who declined the offer
"...the fact that no-one here is interested in getting eight women hooks onto the main page for the whole day is clear..." Again insulting the editors who'd rather create articles than shepherd nominations they didn't want to make in the first place

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked for violating the same prohibition in March and September 2017 - see enforcement log in case

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=828486522&oldid=828481054

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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 The Rambling Man

Statement by power~enwiki

This looks like a complete waste of time. Saying that people aren't interested in DYK isn't insulting their motivations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GreenMeansGo

Sarek, please do us all a favor and withdraw this. This is silly. GMG ^talk 21:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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

Revenge nomination much, Sarek? Can you give me any reason not to haul you off to Arbcom for conduct unbecoming, because I'm not seeing one right now. ‑ Iridescent 21:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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