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	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Azuredivay

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

Request concerning Azuredivay

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Azuredivay

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

Statement by Azuredivay

Diff #1 has been misrepresented. Golwalkar's quote had been added by Arslan-San[2] not me. I just combined it with the previous para and you are free to remove it if you want. The same editor also added a large amount regarding how "Sindh" was different from the rest of India, which is not true. All of the citations I added to article are reliable and were taken from other places of Wikipedia like Direct Action Day article itself. What I added actually traces the origins of Pakistani nationalism, as Muslim nationalism that began in British India among the elite class of Muslims of UP and Bihar. The content also cited the Lahore Resolution that called for a separate state in subcontinent for Indian Muslims. Mentioning Direct Action Day is obviously important because it is after that event that communal riots spread to other parts of the subcontinent resulting in partition and the realization of the Pakistani state.

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

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

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

Diff #5 happened nearly a month ago and has been poorly interpreted here since my final position on the matter was opposite as I had already modified my response and acknowledged the message appropriately.[3]

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

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

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

Statement by (other involved editor)

Result concerning Azuredivay

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

Since I was pinged (but somehow didn't get an alert for it — sorry), I would agree with Vanamonde93 that improvement is necessary. If Azuredivay were to take these concerns on board, that would spare them from suffering any sanctions. In that case, a warning to do better would be recommended. El_C 10:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of discretionary sanctions is to avert editing problems by putting editors on their best behaviour. Once Azuredivay had the alert in March, they should have been scrupulous in avoiding controversial edits. As there seems to be no acknowledgement that they've fallen short of the requirements, I suggest a topic-ban from the India-Pakistan area until they can show they understand how they need to be editing. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Azuredivay: I find all of those five edits problematic, not "careful and constructive", and all I see from you is a defence of making them. You've resolved no concerns that Vanamonde93 raised. You need to read accurately what other editors have written because it's the point of discretionary sanctions that I'm drawing to your attention, not the point of the alert. If you haven't bothered yet, please read WP:AC/DS #guide.expect, and consider all of it carefully before you tell me I'm wrong again. Finally, I'll point out that the uninvolved admins here decide if your behaviour rises the level of a sanction, not you. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would want to see a precise reason for a sanction. For example, the edits at Pakistani nationalism have not been challenged—they have not been reverted or modified, and the last edit at Talk:Pakistani nationalism was in July 2013! The two edits at Adam's Bridge were misguided but that was a month ago without a further problem that I can see. Azuredivay should be aware that this topic requires collaboration and massive edits may not be appropriate, and are definitely not appropriate when not even an edit summary is offered. Further, it is necessary to engage with other editors even if convinced they are wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zarcademan123456

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

Request concerning Zarcademan123456

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Alerted, 28 August 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456

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

Statement by Zarcademan123456

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

Statement by Zero0000

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

Statement by (selfstudier)

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zarcademan123456

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

The page history shows that ~~both Huldra (23:20, 6 June 2020; 20:21, 7 June 2020) and~~ Zarcademan123456 (01:56, 7 June 2020; 22:08, 7 June 2020) violated the 1RR restriction on the Kafr Saba article. — Newslinger talk 05:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the corrections, Huldra and Zero0000. I'm sorry for the mistake, and I've revised my comment. — Newslinger talk 06:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While Zarcademan123456 was given the recommendation to self-revert, in fairness, they seem to have simply not been around to do so. That does not negate from 1RR having been contravened (the responsibility to be cognizant of that is on them) — but I would still recommend a (logged) warning rather than sanctions. But with the awareness that sanctions for a future violation would be accordingly more severe. El_C 10:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too much edit-warring for me to feel any sympathy for "mistakes". Given the two blocks in December and the warning in March, I think that a sanction can't be avoided here. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the background there should be a sanction as repeated "mistakes" in this area are the whole reason discretionary sanctions are in place. Zarcademan123456's response above does not indicate a suitable understanding of the problem and a topic ban of at least three months would be appropriate. An IP added stuff from elsewhere to Kafr Saba which Huldra was entitled to revert per the edit notice "[Editors to this page: • must be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure • are restricted to making no more than one revert per twenty-four (24) hours (subject to exceptions below)]". Zarcademan123456 did two reverts within 24 hours (despite the in-your-face edit notice) while using an edit summary asking Huldra to explain on talk why changes should not occur when standard procedure would be for anyone supporting a change to justify it on talk. Zarcademan123456 has never edited Talk:Kafr Saba. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of that administrator: Notification

Statement by Davidbena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Ymblanter

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

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

Statement by Oshwah

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

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

Statement by Levivich (David Bena)

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Davidbena

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

Result of the appeal by Davidbena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SpicyBiryani

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

Request concerning SpicyBiryani

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIP :

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [4]

Discussion concerning SpicyBiryani

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

Statement by SpicyBiryani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL;DR:

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

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

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

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

References

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

Statement by Siddsg

So SpicyBiryani has only 38 edits and he feels that it is fine for him to misuse Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX against "Indians" because of his own perceived but very personal prejudice/hatred/bias against Indians. I see this to be a clear example of WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE. SpicyBiryani also misrepresented CNN and CNN-News18 as "Indian source" in order to sabotage the reliability of the source when he edited 2020 China–India skirmishes.[5] Maybe an indef block (topic ban upon return) would be worth it. Siddsg (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SpicyBiryani

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

A topic ban from the IPA topic area is probably in order. El_C 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I think starting the topic ban with IPA would be fine. I don't think the DS allows us to expand it, regionally, beyond that, in any case. El_C 13:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, are you getting my pings here? Because this is the third time you've pinged me at AE in the last few days where I didn't get any alert and only caught it in passing. I'm wondering why that is. Anyway, on to your point: following your correction, if you feel IPA overall is not too narrow but rather too broad, I personally have no objection in erring on the IPA "armed conflict"-only side of leniency. Certainly, I don't see the harm of a more focused topic ban in this instance. El_C 23:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, cool thanks. Makes sense — that did not occur to me. Yes, ping successful! El_C 00:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think SpicyBiryani is editing in good faith, but their attitude requires a fundamental recalibration; a righting great wrongs approach to content isn't acceptable, and a battleground approach towards other editors isn't acceptable either. The topic is rife with POV-pushing and tag-teaming, but that's no excuse. I would recommend a topic-ban from armed conflict involving India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (really it ought to be all of South Asia, but the sanctions regime is not that wide; El C, thoughts on that?) and would be okay with an ARBIPA topic ban also, though it wouldn't be my first choice. I would make the TBAN indefinite, with the expectation that it wouldn't be lifted until the user showed a history of constructive engagement with areas outside their TBAN. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: apologies, I didn't make myself clear; I'm not asking to expand the scope of the ban, because as we both said, the DS regime doesn't allow for it; I wanted your opinion on a TBAN from "armed conflict involving India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan", which I think would cover the area of their current disruption while allowing for productive editing elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Did you get this one? If so, that's my bad; I sometimes forget your username includes an underscore; with a space there instead, the ping still renders as normal, so I wouldn't catch it. If you didn't get this one, then I'm still baffled...I'm certainly getting yours. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After this user made only 38 edits I don't believe we have enough information to specify a narrowly-tailored topic ban. Would prefer to close with the warning that if they continue to edit conflict-related articles in South Asia and keep making broad-brush assertions about typical behavior of editors of various nationalities, any administrator may issue an indefinite topic ban from all of WP:ARBIPA. Narrow topic bans can lead to arguments about the boundaries and can risk using up space on noticeboards. If other editors want to issue a topic ban I suggest the full domain of WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posp68

Posp68 is topic banned indefinitely from the subjects of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Posp68

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Posp68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

May 2 2020 Posp68 was blocked for 32 hours for attacking me as a German of the right old type over a content dispute [6]

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on May 2 2020 by Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Edit I've added three more diffs of edit warring I think should be considered, including some where Posp68 edited while logged out. The issue was discussed here [7], where Posp68 gave one of there usual pronouncements for having essentially the same sentence three times in one paragraph: The historical Czech lands retained its historical boundaries. The history of the Czech lands did not start in 1918. This sort of unbending attitude (did anyone deny that Bohemia and Moravia existed before?) used to justify edits with a clear agenda, is precisely the problem here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning Posp68

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

Statement by Posp68

Statement by Ymblanter

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Posp68

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

In my opinion, a topic ban of User:Posp68 from the domain of WP:ARBEE would be justified. I don't see evidence he is capable of neutral editing in this area. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed. The user is a net negative in the area. --RexxS (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pops68 has continued to edit since being notified of this request, so has apparently chosen not to participate in it. Given that, will close with the above remedy, on which I agree entirely with the two above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22

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

Request concerning Mikola22

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:TOPICBAN

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

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

Removal of sourced content in the same manner in the same way before the imposed sanctions [9] [10]
Identical fringe viewpoints which were reported multiple times in the recent past (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [11]
Ignoring other user’s concerns [12] [13]
Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [14] [15]
Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editors involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his actions) [16] [17]

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

[18] [19] [20] (which is more often than not just wrong or taken out of full context) [21] [22] [23] [24] ! [25] [26] [27]

blunt removal [28] [29] [30] [31]

[32] (on the very same article WW2 fascists were used as "RS" by the same editor [33]) [34] (Marco Polo was Croatian) [35]

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

[37] Arbitration sanction

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

I'm not hounding anyone (taking a look once in a while in order to see what some editor/s with history of promoting fringe theories are doing can't be called hounding; I should know considering that several editors are doing the same to me). Being vigilant and pointing out to potential canvassing, which was a serious issue from editors from hr.wiki is not a bad thing. [38] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning Mikola22

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

My additional answer and comment is here: User talk:Mikola22 #Answer.

Statement by Mikola22

Removal of sourced content in the same manner in the same way before the imposed sanctions [34] [35] I have not moved anything here but I have added two information to the article from RS.
Identical fringe viewpoints which were reported multiple times in the recent past (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [36] Yes, it is a talk page and my opinion based on historical facts that I know of. 10 RS presented on the article say that Svetozar Borijević is a Croat, whay would my opinion be fringe viewpoints if I say that he is a Croat? What I supposed to say on talk page if Borojević himself said that he is Croat?
Ignoring other user’s concerns [37] [38] [37], Yes, added 9 RS [38] Yes, it is a forgery for which the Serbian academic Sima Ćirković talks about in his books. He himself says that he does not know when the use of this false information will stop ("200 thousand Serbs who came to Croatia. Slavonia"). This false information ie forgery is still an integral part of many articles.
Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [39] [40] [39] Yes, opinion expressed at talk page.[40] Yes, this is from talk page before 1RR restriction, whether I am allowed to talk on the talk page or not?
Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editors involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his actions) [41] [42]. [41] Yes, added information from various RS.[42] Yes, something I added to the article, something does not belong to the article and that is why we are here, we edit articles.
Endless disturbing point-scoring (the intent semes to be to paint the Serbian role in WW2 as black as possible, using questionable sources and logic): [43] Yes, Stjepan Filipović article, informations from RS [44] Yes, information from RS "Belgrade became the first city in Europe to be declared Judenfrei ("clean of Jews") [45]Yes, Nedić's, Ljotić's and Chetniks by Semptember of 1944 capture about 455 remaining Jews in Serbia who were handed over to the Banjica concentration camp where they were killed immediately. information from the RS. [46] I don't know what's bothering you here? [47]Yes, "In March 1942 Nedić with suport of August Meyszner establish Serbian State Guard (Srpska državna straža) who together with the Gestapo participated in guarding of Banjica concentration camp, in which among others were responsible for killings, including children." information from RS. [48] Yes, information from RS "with thousands killed in Jajinci, Jewish cemetery and Marinkova Bara" [49] Yes, "but in Germany suspected that this is not true and authority from Berlin sent Franz Abromeit to check situation. After that Ustashe were under pressure to finish the job. In April 1942 Jews from Osijek were deported to Jasenovac, two hundred of them while 2,800 were sent to Auschwich." information from the RS [50]Yes, "Anti-Jewish and anti-Judaic views are visible in his literary works from the 1920s and 1930s. In his literary work the Jews are mentioned as murderers of Christ and the satanic people who betrayed the God." Nikolaj Velimirović, information from RS[51]Yes, information from RS, [52]Yes, adding link to the article, [53]Yes, Svetozar Borojević article and editor TU-nor explained this fact(Eastern Orthodox, "No separate Serbian churh at that time." ) and I returned to the state of his edit. [54] Yes, "German Chancellor Adolf Hitler 1935 awards him with civil Medal for his contribution in 1926 in renovation of the WWI German military cemetery in Bitola" information from RS, I later saw that there was some of the same information in the article, so I deleted this(my) information, editor Peacemaker67 thinks that this information should be part of the article. Editor Peacemaker67 says it's RS. [55]Yes, everything has been explained here. The flag with that greeting is on military parades in Croatia every year, it is unfortunately the official coat of arms registered in Croatia. [56]Yes, "On August 1942 Harald Turner reported his superiors that "Serbia is the only country in which the Jewish question and the Gypsy question have been solved." information from RS. [57]Yes, what about this edit from 2019? [58] [59] Yes, same case, I just came to Wikipedia(2019, at that time) and in Croatia this source was used and the author is presented in the Croatian Catholic Institutions, this source(book of WW2 fascists published by the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1938) is also used in the book of Noel Malcolm "Bosnia: A Short History", you reported me and no one even asked me about it. [58]Yes, "The vast majority of the Orthodox clergy from Montenegro, NDH and Serbia were on the Chetnik side while some of them in NDH as Momčilo Đujić and priest Savo Božić became famous Chetniks commanders." this is information from Ljubica Štefan and original information from book "Chetniks" of historian Jozo Tomasevich,

Response @Seraphimblade: If someone accuses me of something I don’t know what, I have to answer for each accusation, it would be fair to allow me to do so. To summarize, as can be seen from my answer I did not violate any Wikipedia rule anywhere nor did anyone warn me that I was violating something in my edits. All my edits are according to strong RS and that there were any problems anyone(thousands of editors are on Wikipedia every day) could have deleted that informations from the articles and say own reasons for it but that is not the case. The fact that some editor does not like information from various RS what does that have to do with me, I didn't write those books or scientific articles , historians have written those books. My job here is to edit articles according to sources to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible. @El_C after complaint of editor Sadko said that he would look at my edits and what he saw, nothing. If he had seen something he would warned me. If there's been a problem with some edit it is not end of the world, we're on Wikipedia and editing articles, can't everything be 100% correct. And for expressing my opinion on talk page what I should do on talk page, I guess to say my opinion. Neither I insulted nor attacked anyone. Thank you and please allow me to work in peace.Mikola22 (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Griboski First of all, she is a respected Croatian historian, with reward with her name. I put the data from her book which was based on information from the book of historian and expert for WWII Jozo Tomasevich^[1]. And later was a debate about whether it was fringe source or not. As for blocking take a look my blocks and tell me where I am blocked because I used fringe sources. I am blocked for violating Wikipedia rules. I use RS and if some edit is not high quality there are other editors who check it out. This book has a positive review from a Croatian historian with a suggestion that book be translated into English because of quality. What was I supposed to do after that? You have to look at some examples from other articles, I learn from Wikipedia. In Smiljan article exist information from book Sinđel Dimitrije Dušan Balać (1943). Historical rights of the Serbian people to the regions: Dalmatia, Krbava, Lika, Gorski Kotar, Žemberak, Kordun, Banija and Slavonia' in which during the WWII it is talk about Serbian rights to parts of Croatian territory(I wanted to delete it but it was restored). And now the problem is that I put information from the book of famous Croatian historian for information which exists in other books as well. Or article Andrija Zmajević and political portals and informations as source about his Serbian origin which coming from peoples who speaks of Croats as Catholic Serbs who were croatized. And no one said anything to editor Sadko about why he puts or supports such sources. If this is an example for me on Wikipedia, then why would the problem be confirmed information from the book of Ljubica Štefan? [40] Mikola22 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadko For me is highly disturbing that you supported the sources in which exist "historian" who speaks in his books about Croats which are in fact Catholic Serbs who were croatized and supporting of source which is political pamphlet with the title "that Croats are stealing our heritage". Very high quality sources about which no one has told you anything. But the problem is that I put link in the article and that I delete my information from the article which later was returned by editor @Peacemaker67 with the claim that it is RS. But probably the biggest problem is that I supported the leadership of the Croatian Wikipedia and I must not be forgiven for that, because we all know what the Croatian Wikipedia is. Mikola22 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Griboski In the source doesn't writes if it's something fringe or not. It must go through some procedure. That book had great review and that’s the only thing I knew about that book. As for her, I know that she is a respected Croatian historian that is, I knew it in the time of edit. If there have been some disagreements in the past about some source then it has to go through some procedure, as I followed procedure for sources about Andrija Zmajević. The editor in my conflict did not respect the end of our procedure but he immediately started to change article without that procedure being completed and I thought his edit was not in good faith and I violated Wikipedia 3RR. That's what it's about. I thought I was doing the right thing but I was wrong. Mikola22 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WEBDuB I don't know if you follow my edits or not. Where I violated 1RR? I guess I would been punished immediately if I had broken that rule, proof [41] I have the right to one revert and I use that right. Same case, proof [42] ( I really doubt that the articles about the Holocaust in occupied Serbia, Banjica camp and Milan Nedić are on the watchlist of the editor who work mostly with Croats-related pages.) What should I not edit those articles, if it is forbidden for me? My "WP:POVPUSH", I'm on Wikipedia I'm not on someone's private Wikipedia, you, Griboski and Sadko have the right delete all my informations for these reasons, why you didn't do it with this reason? Because this are informations from sources and we have to respect reliable sources even if we don't like some informations, I know you don't like that according to sources Novak Djoković mother is Croatian, or that sources say that Serbia is the one of first Europe country as Judenfrei but this are informations that has been known for a long time in Wikipedia, I know that now article of Milan Nedić speaks differently about him but look at this from positive side, people have been reading about Milan Nedić for over 10 years as if he were flowers from WWII(that is positive) and now from 2020 sources speak a little differently about him and his regime. If he met Adolf Hitler that's what source say, not me, It's not my fault. I must enter information from RS. If some source is a problem, on Wikipedia there is a possibility of disputing those sources, which source you have disputed, none. Mikola22 (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WEBDuB As far as I can see, I shouldn't do anything on Wikipedia, I have the right for 1R and one edit summary and now and this is problem. Are you waiting for me in 2020 to say that sources about Novak Djokovic are not good? "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard" exist. I guess you now what is done in such cases. (Novak Djokovic were Serbian tabloids and Croatian portals that are indisputably not neutral.) these are sources from his official Wikipedia article which have been here for years, but you wanted to clarify that here and my WP:POVPUSH as if I put those sources in his article. Regarding the article of Milan Nedić you probably waited for me in 2020 to put information from various sources, what have you been waiting for all this time? Why didn't you do it? When I saw that article first time I thought it was some kind of joke or hidden camera. You haven't read that article until 2020? Instead of praising me here for my work you came here to talk about Novak Djokovic and mine WP:POVPUSH with sources which existed here for 10 years. Mikola22 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Griboski minimizes the Holocaust in Croatia [43] Information from the book ie RS of a great expert Jozo Tomasevich. I do not consider this information as minimizing of the Holocaust in Croatia. I consider this information very valuable information for the Jewish community. Why the Jewish community in Croatia and elsewhere should not know and this information? That was my motive, I don't know if I must say reasons for each edit, is that Wikipedia rule(I ask seriously)? Judenfrei Serbia/Belgrade information from reliable sources. If on Wikipedia exist article about Judenfrei it would be logical to include this information from reliable sources. Otherwise this is 2020 so I don't know why this information is not included earlier in the article. Whether I was allowed to enter this information or not? Maybe it's forbidden, I don't know? Otherwise, there is this information in the article and I still don't know what this information actually talking about. Judenfrei "Belgrade – May 1942, reported in the SS-Standartenführer Emanuel Schäfer cable sent to the Reich Main Security Office in Berlin; Schäfer was the Der Befehlshaber der SIPO und des SD head at that time in Belgrade" As if someone wanted that Judenfrei fact not be clearly presented in the article, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone can help me translate this information, I asked the same question on the talk page but no one answers.[44] Mikola22 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1]

Statement by Tezwoo

First, it should be pointed out that Sadko was recently the main subject of a large ANI regarding POV pushing in similar topics, in some of which he had disputes with Mikola22 too. [45] Since the ANI was too large, it was overlooked. Admin Number_57 noted back then that Sadko's edits look "clearly like classic nationalist POV pushing/point-scoring in a contentious area" [46] Due to a potential WP:BOOMERANG, it should be looked at now. Sadko also seems to have been WP:WIKIHOUNDING Mikola22, as can be seen at Mikola22's talk page [47]. Here's a closer look at the report:

1st diff (Slavonia) - the first false claim, as it was not "Removal of sourced content". Mikola22 added new information from a RS.

2nd diff (Statuta Valachorum) - nothing was removed there as well, he added new content.

3rd diff (Svetozar Boroević) - those are not "fringe viewpoints", both Mikola22 and other users provided multiple RS on the talk page [48] that show how the ethnicity of Svetozar Boroević is differently presented in various sources. A consensus was reached that the article should state both the sources that mention his Serb origin (which was strongly advocated by Sadko), and those that mention a Croat origin.

"Complaints about prior “lost battles”" - that is nonexistent in the diffs provided.

"Ignoring other user’s concerns" - 1st diff (Military Frontier). Nothing was removed here, he added sources which are in fact modern historiography. He discussed that on the talk page, and another user agreed that those are reliable sources. Regarding the 2nd diff (Eparchy of Marča), Mikola22 did not add anything to the article following that discussion, so he did not ignore others concerns.

WW2 articles - Again, he added sourced content, mostly about the holocaust. It is interesting that on the 2nd diff provided there, in the previous revert, Sadko reverted an edit that "Milan Nedić implemented Hitler's anti Semitic policies" [49]. That is the only contentious edit I see there.

"blunt removal" - in the 1st diff (Svetozar Boroević), he was right to revert the edit as it was not in the cited source. 2nd diff (Nikolaj Velimirović) is obviously a mistake as he thought this was mentioned already. 3rd diff, he started a section on the talk page and several other users also pointed out to the off topic content in that article. 4th diff, nothing removed there, he added cited information.

Diff no.50 (Marco Polo) is very misleading as he did not write that "Marco Polo was Croatian". For the last diff (Chetniks), the content he added was confirmed with an additional source by Peacemaker67 [50]

That is mostly it. I'll gladly provide additional sources for any of Mikola22's additions. This just seems as an attempt to get rid of an editor with whom the user(s) had some content disputes with misleading explanations of pilled up diffs. Tezwoo (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang?

Context is important. Regarding "questionable sources", Sadko defended the use of an internet portal article titled "Croats are hijacking our heritage" for an ethnic identity claim [51]. The issue (novosti.rs article) had to be brought to RSN, which made it clear that it is not an RS. [52]

As for "fringe views", some of the above diffs are related to the Chetniks. There is an academic consensus that the Chetniks carried out genocide during WW2. Interestingly, both Sadko [53] [54] [55] and Griboski [56] have a very recent history of contesting or removing the mention of genocide as a statement of fact, contrary to the cited source(s). Tezwoo (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Griboski

I can't speak to most of these article diffs as I was not involved in them. I can only comment on what I've observed. My main issue with Mikola22 is his unwillingness to listen to other editors' concerns and to try to understand what constitutes fringe viewpoints and reliable sources. For instance, in this [57] discussion it was explained to him why Ljubica Štefan is a fringe and questionable source to use. Yet he continues to say "but she is a popular Croatian historian" and asserts it is a RS. Here [58] he opened up a discussion contesting the exclusion of two clearly fringe sources which depict death tolls that stray away far from the consensus. Even though he's been blocked before and these types of issues have been explained to him, there's a continued resistance to acknowledging and addressing them. --Griboski (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply proves my point as you double down and repeat much of the same points while refusing to acknowledge the concerns. If a source is questionable or controversial, statements should be attributed to them at the very least but a better source is preferred. No, you weren't specifically blocked for your use of fringe sources/theories but that has been a long-standing issue with you, related to your block. [59] --Griboski (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezwoo Please don't misrepresent my edit. There isn't a consensus that the Chetniks carried out genocide but rather that some historians state it happened and that is what is reflected in my edit. @Mikola22 "Judenfrei Serbia/Belgrade" is a major talking point used by the Croatian right-wing to try to demonstrate that the Serbian collaborationist government was worse than the Ustasha regime. I'm not accusing you of holding that view but it is concerning then that you've added that bit to several Holocaust-related articles while at the same time adding things like this out of context which minimizes the Holocaust in Croatia [60]. Also your claims that the Milan Nedić and other articles were written "with flowers" (whatever that means) before you came along is not true and a case of self aggrandizement. Much of what you did is repeat a lot of the information already found in the article and re-emphasized it, including using a couple of unreliable sources, with some structural issues which needed cleanup afterwards. You did add some additional useful information that wasn't there before, congrats. I'm all for improving articles. What is troubling is the agenda-driven editing seemingly just to make a WP:POINT. --Griboski (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WEBDuB

I think that one of the biggest problems with the user's work existed in the article Denial of genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. He removed most of the article, the sourced content, without prior debate on the talk-page or warning using some of a template [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. Most importantly, that included the violation of the 1RR rule [68] [69] and [70] [71]. To be honest, he later re-reverted one of his changes [72]. In another article, there is another violation of the 1RR restriction [73] [74] and [75] [76]

Furthermore, I've noticed a strange form of WP:HOUNDING, which included some kind of “countermoves”. This was evident during my work on the article Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, which was followed by similar changes to the articles that the user seems to have perceived as a kind of parallel events (which usually did not make sense). When I contributed something on April 27 ([77] [78] [79]), he made changes to the article Milan Nedić for the first time, without previous contributions in this article in his history ([80] [81] [82]) When I contributed something on May 24 and 25 [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]), he soon made similar changes to the articles The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia ([88], [89] [90]), Banjica concentration camp ([91]) and Chetnik war crimes in World War II ([92]) for the first time. I really doubt that the articles about the Holocaust in occupied Serbia, Banjica camp and Milan Nedić are on the watchlist of the editor who work mostly with Croats-related pages. Of course, there are many examples of the direct following and making changes in the same article after my contributions.

In addition to a sensitive topic such as one of the deadliest genocides, his WP:POVPUSH and WP:CONTENTFORK can also be seen in the obsession with the most important and most famous Serbian personalities such as Nikola Tesla ([93] [94] [95] [96] [97]) and Novak Djokovic ([98] [99]). His focus on removing information about Serbs from Dubrovnik and Ragusa has already been shown in this discussion.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezwoo: Honestly, I don't think it's Ok to deviate from the main topic here. You do a great job on Wikipedia, but here we are discussing the violation of rules and about one specific editor. So far, I've not made changes to the articles about the Chetniks, as their crimes have already been described extensively on Wikipedia. Especially, I didn't remove or minimize any crimes. However, I think that the two accused editors didn't advocate fringe views and "deny genocide", but were guided by the main title of the article and discussions on the talk page in which the academic consensus was not confirmed. Personally, I've seen many disputes, when authors compared to the Ustaša genocide, because the Chetniks didn't have a state apparatus and were a heterogeneous group, not unique organization. As I said, that shouldn’t even be a topic here.

@Mikola22: On this page, I didn't dispute your changes (your contributions on the Nedić and Holocaust pages are correct), but the broad context and the time when you entered them. However, the sources you added about Novak Djokovic were Serbian tabloids and Croatian portals that are indisputably not neutral. He is a world-famous star who is in the media almost every day, there would certainly be a huge number of reliable sources in many languages for any important information about him. Again, I didn't wrote anything about specific changes and source, but about your evident intentions and WP:POVPUSH, WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:HOUNDING. I would understand if you “followed me” on the Croats-related articles because they were on your watchlist. Generally, this is not the first time that I've noticed that someone has taken “countermeoves” and created or expanded a “parallel article” with very similar structure. In addition, the WP:3RR and WP:1RR do not always involve just the use of the undo tool, but any type of change that reverts to the previous version. In your case, removing the same content.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikola22: You should stop with too long explanations, which are not related to the main topic. That can disrupt the review. We are not here to discuss each change and each source individually. I think I clearly explained everything I had.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sadko

I shall not comment attempts to spin the report on myself as the main drive behind those attempts based on free interpretations of my work is fear of being left without editors and support for certain edits, which have been called POV in the past. [100]

The same sort of pushy moves, Red herring, stonewalling, lack of willingness to discuss and present WP:RS and communicate with other editors can be seen on recent edits here [101] That's just tip of the iceberg, and this sort of editing has been present from the very beginning of this user's activity. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mikola22

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

Mikola22, your responses are nearly 2000 words long. Please condense it to the essentials. Going a little over 500 is not a big deal, but that's much too long. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22, while in exceptional circumstances somewhat longer statements can be allowed, these are not such, and no one wants to read a massive wall of text to get to the important points. If you do not wish to condense your statement, it will be truncated at 500 words for you. The word limit is not a suggestion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22, if you ping me, you gotta link my username or I won't get an alert for it. I noticed it in passing this time, but next time I may not. El_C 05:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22, oh, okay. Yes, I knew this request existed, but have not reviewed it, mostly because of your statement's excessive length. El_C 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edithgoche

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

Request concerning Edithgoche

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBIP :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: One block for edit warring involving the same article.[102]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [103]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Note: I have decided to withdraw this report since Edithgoche has acknowledged some of the concerns I raised above about his editing and I would look forward to the improvements now. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[104]

Discussion concerning Edithgoche

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

Statement by Edithgoche

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by RegentsPark

While I share Aman Kumar Goel's frustrations with Edithgoche, I think it may be premature to sanction them. Sure, they were throwing about dubious claims of adminabuse (which they did retract), censorship (also retracted) and due, but they have since engaged on DRN and, hopefully, will move forward constructively.--regentspark (comment) 13:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Edithgoche

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

Per regentspark, recommend against sanctions at this time. But I do believe a warning is due. El_C 15:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hölderlin2019

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

Request concerning Hölderlin2019

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hölderlin2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

14 June Removed reliably sourced content in violation of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT even after being warned against it.
14 June Same as above diff.
14 June Same as above diff.
15 June Same as above diff.
15 June Same as above diff.
15 June: Violating WP:CANVASSING by canvassing editors he never interacted before.[105][106][107]
15 June Doubles down with his blatant WP:OR, WP:EDITWAR and misrepresentation of sources and using sources that don't even talk about any "homosexuality" even after warnings and discussion.
15 June Same as above.
15 June Again, doubles down with his blatant WP:OR, WP:EDITWAR and blatant misrepresentation of sources.
15 June Same as above.

He has already reverted more than 3 times on both articles in less than 24 hours even after warning.[108]

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

@RexxS: It is not hard to find reliable sources for this subject which has been covered extensively by the academic sources. While WP:OR is allowed on talk page but not the main page, the argument on talk page also needs to be substianted with reliable sources than personal research if an editor wishes others to take their argument seriously. You should check the diffs from #7 - #10 where I have provided examples that how Holderlin2019 is double downing with his WP:OR and blatant misrepresentation of sources by adding his peprsonal research to the main article which are completely unrelated to homosexuality.[109] Now since "Wikipedia does not publish original thought", the only thing Hölderlin2019 could do was find the reliable sources throughouly supporting his argument but so far he has only demonstrated clear inability to understand what is OR. He is also engaging in WP:RGW since he is only finding problems with highly reliable sources without providing any rebuttal backed by other reliable sources as his own recent messages indicate.[110][111] Siddsg (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [112]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [113]

Discussion concerning Hölderlin2019

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

Statement by Hölderlin2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Vanamonde93:, @RexxS: My statements are not the result of my own search of the Rig Vedic corpus, although searching the Rig Vedic corpus oneself does establish it to be true. If that was a citation I had attempted to make in the article, I freely grant that it would be OR. Monier-Williams is considered reliable (it's one of the default sources) among Sanskritists for documenting attestation in a given Sanskrit work or body of works. Here is its entry for vikruti, hosted at the Cologne Sanskrit Lexicon, which collates such resources and makes them available for research purposes. MW lists the texts or bodies of literature in which words are attested - if you hover your cursor over 'MBh.', you'll see 'Mahābhārata' pop up, establishing that the word 'vikruti' is attested in the Mahabharata. There is no such attestation for the Rig Veda; the same holds for prakriti. Contrast, say, the word 'rājan', archaic form of the word Raja. The 'RV' listed there indicates that this word is attested in the Rig Veda.

MW, of course, isn't a definitive concordance of the Vedas. That would be either VB Sastri's A Vedic Word Concordance, or HUP's Franceschini's revised version of Bloomfield's Vedic concordance, the searchable text of which is available here, courtesy of Michael Witzel at Harvard. Neither of these works attest the phrase, or, for that matter, its constituent parts, in the Rig Veda. This same state of affairs prevails throughout the secondary literature, including all sources which seek to exhaustively catalogue the attestation of words and phrases in the Rig Veda. There are several, and none of them attest the existence the disputed text in the RV. The only sources which do claim that this text exists in the Rig Veda are either newspaper articles authored by journalists or others who are not scholars of the Rig Veda, or one or two academic sources which are on LGBT studies, which do not source the claims they make, and which I contend are not reliable sources in the context of making claims about the content of the Rig Veda or Sanskrit, especially if they contradict the actual scholarly work that exists on those matters. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: My preferred (and original) solution is not to gainsay sources in Wikipedia’s voice; it’s to exclude them (mitigating the need for gainsaying text) on the grounds that they are not RS for the specific claims being made, given that they are not specialist works on the topic in question and are incompatible with the specialist works that do exist. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I have thus far provided sources (although I'm happy to continue providing even more) - on the talk page, inline in the articles, and on my own talk page; the response has been that these sources are "irrelevant" because they do not specifically deal with homosexuality, despite the claim in question being a straightforward one about whether or not specific Sanskrit text is contained in the Rig Veda. See Siddsg's #7 in the original complaint and his comments here, and here - he's perfectly aware of what my sources are, but is unwilling to verify the claims I'm making in them because he, incredibly, refuses to accept that academic sources on the Rig Veda which are dedicated to documenting the attestation of words and phrases in the Rig Veda are relevant to determining whether or not specific text is actually in the Rig Veda because they do not discuss homosexuality (!) How am I supposed to have an editor verify the claims I'm making if their reaction is essentially IDONTLIKEIT? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

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

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

@RexxS: That's a fair point, and one I'm aware of, so perhaps I ought to have said at the outset that I don't think sanctions are warranted here at the moment. My discomfort is with the approach Holderlin2019 has taken. Ordinarily, no one would need to prove a negative; but the trouble is there are sources making an assertion contrary to the one Holderlin2019 is making. As such, if we are to gainsay those sources in Wikipedia's voice, it needs circumspect discussion and careful perusal of the sources. Holderlin2019 has instead made sweeping assertions, without pointing to very many specifics. To be clear, I am not making any excuses for the other editors here; several of their behavior has been cause for concern on this noticeboard before; some more scrutiny of their editing pattern wouldn't go amiss. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hölderlin2019: Then that's something you need to establish consensus on the talk page for first, and that's something you can do by providing all your sources in a manner that other editors can check up on. Initially, you said a lot of things along the lines of "experts think differently", but other editors looking to verify that would have struggled. The details you provided above were a step in the right direction. I would suggest raising concerns at RSN as well, which you have now done. Just please don't edit-war over it before you've reached a consensus, and don't add sources to the article that don't support exactly what you're using them for (as in, don't just cite things because they don't have certain information). Vanamonde (Talk) 04:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hölderlin2019

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mar4d

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of that administrator: [114]

Statement by Mar4d

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

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

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

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

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

Aman.kumar.goel: With all due respect and without causing offence, this topic ban came into effect on 15 May 2018. Your first edit to Wikipedia was not until 30 October 2018. It would be disingenuous to say, therefore, what you know about these editing restrictions that I already do not know (!). While I'm personally glad that these diffs, some going back as early as August 2018, were only what you could find and dig in the many thousand edits that I have made since, I am lesser happy with the way you have selectively quoted and misrepresented them. In my defence, I'd like to discuss why your points, IMO, appear untenable and not made in good faith.

You have mentioned indeed this ANI thread by Mountain157. You should also refer to the comments there by uninvolved editors. First, I'd like to correct that this thread was filed in December 2018, not "as recently as 2019." The filer, a two week old account, was seeking to restore contentious edits they had made across 3 separate articles not related to the India-Pakistan conflict or this TBAN. These edits were challenged by others. Mountain157 was blocked indef in March 2019 for, unfortunately, the very same articles alluded to in the ANI above. I don't know where you reached this conclusion that "most" editors (quote) were "concerned enough about expanding the scope of the topic ban or block Mar4d indefinitely". It would only seem that way when a few editors, who had not interacted with the filer nor edited the pages concerned, but were from the sanctioned topic area that you also edit in, chose to get involved. Two admins, Vanamonde93 and Ivanvector, separately said a topic ban violation had not occurred and neither did the mudslinging go unnoticed (diff 1 diff 2). Nevertheless, I was advised to proceed cautiously which was duly noted. Ivanvector even proposed sanctions on the editors concerned, but both the proposal and the thread went inconclusive as you know. Yet, you have claimed below "there was a clear agreement that Mar4d was violating the topic ban".

You have also linked to this block from August 2018, which TBH was the result of a misunderstanding, but strangely enough did not find it worth mentioning that the block was lifted by the enforcing admin BU Rob13. I was not the only one affected by this. Please refer to my talk page here for details. Mar4d (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the second part of my response, I'd like to thank you for noting my contributions to Pathans in India. I have indeed written this article from scratch, and was in fact given a barnstar by a WikiProject India editor who was appreciative of my efforts. I'm afraid to say you have a severe misunderstanding of the TBAN, which is for "conflict between India and Pakistan." Please focus on this particular text. I have not edited, written or created any conflict-related items pertaining to Pakistan and India, or gone into its details. Merely mentioning the word "India" is not a TBAN violation; if you are under this impression, then you are mistaken and I would suggest seeking clarification from the admins above or RegentsPark, all of whom have clarified this on multiple occasions. I have no idea why you even mentioned Kashmir conflict, given I never edited this subject. You've mentioned reverting a non-procedural and undiscussed page move where, again, neither the current content nor the edit is connected with the very specific topic of India's conflict with Pakistan. Please provide diffs to substantiate such accusations. I'd like to thank you at the same time for explaining my self-revert on this article however, which was very much self-explanatory. Kindest regards, Mar4d (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C Thanks. I'm happy to be corrected, but this page move on 12 May relates to a human rights article concerning an ethnic minority in Bangladesh. Aman.kumar.goel has extrapolated this into the TBAN, but the article in question is not focused on the India-Pakistan conflict, or where, if at all, the former is exactly involved. The most peripheral connection perhaps could be that the current persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is a reaction to the Bangladesh Liberation War, which by extension links to the 1971 Indo-Pakistan conflict, but even that is a far stretch both semantically and content-wise, and not backed by Aman.kumar.goel's diffs. This was not my first edit to the article, as the edit history should show post-2013, and I had no intention in my mind whatsoever to change or affect remotely anything covering the India-Pakistan conflict when I performed this move.

A new user, YaRaabAlHind, stated the following to move the name "Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh" to "Persecution of Stranded Pakistanis": Bihari is just a general name for Urdu speakers in bangladesh. Apart from not providing a source, they did not follow the correct procedure obviously or leave a talk page note, hence the restoration of the longstanding title. In the destination page of the Bihari article, the text or sources have not used this terminology. Should you happen to determine that my move there is incorrect, I'm more than happy to self-revert, although my opinion on it would still remain the same. I hope this explains my position. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C: No problem; thank you. Mar4d (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Aman.kumar.goel. You've said a few times now I'm misrepresenting sources, by virtue of this edit which is sourced to this column. While you haven't explained what this has to do with the TBAN, here's a passage from the same source: The late progenitor, Prithviraj Kapoor, whose illustrious family is still in the movie business, is regarded a ‘Hindu Pathan’ by the film fraternity, but a family member clarifies that they are, in fact, Punjabi Khatris. This overlap in identity is probably due to his origins in undivided India’s Northwest Frontier Province, in the capital city of Peshawar, like his contemporary...

If only you dedicated as much time to reading the text following it, you would've known I have provided not one but an umpteen amount of sources on the many Punjabi-origin celebrities from Peshawar identifying as "Hindu Pathans", with full in-text quotations. This is yet another misleading comment from your side. Mar4d (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I guess I have said what I was going to say at this point. I don't think I have anything useful to add to the mostly off-topic insinuations or assumptions being made. 'Tis all a distraction. If any admins (El C et. al) have further queries about my appeal or statement/s, please feel free to ping me. Thanks all, Mar4d (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel

As recently as 2019, there was an extended ANI thread where most participants were concerned enough about expanding the scope of the topic ban or block Mar4d indefinitely, and some were opposed to any action. But overall, there was a clear agreement that Mar4d was violating the topic ban, even after 1 block for topic ban violation in 2018.

His first edit to the article on Pathans in India [115] which he himself created on 28 May 2020, is a violation of topic ban from "conflicts between India and Pakistan" given the edit mentions "partition" of India two times on the first edit alone. The second sentence of Kashmir conflict article notes that "The conflict started after the partition of India in 1947". This 30 May edit is just more of the same violation.

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

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

These edits are obviously not the only example where Mar4d has failed to stay away from his topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts. This 18 April which removed a whole section about India-Pakistan conflict involved Kashmir was a topic ban violation, and even after Mar4d appeared to have self-reverted,[116] I would still like to know how this source supports the information which Mar4d added on his next edit to the article.

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

@El C and Black Kite: The topic ban violations are all recent and fly in the face of the standard requiring at least 6 months of problem-free editing before appealing a topic ban. Aside from topic ban violations, I am seeing misrepresentation of sources in the recent edits of Mar4d to Pathans in India. A very simple example to demonstrate the misrepresentation of sources can be seen in this edit alone since the source used by Mar4d does not support the information he added in any way and in fact there is no mention of "ethnic" and "cultural" in the source. How would it be then wise to repeal the topic ban of this editor from a more contentious subject given his glaring inability to edit while adhering to the general wikipedia policies in a less contentious subject? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: This edit falls under the scope of "conflict between India and Pakistan" since the article and the subject greatly deals with 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation war. Similarly, these [117][118] edits about partition of India also fall under the same scope since Partition of India is the direct origin of conflict between India and Pakistan. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d: That paragraph in the source doesn't explicitly say that they do not identify as ethnic Pathans. It is only something that you have inferred in violation of WP:OR. It is related with the topic ban in the sense that it shows problems with your editing in the lesser contentious area than the one you are aiming to edit (India-Pakistan conflict).

Per WP:BMB, regardless of how Mar4d spins it, the page move of persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is a violation of this topic ban. The reliable sources also describe the subject to be directly related with the India-Pakistan conflict and the persecution resulted in Bangladesh Liberation War.[119][120] The partition of India into the secular but majority Hindu country of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan "planted the seeds of hostility between the two nations" and this hostility instigated three wars.[121][122] I find the edits about the partition to be an obvious violation of the topic ban. I don't see what can be a clearer definition of the topic ban violation than this. Now if there is still any doubt about the scope of the topic ban, then it would be much better to discuss the scope at WP:ARCA while keeping the appeal on hold. El C, what do you say? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shashank5988

Mar4d appears to be displaying the same battleground mentality in his responses which got him topic banned in the first place. The topic ban violations have occurred fairly recently. The claim that Vanamonde93 agreed that "a topic ban violation had not occurred" is a misleading claim since he was supportive of expanding the topic ban.[123]

It is clear that Mar4d is still not understanding the scope of the topic. I also note that he has not addressed that how this edit is supported by 2 of the sources he added because it seems clear that Mar4d has misrepresented the sources in that edit.

@RegentsPark: You should move your comment to involved editors section since you are deeply WP:INVOLVED as you have frequently participated in same content disputes as Mar4d.[124][125][126] The topic ban violations are not ambiguous in this edit because Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh is much about 1971 Bangladesh genocide and Bangladesh Liberation War, both are among one of the most important subjects falling under India-Pakistan conflicts. Editing about the partition of India is also violation of the topic ban, especially when the topic ban notes that "further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block".[127] The topic ban wasn't supposed to be ignored but enforce the way it was imposed. Mar4d clearly does not understand the scope of his topic ban and is clearly not adhering to WP:NOTTHEM in his appeal but instead blaming others for any of the recurring problems with his editing. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

The only one of the diffs that's seriously concerning is the page move, but even there, I see a violation made in good faith, rather than an attempt to skirt the ban or to further previous disputes. Color me unsurprised that Shashank5988 is thoroughly misrepresenting my comment at ANI, or that both he and Aman.kumar.goel are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find incriminating diffs. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I support lifting the ban, maybe you would say per WP:ROPE but I don't want this to come across as a discouraging comment. My usual metric for appeals of enforcement actions in this topic area is whether or not I keep seeing the sanctioned editor's name come up in disputes tangential to the topic, or in behavioural disputes in general; in Mar4d's case I absolutely have not, despite their continuing to be a prolific editor while sanctioned. I remain entirely unconvinced by the ideological enemies who have barely escaped sanctions themselves showing up to argue against their old foe, all the while whining about battleground mentality without a shred of irony.

I also don't know if we're supposed to use lv3 or lv4 headers for these statements. Someone feel free to correct me if I've done it wrong. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not particularly impressed that the two editors opposing the appeal seem to be out to collect their pound of flesh for entirely inconsequential violations which have already been corrected. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to bear grudges and punish for the sake of punishment. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mar4d

Totally misleading allegations using old diffs are being made here. Aman is forgetting that there was no India and Pakistan before the 'Partition'. Moreover, Shashank must know that India wasn't even a direct party in either 1971 Bangladesh genocide or Bangladesh Liberation War. And if anyone here is following WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, it seems to be Aman and Shashank.Ainty Painty (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Mar4d

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

I support repealing the topic ban. Topic bans are partly designed to show that an editor can edit constructively in other areas, and Mar4d has adequately demonstrated that. I'm not overly concerned by the diffs that Aman Kumar Goel provides above, the only concerning one was self-reverted by Mar4d and stuff does happen.--regentspark (comment) 12:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, agree with regentspark. Testing the waters by lifting the topic ban seems like it would be a worthwhile exercise in this instance. El_C 15:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel, the scope of the topic ban extends to the "conflict between India and Pakistan." It is not IPA wide. El_C 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, how do you respond to the page move Aman.kumar.goel brings up? El_C 18:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, thank you. I am satisfied by your explanation, overall, but I submit to you that the optics there are not that great. El_C 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with regentspark. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say that when I see people in a contentious area trying to get multiple other editors topic banned (or like in this case trying to prevent the topic ban being lifted), my attention tends to shift to their editing, rather than the people they are reporting. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support lifting the topic ban. Mar4d has edited well while banned, which is exactly what we want to see. Bishonen | tålk 11:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hijiri88

Email disabled and talk page access revoked by Guerillero. — Newslinger talk 02:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Hijiri88

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[128]] :

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was alerted by another user of troubling edits made by Hijiri88 on his talk page. In spite of our IBAN, he accused me of making "a false claim" on my previous topic ban appeal, though I didn't do so. He accused me of violating my IBAN on the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, but that's impossible. Since the IBAN was imposed, he has only made one visible edit to the article, which was made years ago,[129] and I didn't modify that edit. He pinged an admin concerning my previous, now lifted, topic ban, even though this matter obviously isn't IBAN-exempt under BANEX rules. Also concerningly, he says "pinging Nishidani (talk · contribs) to see if anything can be done about the content of the recent IBAN-violating edits." It must be noted that Hijiri88 previously said in 2018, "the text might have been added by TH1980, and when I checked the history to confirm I had to email Nishidani to deal with it." In other words, this is (at least) the second time Hijiri88 has attempted to get around this IBAN by asking another user to edit in his stead. This is surely in violation of the spirit of the IBAN. What is the point of an IBAN if the other editor can just e-mail someone else to ask them to make edits for him? Hijiri88 has a long history of violating IBANs[130] and this is surely just another case of that. TH1980 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[131]

Discussion concerning Hijiri88

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

Statement by Hijiri88

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hijiri88

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

I pulled their talk page access --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hari147

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 Hari147

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hari147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

17 May 2020 adds an indic script to an article, contrary to WP:INDICSCRIPTS and contrary to the notice in the article telling them not to do so (visible in the diff).
17 May 2020 Removes sourced pronunciation guide at Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), with no explanation.
30 May 2020 claims that a dish cooked throughough south and east asia comes from India, without any sources to back this up.
16 March 2020 Removes content that is appropriately sourced in the body, discrediting a widespread opinion among historians in doing so.
13 June 2020 Claims a long-running political dispute is over, with no sources to support his edit. Repeats the edit a few days later, without discussing the issue, despite having been reverted the first time.
15 April 2020 An absolutely appalling response to 331dot, who blocked them for edit-warring.
1 June 2020 changes "Status Quo Ante Bellum" to "Indian victory" with no sources and no explanation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: No previous sanctions under DS; three blocks and multiple warnings for disruptive editing.

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

Alerted in December 2019 [132] by Doug Weller

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Honestly, given the diffs I've provided, the previous warnings and blocks, and the recent uploading of a copyrighted image [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Chinese_president.jpg (Sorry, admins only) we're into territory where I would consider an indefinite block over a TBAN; but I think the latter is the minimum that's required. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Not that I am aware. It's possible they've been told on a talk page somewhere, but I haven't seen it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I rather suspect nobody saw it. It came after the 3RR report had been closed; I only found it because I was checking for past sanctions when filing this report. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Strike that; 331dot obviously saw it, because they responded; perhaps they let it slide as venting after being sanctioned. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[133]

Discussion concerning Hari147

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.

Why wasn't Hari147 blocked for that comment to 311dot? I know it's stale now, but why weren't they blocked at the time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hari147

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hari147

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

Vanamonde93, do you know if Hari147 has previously been told about Raj era sources not being acceptable? They just added some text to Yadav today, sourced to a gazetteer from 1897 and a book from 1935.[134] I'm pinging Sitush, who reverted the edit. Bishonen | tålk 16:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I was wondering about that tactical Chinese versus Indian victory edit warring yesterday when I restored the stable version. I tend to agree with Vanamonde93 that we may have a problem here which is best addressed by sanctions. Oh, and the message to 311dot is so beyond the pale, I don't even know what to say about that. El_C 23:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support, at a minimum, an indefinite topic ban from the IPA topic area. The message to 331dot is a personal attack, and the remaining diffs show a pattern of disruptive editing in the topic area. — Newslinger talk 00:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite topic ban from the IPA area. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef topic ban from IPA topics. The personal attack, and the repeated attempts to define who won what, are troubling.--regentspark (comment) 16:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airavan

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 Airavan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan #Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Multiple examples of adding or reinserting unsourced content, or unreliable Raj era sources (multiple RSN debates have concluded they are unreliable, for example see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F

17 June 2020 Restores completely unsourced section. Personal attack in edit summary: Please stop editing a page that you have no clue of. Maybe you are a very intelligent smartass in your country but please keep your nose out of this page. The information provided under post-titular contains only two paragraphs and they are about the current members of the family who don’t have books, articles and journals published on their name. But they contain true information and there are news article that literally describe the coronation of the king in 2013. So ple
17 June 2020 Restores puffery, sourced to a newspaper,. Personal attack in edit summary: Editing and removing content despite it having a valid reference is bullying. Stop racism stop bullying
17 June 2020 Adds a huge table, sourced to unreliable 1939 Raj era source
17 June 2020 Removes a valid {{unreliable source}} tag (source is dated 1903 = Raj era)
20 June 2020 Personal attack on me at User talk:Mihirbhoj: "We know some People do fake Black lives matter protests to SHOW OFF. Everyone knows how fake some people are. They do Systematic racism, target one page that they don’t know anything about and misuse their admin role and just edit and scribble only on this one wiki page."
20 June 2020 A further personal attack on me at User talk:Mihirbhoj: "Go kiddo, read that book by the Odisha Govt and you will find all kings mentioned in the table. And don’t come back with your little head until you have finished reading it. Don’t know how some **** become admins, I’m better than you. LOL."

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: In May 2020, I posted at Talk:Kingdom of Jeypore that the article had been bloated with unreliable sources and Abecedare agreed, giving an analysis of some of the challenged sources. Two days ago, I signalled my intention to start removing content sourced to unreliable sources.; This has been thwarted by two editors, Airavan and Mihirbhoj, who have repeatedly re-inserted the disputed content, sourced to newspapers or TV channels or Raj era sources (and in some cases completely unsourced). The whole article is currently a hagiography and needs WP:TNT.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notification

Discussion concerning Airavan

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 Airavan

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Airavan

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

Airavan's personal attacks in these edit summaries are unambiguously unacceptable, and the diffs show that their edits frequently contain violations of the verifiability policy. Considering that Airavan has made comments indicating that they are unlikely to be receptive to feedback from other editors, I recommend an indefinite topic ban from the IPA topic area (at a minimum). — Newslinger talk 02:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked Airavan for 1 week for the personal attacks as a normal administrative action, but still recommend the indefinite topic ban. — Newslinger talk 02:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another day, another indefinite IPA topic ban recommended. El_C 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin 2009

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 Marvin 2009

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Marvin 2009 (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/Falun Gong

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

Note that Marvin 2009 now go by the name Precious Stone as a signature, but his user name remains Marvin 2009.

6 June 2020 Engaged in soapboxing, and proceeded to remove WP:SPA labels in a discussion page.
11 June 2020 Blanking the Falun Gong article page, accusing it of being biased, removing sourced material and and also misusing the Citation Needed tag over sources he dislike. Warned by admin User:Doug_Weller as a result.
June 12 2020 In regards to Doug Weller's warning, he claimed that his previous warnings were the result of "biased activists", highlighting his battleground mentality. Further warned by admin User:El_C.
June 3 2020 June 4 2020 5 June 2020 June 5 2020 In a timespan of 48 hours, continued to insert and revert a paragraph suiting his POV, including several that fail WP:RS such as a Forbes contributor site and the personal site of a conservative activist. A 3RR case was filed against the user but seem to have gone stale.
June 6 2020 Suggested another editor of being a Wumao (paid editor by the Chinese government).
June 6 2020 Same as above, using an article from The Washington Times to suggest that the editor was paid.
June 6 2020 Attempted to link supposed pro-CCP edits with real life Chinese spying, suggesting a moral obligation to out them.
June 6 2020 Further suggestions that other editors are Chinese spies, using real life spies being caught as an examples.
June 7 2020 More accusations of other editors of being biased against him and FLG.
May 1 2009 This old edit on his user page, as well as since deleted uploads [135] showed that he attempted to advertise for Falun Gong affiliate New Tang Dynasty TV, possibly violating WP:SPA, WP:COI, and WP:PROMO.

The following were raised in my previous request:

16 June 2019 In my June 2019 ANI case, he dug up some of my old edits, and together some random news articles, engaged in soapboxing and slyly suggested that I'm a CCP spy, and that my behavior on Wikipedia of being "against the freedom of belief and the freedom of expression, those pillars of modern civilization".
22 May 2019 Soapboxing about the evils of CCP in a RFC comment about number of FLG members.
29 April 2019 Similar soapboxing on talk page, attempting to discredit sources critical of FLG.
31 March 2019 Calling for the removal of Chinese government sources, using a US-funded NGO as evidence.
31 March 2019 Same as above.
27 March 2019 Further soapboxing, accusing another user of being "50 Cent Party" (a slur against users deemed pro-CCP).
27 April 2019 Accused another user of being a "CCP apologist".
7 February 2016 Previously engaged in 3RR violations and demonstrated a clear disregard of WP policy, launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him [136].
6 December 2015 Accusing other users in the 3RR case of being "CCP sympathizers".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

6 Dec 2015 48 hour block for edit warring

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

March 2016 By Happymonsoonday1
June 2019 By MrClog

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Marvin 2009 almost exclusively edit the contentious Falun Gong articles, pushing a POV that favors the practice. I previously filed a case against this particular editor in 2019, noting his problematic editing behaviors. He was warned by admins about the discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBFLG, but it's obviously that his behavior has not improved in the year since. Marvin 2009/Precious Stone displays a shocking lack of WP:COMPETENCE in his edits at Wikipedia, including problems with WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEGROUND and possibly WP:COI. I felt that a topic ban might be warranted due to his continued edit warring and disruptive accusations against other editors on contentious articles such as Falun Gong.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[137]

Discussion concerning Marvin 2009

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 Marvin 2009

Statement by (Horse Eye Jack)

I’ve encountered the same problems with Marvin 2009 re POV pushing, threats, and aggression. They spammed my talk page with the copy-pasted discussions from their talk page [138][139] which remains a unique form of disruption, never seen anyone else do that. After I pointed out to them back in the day that they appeared to be an SPA only interested in the FG space they developed an intense interest in refrigeration although the quality of editing didn't improve (they were still adding unsourced information). I note that in out COI discussion they repeatedly said they had never been paid for their edits but never addressed the other aspects of COI, they appear to believe that without direct payments its not COI. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Marvin 2009

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

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

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

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

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

[5] [1]

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[1]

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