Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267

Jugs Rimes

Moot, editor has been blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 4 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 Jugs Rimes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jugs Rimes (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/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

16:51, 12 May 2020 Adds {{cn}} to the Drummuckavall ambush article. While obviously not a violation of anything, I feel it's fair and important to give a full timeline
23:23, 23 May 2020 Adds {{fv}} to the citation that was added following diff#1
21:51, 25 May 2020 Adds {{fv}} again
17:58, 31 May 2020 Adds {{fv}} again
16:42, 4 June 2020 Adds {{fv}} again

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I explained at Talk:Drummuckavall ambush#Multiple editions of Harnden, with wildly differing page numbers on 07:02, 24 May 2020 that there are (at least) two editions of the book with wildly different page numbers (page 159 versus page 116 for the same information), I also explained to the editor on their talk page about this, as well as referring to it in an edit summary and requesting they explain why they feel it isn't referenced. All they do is ignore me. Although obviously not covered by the Troubles discretionary sanctions, the history of Airbus A400M Atlas shows a repeated attempt to add {{fv}} there despite other editors saying it's referenced, and the history of Mauser Model 1893 shows a repeated attempt to add a pointless duplicate link. As the history of their talk page shows, they have no interest in communicating with other editors regarding these problems.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jugs Rimes

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 Jugs Rimes

Statement by Levivich

Thanks to FDW for filing this report. There is more:

1 (combined diff): At Eoin O'Duffy, changing "The book had antisemitic undertones" to "The book had anti-communist undertones" (the cited source, p. 6, says "The book had strongly anti-Semitic undertones"); removing "fascist" and "Franco"; removing "blueshirts" or changing it to "Army Comrades Association"
2, 3, 4: At Antifa (United States), changing "movement" to "terrorist organization".
5, 6: At Killing of George Floyd, removing "Police officer Derek Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck" (or similar)
7, 8, 9: At Austrian Air Force, repeatedly adding {{cn}} tags to infobox parameters where the content is already sourced in the article
They have received a number of warnings and DS templates, all of which they deleted from their UTP with no response.
Never used an edit summary.
Never posted to a talk page (except to delete posts to their talk page).
There may be more; I haven't gone through all of the contribs. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jugs Rimes

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

I am considering indefing them as an admin action. They have been edit warring about rifles, edit warring about American politics, POV editing about Irish history and they have never participated in a discussion. Their first edit makes them look like a sock to me. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And they were Confirmed as a sock of Hasp Sneon via check user --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raghavendrax

Raghavendrax topic banned indefinitely from the IPA topic area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:02, 7 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 Raghavendrax

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Raghavendrax (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

09:03, 6 June 2020: Replaced reliably sourced content in the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article with unverifiable content. The edit replaced "The amendment has been widely criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion, particularity for excluding Muslims" with "The amendment act has been widely misinterpreted as discriminating on the basis of religion, particularity for excluding Muslims", and "The bill has raised concerns among the Indian Muslim as well as poor Indians as they might be rendered stateless that could lead them to detention" with "The bill has raised misunderstandings among the Indian Muslim as they might be rendered stateless that could lead them to detention" in the lead section. The cited sources are consistent with the removed language, and are inconsistent with the added language.
09:06, 6 June 2020: Removed 17,093 net characters from the OpIndia article, replacing the removed content with "OpIndia is widely criticized by Indian left-wing for exposing the fake news spreaded by Indian left-wing." The edit also changed the description of Swarajya from "right-wing" to "popular", deleting the citations attached to the removed word.
09:09, 6 June 2020: Identical to #2, undoing Materialscientist's reversion (Special:Diff/961040282) of the previous edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Raghavendrax has repeatedly violated the verifiability policy in the area of Indian politics.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/961044947

Discussion concerning Raghavendrax

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 Raghavendrax

Statement by (username)

Statement by Symmachus Auxiliarus

Comment This seems pretty clear cut. Endorse T-BAN. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)|

Result concerning Raghavendrax

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 09:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with El_C, and unless anyone shortly objects, will do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Aeonx

Appeal was declined --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Aeonx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed: Two week block (see log)

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

Notification of that administrator: I copied this over myself when they appealed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aeonx

It was wrong to block me because it was done under inaccurate and false pretext, the justification used for my block was based on a clear misinterpretration of my the comment I made. The evidence of which is clearly available on my talkpage. I understand the blocking Administrators concern, and I have already openly admitted and accepted that the edit summary I made on the OANN page was disgraceful. I made the comment out of frustration, whereby I have been trying to boldly identifying issues and then take steps to improve the NPOV aspects of the OANN article and have instead simply had my edits (made in accordance with guidelines) reverts; followed my having warnings on my talkpage. That is the frustration I have which has lead to my less-than-graceful comments. However, I still assert the core reason for the block being unwarranted as a clear misinterpretation of my comments, which were generic in nature describing that POV-pushing is "troll-like conduct"; the comments I made in the two reference locations given in the block, were not in any way targeted at any particular editor.

Statement by TonyBallioni

So, the statement they are defending is not actually why I blocked. I had blocked on these diffs, which are clear battleground issues, with personal attacks and incivility thrown in the mix: [1], [2], [3] (note edit summary). These were all today, but there is also a history of personal attacks in the topic area: [4] (note content and edit summary), [5] (Aspersions and conspiracy theories about other editors), [6]. They had previously been warned for similar behaviour by Doug Weller in April here. I decided that in totality, the behaviour merited a block, and went with two weeks even though it was a first time offense, because looking at their editing from May, they mainly edit on the weekends lately, so a 24 hour block wouldn't do much and a 1 week would would be about the same, and you'd risk someone coming straight back to the same fight on the day they ordinarily edit.

After I blocked, I noticed that Bishonen had warned them over these edits, which is not something I had seen when looking through the block history. I pinged Bish to ask her thoughts, and mentioned that I wasn't particularly impressed by this comment in response to it, where he says that people he's fighting with on the talk page are exhibiting troll-like behaviour, which while not focused on any particular editor, in this topic area is a way of making a personal attack without saying names. It wasn't why I blocked, but it also made me not want to unblock quickly. As I said to Bish after I noticed that she had warned, I would be fine unblocking if she prefers to let the warning stand, but I also think there is enough conduct here for a block, especially as there has been recent history of this behaviour in the topic area, and they had previously been warned within the last two months. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Content disputes are not admin abuse.
Disagreement does not mean everyone else is wrong.
We are not here to WP:RGW.
POV-pushing is not a one-way street.
WP:5P4 appears to have been downgraded.
Poking in on weekends to snipe at other editors is not useful.

AP TBan the editor until there is some response that they truly realize the ongoing issues. (I'm sure I'm involved with this editor.) O3000 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Aeonx

We don't allow shared accounts. Can some admin do something about this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Aeonx

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

No, decline. Even after the warning for the behavior at issue in this block, and after the block, this editor has continued conduct that is inconsistent with the editing environment and that demonstrates that they do not understand why they have been blocked. It is not an acceptable defense to substitute "user:x is a [personal attack]" with "user:x has been engaging in [personal attack]-like conduct"; that would be a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Comments like If you READ CAREFULLY, you will see I did NOT call editors "troll-like", I wrote "troll-like" conduct". There is a big difference. I'm not attacking editors. I'm voicing an opinion as to how I, PERSONALLY, view their conduct; and I'm doing so on MY TALKPAGE. This is the sort of typical MALADMINISTRATION I am concerned about growing within Wikipedia. I will appeal this Block and All I get is more and more baseless threats, built around a misconception that I'm the person in the wrong because I'm overtly standing up against crappy administration and bullying. I am here to build a decent encyclopedia, not one built around abuse, maladministration and bias articles. aren't helping their cause either and don't at all indicate that they won't return to the exact same behavior right after the block; in this light, a two week block is pretty lenient. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief review of the earlier talk page posts is equally unimpressive. In response to a DS alert, the user writes: Thanks for posting, Doug Weller. Now I suggest you go read WP:UNINVOLVED. In characterizing this remark, the user writes: The only thing I said in regard to this standard alert was (1)A Thankyou, and (2)a request for you to review a particular relevant section of WP policy; the reason for which is that I was genuinely concerned based observations I had made from your past conduct that this *may* have been overlooked. Is it wrong for me to thankyou for posting on my talk page and to a make a suggestion?! Not a particularly impressive conversation. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel dirty posting here. But please be aware that this is a shared account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline after reading the above comments. The situation clearly justifies a two-week block. And as noted by User:L235, their user page states that their account is now being operated by two people. ("This account is used by two Freelance Journalists (SD and TR), currently reporting on COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom"). See WP:NOSHARING. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The documentation provided display recent misconduct and aggression which raises pressing concerns. That coupled with a seeming inability to understand the reasons for the block, leads me to decline the appeal. El_C 20:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline appeal. The block was an appropriate response to the misconduct, and the editor's behavior since then gives me no assurance that it is no longer necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban

Follow the instructions at the top of this page if you want to appeal. It won't be considered here otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I cordially request of Administrators here to lift the current topic ban against me in the ARBPIA area so that I might effectively contribute in that important area. A ban has been effective against me for one-year. The last appeal that I made was here, a little over six months ago. The history of my blocks in this area is one of rare occurence, which happened against me twice only after I had first filed complaints against two co-editors, and which complaints, in retrospect, were unwarranted. Both editors have had more blocks in the ARBPIA area than myself and yet are free to edit in this area. I am simply asking for admins to be impartial in my case and to give me the ability to contribute in this area, as it is an area in which I hope to add photographs to articles and to make general improvements in those articles, for the betterment of our online encyclopedia. The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused the aforementioned editors of stalking me (again, a wrong assumption) because of their "opposite" political views. I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. This was clearly wrong of me to do, and 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. The same editors that I disagreed with, I have also a long record of cordial relations with, here on Wikipedia. I'm simply asking for a second chance to prove my worthiness, and to expand articles (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.Davidbena (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The history of my blocks in this area is one of rare occurence - that's one way to put it, another way was that you didn't even last three months in the area in between topic bans. You were first topic banned in August 2018 [7], got it lifted in late February 2019 [8], and got a second topic ban in early May 2019 [9] for similar behaviour. starship .paint (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors have had more blocks in the ARBPIA area than myself and yet are free to edit in this area. - it seems you haven't learned from the last failed appeal, where Grandpallama said: "Bringing up someone else's TBAN has nothing to do with your own behavior and is, as far as I'm concerned, further evidence that your own TBAN is appropriate and that you haven't learned anything." The same editors that I disagreed with, I have also a long record of cordial relations with - @Nableezy and Huldra: - would you agree with this sentence? starship .paint (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly, I have absolutely nothing against any editor who may have amassed more topic bans than myself, and I only said this in the event that my two topic bans be used against me here, even though both topic bans were the result of my own initiating punitive measures against my fellow co-editors and having it backfire, and which I now see my actions as being uncalled for. I ask admins to be impartial in my case, as I think that I have demonstrated that I learnt my lesson well.Davidbena (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi

Blocked for 6 months. El_C 15:30, 11 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 Chesdovi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Chesdovi (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

[10] Chesdovi is topic banned from Zionism..... :
[11] Chesdovi is still TBANNED from ARBPIA

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

[12] June 10, edit on his page about Ben-Gurion and how Zionism is more important than lives.
[13] June 7, editing the Ben-Gurion article, covered by ARBPIA (tban)
[14] June 7, editing the Ben-Gurion article, covered by ARBPIA.(tban)
[15] June 2, "Religious Zionist" covered under TBAN.
[16] Another Ben-Gurion article
[17] Haredim and Zionism tban violation April 30th
[18] Flag of Israel April 27, tban violation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[19] March 2016, TBAN from Zionism, Western Wall, adding Palestine or Palestinian to articles
[20] Feb 2016, ARBPIA TBAN still in force
[21]2012 Tban violation block

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

N/A, TBAN Violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(I did not include all the violations just many to show that it's not a one off, even after being politely warned.)

On April 30th, I posted on Chesdovi's talk page a welcome back to Wiki message after his 4 year absence. I told him that he seems to be editing in an area that he is tbanned from and he hasn't requested the tban to be rescinded. At that point I didn't take him to AE, just a polite welcome back and letting him know that the tban is still in force. [22]. He then asked me to file an appeal which I then told him that usually doesn't work, and that he should do it himself, but suggested that he stay away from his TBAN area for a little bit before jumping right back in after a 4 year absence. [23] I then posted another friendly warning on his page that his edits seem to be in the TBAN area, especially "broadly construed." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chesdovi&diff=next&oldid=954299615 (May 24th)

On May 13th he request at WP:AN to "Lift Bans" see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive320#Lift_bans basically just asking to lift the bans. I told him there as well, that 1. You need to ask at AE, as I said on the talk page, and 2. You should edit in other areas first before jumping right in. Several admins concurred and the section was promptly closed.

Chesdovi has a very long history in the IP area and his skirting the ban is not a good thing, and while he may do good in other areas, for those who remember 2016 and prior, I don't think we need to go back to those times.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified: [24]

Discussion concerning Chesdovi

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 Chesdovi

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Chesdovi

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

Alcaios

Filer blocked as sock.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:51, 12 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 Alcaios

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kip1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Alcaios (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:PERSONALATTACKS WP:CIVIL WP:LIBEL WP:HARASS

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

Hi, I have not had to do this before even if editors have made (much less offensive or repetitive) personal attacks against me before. However, this user: Alcaios has been making frequent unsolicited and unwarranted personal attacks against me on the Celts talk page, including comparing me to a neo-nazi racist. I have included a screenshot, in case he then attempts to delete and deny what he has said. There would be also be other users that can corroborate the content of these attacks:

I have more but unfortunately was not permitted to upload them because of an invalid CSRF token tag.

[http://Difflink1 June 2020] Equating me to a neo-nazi racist for absolutely no reason
[http://Difflink2 June 2020] My reply asking him to not talk about/focus on race as it was a topic that wasn't relevant
[http://Difflink3 June 2020] False apology and accusation of me being a "racialist" rather than a "supremacist", even though I had asked him to stop bringing race into ethnic groups
[http://Difflink4 June 2020] Attack of "racialist thinking" because I pointed out that celts have paler skin and probably wouldn't have survived very well thousands of years ago in a much hotter climate
[http://Difflink5 June 2020] Indirect attack on other user because they agreed with me on an unrelated point for some reason

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

/* #Date Explanation */ /* #Date Explanation */

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I filed this request according to Graham's hierarchy of disagreement on the dispute resolution page, which his comments have repeatedly fallen under the most serious level of. He has also attempted to WP:BULLY me and other users, as well as harassment and other policy breaches. I will be happy to clarify, explain or be contacted in any way beyond this point.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of Notification

Discussion concerning Alcaios

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.

Alcaois: Sorta by definition, racialist aren't "reasonable". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alcaios

I have apologized for comparing Kip1234's views on Ancient peoples with that of Richard B. Spencer.

The quote is: Am I reading Richard B. Spencer? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a Romantic and racialist vision of Celts. (originally: Am I reading Richard B. Spencer?, which I have edited in the same sequence, not as an alteration of a past message that had already been answered to)

I still hold that Kip1234 has a racialist point of view of Celts and peoples in general. Alcaios (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have never WP:BULLYied you, be reasonable. I have stated that your point of view on peoples is comparable with Spencer's, for which I have apologized, and I have stated that you're holding a racialist view of peoples, which I won't retract. Alcaios (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS2: to be clear, the principal reason I won't apologize for stating that you're a racialist is this sentence: A cultural group is not the most important aspect of a "people" and can even change within a generation multiple times. To the contrary, I observe that culture is above nature in any human group. Had I been raised as a child in a black Nigerian family, I would be a Nigerian (read: culturally Nigerian) regardless of my genetic background. And if I fully adopt the French language and culture later in my life, I would be a French, again regardless of my ancestry (cf. cultural assimilation). In the same way, Celts are defined by a common language and culture by scholars (cf. Drinkwater: Their unity is recognizable by common speech and common artistic traditions.). Alcaios (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kip1234

Result concerning Alcaios

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

Cement4802

Partial block from Antifa (United States) for 2 weeks. El_C 15:43, 12 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 Cement4802

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cement4802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

05:27, 1 June 2020 First change of "left-wing" to "far-left"
06:10, 1 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
22:29, 2 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
15:07, 6 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left"
15:46, 6 June 2020 Revert from "left-wing" to "far-left", and 1RR breach being 29 minutes after the previous revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Notified here by User:Doug Weller

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There only engagement on the talk page was at 11:08, 1 June 2020 stating Nfitz Please don't bring your political views into Wikipedia. Sentiments like yours are usually the problem and source of conflict itself. And this has nothing to do with Donald Trump regardless. Numerous reliable sources describe ANTIFA as being far left. This was obviously prior to diffs #3-5.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cement4802

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 Cement4802

Statement by (username)

Statement by Levivich

Reviewing admin might want to review Special:Diff/961772855, posted June 10, four days after this report was filed. The sentiments expressed there are similar to the sentiments expressed on Cement's userpage. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cement4802

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

Clear cut 1RR violation. The additional edit warring as well as the failure to communicate, leads me to believe that sanctions will be necessary. El_C 16:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs show two 1RR violations and edit warring across the past week. The correct course of action would have been to participate in the discussions on Talk:Antifa (United States), and obtain consensus before making the change. — Newslinger talk 06:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storritospeaks

Editor has been blocked indefinitely as a normal admin sanction by Bishonen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC) And afterwards as a sock by me. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 12 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 Storritospeaks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Storritospeaks (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

10:24, 8 June 2020: Removal of 8,957 net characters from the Swarajya (magazine) article with no edit summary, undoing HaeB's reversion of Storritospeaks's previous identical edit. The edit removes the article's "Controversy" section and adds "THIS PAGE IS VANDALISED OFTEN, BY LEFT/RIGHT LEANING INDIVIDUALS." as the first unnamed parameter (reason) of the {{pp-protected}} template.
10:25, 8 June 2020: Removal of 15,565 net characters from the OpIndia article with no edit summary beyond the default "Undid revision 961393460 by Materialscientist (talk)", reverting Materialscientist's reversion of Storritospeaks's previous identical edit. The edit removes the article's "Content" section and part of the article's "Reception" section. It also removes "right-wing" from the article's description of OpIndia and Swarajya, along with the attached citations.
10:30, 8 June 2020: Removal of 716 characters from the "Controversies" section of the NDTV India article, including citations of Reuters and NDTV, with the edit summary "Deleted irrelevant info, for which providing citations is impossible."
10:32, 8 June 2020: Identical to #3, undoing Materialscientist's reversion of the previous edit.
10:37, 8 June 2020: Edit on User talk:Materialscientist, replacing Udaisingh01's previous comment with Storritospeaks's own comment. The comment includes the sentences "Kindly refrain from calling my editing disruptive. At the most, it may be called 'un-citied'." and "You revert my edits quite frequently, and generally leave me without any option to respond. This is a clear mistake on your part."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months (08:35, 8 June 2020), see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Considering the persistent disruption on the OpIndia article (see also #Raghavendrax, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive265 § Varun2048, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive263 § Pectore), likely motivated by OpIndia representatives' ongoing criticism of specific Wikipedia editors on their website and on social media, the semi-protection page restriction on the article might not be enough.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/961458142

Discussion concerning Storritospeaks

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 Storritospeaks

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Storritospeaks

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

You know, Newslinger, I thought I had indeffed this user earlier today for persistent disruptive editing, but I realize now that RL interrupted me in the act. I'll do it now. User indefinitely blocked as a regular admin action. Bishonen | tålk 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Siddsg

Siddsg is warned to not edit war and generally improve when it comes to the IPA topic area. Further problems are likely to lead to sanctions. El_C 16:07, 12 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 Siddsg

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Siddsg (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

Violation of WP:OR & WP:NPOV as explained in Special:Diff/961470988 and edit warring for the same on Mallapuram district.

07:33, 4 June 2020 First Addition
23:39, 4 June 2020 Revertion to the same
08:10, 5 June 2020 Revertion to the same
08:28, 5 June 2020 Revertion to the same
19:17, 5 June 2020 Revertion to the same
23:34, 5 June 2020 Revertion to the same

They have been warned on two other occasions for adding original research on Persecution of Hindus and 2020 Delhi riots on 00:39, 11 March 2020 and 19:54, 28 May 2020 respectively.

Similar behavior as shown above is displayed in section for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh on the page for Persecution of Christians.

08:27, 9 March 2020 Addition of an incident with no mention of persecution in the sources. The addition was reverted in 15:00, 9 March 2020 with an appropriate edit summary.
16:00, 9 March 2020 Re-adding of the same content after being reverted with no manual edit summary.
16:46, 9 March 2020 Reports the one who had reverted them to AIV, no other attempt at communication.
22:23, 9 March 2020 Editor is warned for the above displayed behavior.

Previously they have also created a copyright violation page Kodava cuisine (G12 template on 20:00, 6 March 2020), then went on to remove the speedy deletion template (warning message on 20:09, 6 March 2020) and added copyright violations to the page of Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus (warning message on 20:57, 6 March 2020).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in Special:Diff/944737144.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The date and time are in Indian Standard Time, sorry for any inconvenience.

@Siddsg: That response strikes me as utterly inadequate. I've already provided the diff which explains how it is a violation of WP:OR, behavior for which you had already been warned on multiple occasions well after the notice as well and still fail to acknowledge the issue. Materialscientist (talk · contribs) and Zvikorn (talk · contribs) likely restored the content because it outwardly appeared to be sourced with inline citations (due to the usage of what's essentially on web fictitious references. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)). Their restoration isn't evidence of it being not original research or not pov pushing and neither did they edit war over it unlike you, which you fail to acknowledge as well. I don't want to bloat this page therefore I will only highlight one particularly egregious instance of original research. The first line of the addition states, Malappuram has had a history of religious extremism which first came to the fore during the Mappila riots that consisted of various incidents of religious persecution of Hindus from the late 19th century to early 20th century. While the cited source is as follows:[reply]

Communal Riots in Post-independence India by Asgharati Engineer

A special mention may be made of the Moplah riots of 1921 which occurred in the Malabar region, a part of Kerala. There had been sporadic outbreaks of Moplah violence since 1836. These involved attacks by Moplahs on Hindu landlords and sometimes on English authorities. The outbreaks reflect the existence of both agrarian exploitation and rural poverty. The Namboodiri Brahmans and Nairs held superior tenurial rights whereas land was cultivated by the Moplahs. Throughout the period between 1836 and 1921 whenever the Namboodiri and Nair landlords tried to evict their tenants, violence was provoked. The Moplahs were bitterly anti-Hindu, bitterly anti-British, bitter against the world that gave them only misery. During the later part of the Khilafat movement, the Moplahs became convincted that the rule of the Khalifa had been established in India and they wreaked violence on the Hindu landlords and their men. They also tried to convert many of them to Islam. The army had to be sent for and it took the British Government more than 6 months to control insurrection. Of the Moplah rebels, 2266 were killed in action, 1615 were wounded, 5688 were captured and 38,256 surrended. Moplah prisoners were court-martialled and shot or executed (Smith 1946). The agrarian aspect of this violence was unfortunately lost sight of the leaders of that time including Gandhi and in future relations between the Congress and the Muslim League, the hangover of the Moplah riots continued to weigh on the minds of both parties.

How one can possibly summarise the source in the form of your added line is beyond me. While this isn't a WP:COI issue but "inappropriate and misleading" is quite a logical if not a forgiving summary for removing the addition. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/961510882

Discussion concerning Siddsg

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 Siddsg

@El C: I was still learning some of the core policies when I was editing in March 2020. Most of the diffs from "March" came after this notice. How they should be relevant makes no sense to me since I have learned from them and moved on from those matters.

As for the diffs from June, I would really like to know how this edit is violation WP:OR because the information has been completely supported by the sources in question. Similarly, my edits were reinstated by other established users,[25][26] while those who were removing my edits were just IPs and one user who referred these edits "WP:COI Extremism is not related with demographics", "Inappropriate and misleading content in a geography-related article with political intentions", "Prevented Vandalism and Conflict of Interest". I think this matter should be better solved at the talk page, and not this noticeboard. Siddsg (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I agree, but I was saying that my edits have merit since "other established users" restored my edits while there were "IPs and one user" who weren't logically disputing the content, this is why I had to revert them. Siddsg (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. I have been working to improve my editing and will continue improving it further. Siddsg (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Siddsg

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 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddsg, what do you mean "just IPs" — they have no lesser standing as editors than you just because they haven't registered an account... El_C 05:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddsg, okay, point taken. I would perhaps be willing to amend my recommendation to a warning. But improvements would be expected. El_C 06:01, 9 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]

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 [27]

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 [28], 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

[29]

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]

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: [[30]] :

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,[31] 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[32] 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

[33]

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

Indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 16:44, 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 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 [34] 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

[35]

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.[36] 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]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mar4d

There exists substantial consensus amongst uninvolved administrators to lift the topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: 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: [37]

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 [38] 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,[39] 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 [40][41] 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.[42][43] 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.[44][45] 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.[46]

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.[47][48][49] 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".[50] 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]
Agree with my colleagues. Closing this as consensus to lift the ban. TonyBallioni (talk)

Edithgoche

Edithgoche is cautioned to take more care in interactions, especially in sensitive areas covered by discretionary sanctions, and to refrain from casting aspersions against other editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 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 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.[51]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [52]

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

[53]

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]
As there seems to be no substantial interest in sanctioning this editor even by others involved, will close with a warning as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hölderlin2019

Request withdrawn by filer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 21 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 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.[54][55][56]
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.[57]

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.[58] 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.[59][60] Siddsg (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: There are two articles in dispute, Hinduism and LGBT topics and Homosexuality in India, and ultimately the information about Rigveda (which was written in present day India). Thus it falls under WP:ARBIPA. That said, I am not interested in seeking any sanction over this report now since enough suggestions have been made here, edit warring has been stopped and there are expectations that RSN discussion will bring the solution. Siddsg (talk) 03:36, 21 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): [61]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [62]

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]
I am very hesitant to say that this falls within the scope of WP:ARBIPA to begin with. While certainly Hinduism is the majority religion in India, I think that stretches "broadly construed" farther than it goes, to say everything popular in India would be covered by it. On the flip side, Islam is heavily the majority religion in Pakistan, but I would not consider edits in regards to the Quran to be covered under ARBIPA DS because of that. So, I believe that Hindu religious texts are similarly outside the scope of what we can issue discretionary sanctions for in the ARBIPA area. If evaluated on the merits, this is a content matter, which should be resolved by evaluating the consensus of secondary reliable sources, not an asserted count of a word's occurrence within the original text itself. I also agree that WP:RSN would be a good resource for evaluating the reliability of the various sources available on the matter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airavan

Indefinitely blocked as a normal administrative action. — Newslinger talk 08:13, 21 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 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]
  - I used a duration of 1 week because it was Airavan's first block, but considering that a high proportion of Airavan's 16 edits violated policy, I would also support extending the block to indefinite. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another day, another indefinite IPA topic ban recommended. El_C 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, El_C, but I don't recommend it for this editor. Did you see those completely ridiculous attacks on RexxS, otherwise known as "kiddo", at User talk:Mihirbhoj? I recommend an indefinite block. Strongly. Why witter about with topic bans when there's no indication anywhere that there's a decent editor in there trying to get out? It's not as if they've shown any sign of being interested in editing outside the ipa area. Bishonen | tålk 19:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note also, Tumsabkimaakichutsss, created yesterday for the purpose of harassing RexxS, is surely Airavan's sock. Has also edited Kingdom of Jeypore. Incidentally, I've indeffed User:Mihirbhoj, mentioned above, who just complemented his general disruption with vandalism targeting Sitush.[63]. Man, American politics is a picnic compared to this area. Bishonen | tålk 07:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Zarcademan123456

Zarcademan123456 is topic banned for 3 months from ARBPIA topics. Guy (help!) 09:40, 21 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 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]

I now also support sanctions , per Johnuniq especially. El_C 17:48, 20 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]