Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive311

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330

Daveout

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 Daveout

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 17:07, 27 September 2022 "you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith"
  2. 17:26, 27 September 2022 restoring the above when removed as a personal attack, saying "will not be censored this time. this was not a gratuitous, it's a statement of fact that everyone can see for themselves."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 16:37, 8 September 2022 warned for personal attacks in the topic area
If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)
  • Placed a {{
    Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. (see current revision
    )
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I really would rather not reporting this here, but this is a blatant personal attack, and then restored when removed. I think Daveout is the type of editor we need more of, and I say that as somebody who sees him as clearly being on a "pro-Israel" side of things, but he is reasonable and open to discussion and willing to compromise. But on topics that rile him up he goes wayyyy too far, and this is one such example.

re I can't tell a user that he is lying when he is patently lying??? WTF???, no, no you can not. Even if he were and that were an established fact. You can report him for disruptive or tendentious editing, but no you cannot say you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith. You could probably call some statement a lie if you could prove it, but no, you may not call another editor a pov-pushing liar. nableezy - 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as the pov-pushing bit, one should note that Daveout edited to insert two highly POV pieces, and only those links, the mirror image of what he claims is POV-pushing by others. Nobody said he is a liar or not editing in good faith or a pov-pusher. nableezy - 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, like I said, I dont even want to be here reporting you. But you just said your edit was a
WP:POINT. nableezy - 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Daveout hasnt restored the offending remark since I again removed it, and that being the case I'd ask this just be closed with a warning on personalizing disputes and making personal attacks. nableezy - 23:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified nableezy - 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion concerning Daveout

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 Daveout

(1) - (diff) I removed an external link and wrote the following summary: "rv, i think this should be discussed first. along with the other links"

(2) - (diff) To which Selfstudier replied "...the latest revert is free of any rationale, none was specified in the edit summary, just an unwarranted demand for discussion."

(3) - What is that if not a lie??? I can't tell a user that he is lying when he is patently lying??? WTF???

(4) - This is the *unwarranted* discussion that their referring to. The discussion, a good faith attempt to build consensus, was triggered by the fact that 3 external links were added to the Israel and apartheid article, all of them basically affirmed that there is an apartheid in Israel (which is a controversial matter and should be dealt with neutrality). The external links are as follow: "Inside Israeli Apartheid", The apartheid reports, DECONSTRUCTING ISRAEL'S APARTHEID AGAINST PALESTINIANS.

(5) - So look at the links and tell me that the discussion about neutrality is *unwarranted*, it's another L-I-E. There's no other name for it.


Nableezy I was trying to make a point about one-sided external links. (and by the way, the pro-Israel ones were promptly removed under neutrality concerns, oh the irony). I'll admit that maybe the way I did it wasn't so obvious. Anyway, as I later explained on talk I'm perfectly happy with no 'external links' section. Or it could have a balanced version. Making clear that I didn't want a section with pro-Israel links only.
Hypothetically speaking, if you consider that pov-pushing "less than neutral", do you agree that Selfstudier acted in a pov-pushing "less than neutral" manner? –
(talk) 19:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@
(talk) 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:AGF by pointing out that "Cannot say bad things about Dems in wikipedia, unfortunately. Everything bad about their politicians is just conspiracy around here" is an uncivil remark. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@
(talk) 17:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
("Collapsing. Sorry for bringing it up here. Please note but ignore it, admins.")
Extended content
It's fine Gizzy, just let the witch-hunt continue. I don't really care. Fun-facts that won't be mentioned here: (1)
(talk) 22:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

collapsing (ignore it please)

Extended content

Just noting - Reported user regularly restores edits of a banned user (Yaniv) and (their words) "I don't intend to stop". If you find this issue relevant to the case I’ll supply diff’s. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC) Actually, forget it. It’s an issue I believe, but it might be more suitable to discuss it elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@
Daveout Yes, most of them were uncontroversial, correct. But I rather see you making your own edit of a similar nature than straight continually reverting and restoring edits of a banned user. To me, something isn't right here. But as I said, I don’t think now this minor issue is for this board. Sorry for bringing it up. Please note but ignore it (admins.). I’ll discuss it further with Daveout on other occasion if needed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
... and by the way, Yaniv's “cow” edit wasn’t restored by me -->[1] I rather pay attention to what I’m reverting. (The way you wrote your response sounded like a “cow” edit was resorted by me.) 😉 - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know it wasn't you, read carefully: "...you might be interested in restoring...". It was done by someone who also thinks all sock edits must be reverted no matter what, even the positive ones. I don't believe in that. –
(talk) 21:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We’ll talk about later, not here - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Daveout

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • WP:AE, where one's related conduct is placed under scrutiny). Thank you. El_C 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Kheo17

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 Kheo17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Kheo17 (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:ARBAA2
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  2. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  3. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  4. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  5. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  6. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  7. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  8. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  9. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  10. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kheo17 continued to use the source Qərbi Azərbaycanın türk mənşəli toponimləri ("Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan") after being warned of it's unreliability. The "Western Azerbaijan" in the title is actually referring to

Azerbaijani irredentism source that is explaining how the names of every Armenian city and town are actually of Turkic/Azerbaijani origin. The book's author, Ibrahim Bayramov, co-wrote another book about how all of Armenia is Azerbaijan's rightful territory
.

I explained to Kheo17 on his talk page why this source is unreliable, but he continued to restore it on several Armenian town articles regardless. I'm shocked that an editor who has been editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles for over a decade would not understand why a source claiming all of Armenia belongs to Azerbaijan is not acceptable. --Dallavid (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill My apologies, I had misread that sample example amid the multiple other examples close to each other, and mistakenly read it as "Previously given a discretionary sanction alert for conduct in the area of conflict" because the "Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict..." and "Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict..." examples were close to it. --Dallavid (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[2]

Discussion concerning Kheo17

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 Kheo17

The accusation by Dallavid is baseless. An irredentist title does not make the information in the publication automatically biased or unreliable. The paper uses tens of reliable references from Armenian, Azerbaijani, Russian and European sources. For every statistical information, it provides a reference right after the statement. Using the same logic, all the reliable sources with "Western Armenia" in the title should be removed from Wikipedia?

Unlike Dallavid argues, the source does not try to claim any territory or prove that every Armenian settlement was only inhabited by Azerbaijanis. It is just a research paper on the Turkic origin of some of the settlement names in current Armenia at certain period in time.

Second of all, I expanded articles and created content using two sources: Korkotyan (1932) - an Armenian author and Bayramov (2002) - an Azerbaijani author. The demographic data from 1831 to 1931 was only sourced from Kokotyan (1932). However, Dallavid kept reverting all of my content independent of what source I used. It seems Dallavid is more dissatisfied with what my sources say, rather than their reliability. Thank you--KHE'O (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Abrvagl)

This appears to be a content dispute case that almost escalated into an edit warring when both users demonstrated a lack of ability to handle the matter wisely. User Dallavid made the correct decision by initiating the conversation on the user Kheo17's talk page. However, I feel that the discussion, which began with a DS notice and was written in a demanding tone was not a good start and generated a hostile perception. Then user Dallavid did not wait for the reply and reverted 23 edits of the user Kheo17 on the 23 articles within 8 minutes of initiating a conversation, which I think also fosters a battlefield environment rather than fostering healthy discussion. Furthermore, I reviewed the all of the 23 reverts, and it looks that user Dallavid has never contributed to any of those articles, which, in my opinion, may make other user feel hounded.

On the other hand, instead of attempting to reinstate some of his edits, user Kheo17 could have attempted to comprehend Dallavid's concerns, continued the discussion in order to achieve an agreement, and maybe taken the source to the RSN or to some of the dispute resolution boards. I am not an administrator, and I believe administrators will know more than I, but I see nothing but two people arguing about the content, who need to learn to manage things wisely in order to maintain healthy atmosphere. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 15:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kheo17

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • WP:AELOG. I would suggest that you strike this element of your report accordingly. I have not otherwise investigated this report. signed, Rosguill talk 15:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Muhafiz-e-Pakistan

Topic-banned as a GS (non-AE) action. See follow-up comments on talk with respect to AE jurisdiction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:51, 7 October 2022 (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 Muhafiz-e-Pakistan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (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:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 6 October 2022 Created a page on the ethnic group of Uyghurs in Afghanistan an article stating that most Uyghurs in Afghanistan are involved in militant extremism, which is flatly unsupported by any sources cited and smears the whole ethnic group as militant extremists.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, see diff.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't really think this needs saying, but while there are indeed Uyghur militant groups, flatly smearing the majority of an ethnic group in a country as militant extremist without any reliable sources that supporting the is so flagrantly out-of-line with our content policies of

WP:V that it shows, at best, a lack of competence to be editing in this general sanctions area. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@Tamzin: Just for clarity, should all of these requests for enforcement of the GS go to AN(I)? It was unilaterally moved here by an admin the last time I had put one of these on ANI, so I just want to be clear going forward. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan: The claim that the majority of Uyghurs are involved in Afghan militant extremism is not supported by any of the cited sources. While there are indeed somewhere between 2000 and 3600 Uyghurs in Afghanistan (as of just before the Taliban takeover of the country). Can you point me to any reliable sources that you cited indicating a majority of the people in this ethnicity are militant extremists? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
diff

Discussion concerning Muhafiz-e-Pakistan

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 Muhafiz-e-Pakistan

@Red-tailed hawk I also said that there are refugees. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk The thing notable about Uyghurs in Afghanistan is that they are mostly militants. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Muhafiz-e-Pakistan

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is a GS area, not a DS area. (I'm aware a previous Uyghur GS case was heard here, but I think that was just a mix-up.) That said, considering their previous comment in August, indef TBANned from Uyghur topic area. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Copy

Clean Copy blocked 1 month for blatant topic ban violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:04, 8 October 2022 (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 Clean Copy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Clean Copy (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:ARBPS
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [3] 4 October 2022—speaking of Anthroposophy, which he is banned from.
  2. [4] 15 September 2022—editing an article about Steiner's book, which he is banned from.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [5] 18 March 2022, blocked 48 hours for breaching his topic ban.
If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6] 5 October 2022

Discussion concerning Clean Copy

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 Clean Copy

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Clean Copy

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Clean Copy, while I'll give a brief period to await a statement from you, these appear to be relatively straightforward violations of your topic ban. If you would care to provide an explanation, now would be the time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Clean Copy has already been blocked once for violating the topic ban and these are clear and unambiguous violations, I am inclined to block for a month in this case. Unless any other uninvolved admin shortly objects, I intend to close as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crisis pregnancy center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed under an indefinite 72-hour 1RR. Any admin may impose a BRD restriction, in addition to or in place of this 1RR, without need for further AE discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:51, 11 October 2022 (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 for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Motion: Abortion (September 2020)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not a request for sanctions against any particular editor. Rather, per the instructions at the top of this page, it is a request that administrator(s) enact, as an administrator action authorized under the Abortion case DS, a

WP:1RR page restriction at Crisis pregnancy center (not the talk page, just the page itself). As shown in the link above, there was previously a 1RR restriction at all pages in the topic area of the DS, that was lifted in 2020. Here, I'm requesting that it be added back on a single page, for at least a while, while there is a dispute that is being discussed on the article talk page, where there is an ongoing RfC and related discussion. A look at the page edit history shows no 3RR violations, but a significant amount of slow edit warring: [7]. Alternatively, I guess you could full protect the page. In any case, I think it would be helpful to keep the debate on the talk page, at least until the RfC is over. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Tamzin's analysis is correct, and it's ok with me if the decision is against doing this. But I'll suggest that the knowledge of a 1RR restriction would have the effect of making editors think twice before making reverts, and that would be a good thing in the current context. It's not just about a need to tamp down on edit warring, but also a matter of refocusing attention onto talk while the issues are still being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but to notice that things quieted down as soon as I made this request and posted at the article talk page that I had made it. I think it would be fine to have a 72-hour 1RR, but per Johnuniq, I'd recommend against having a BRD requirement. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was another revert today, and it looks like it was timed to avoid a 72-hour window: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notified the editor who made that edit: [9], that I had commented on it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of this filing at article talk page
[10]

Discussion concerning Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center

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 (username)

Result concerning Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There's a lot of reverting, but it moves slow. In the past month of edits, a 24-hour 1RR would have prevented Pbritti's 2nd revert of the 7th, Goodtablemanners' 2nd revert of the 29th–30th, and that's it. Neither of those made it to a third revert, I'll note. So I'm not convinced a 24-hour 1RR would have a preventative effect. If there's an appropriate rememdy, I think it would be either a 72-hour 1RR or a BRD requirement, but I'm undecided on that "if". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a "refocus attention to discussions on the talk page" type sanction is needed, then I second Tamzin's BRD suggestion. firefly ( t · c ) 12:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 72-hour 1RR and a BRD requirement should not be overly onerous and may have a salutary effect on discussion and consensus building. The net result should be to make for a more collaborative work environment.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Been thinking about this. @Deepfriedokra: I'd rather not us have two of the most severe page sanctions we can impose, on the same page. Could we perhaps do one now, with a note that any admin should feel free to impose the other unilaterally? I'd lean toward 72h 1RR now, BRD later. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would go with the 1RR over the BRD -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a jaded view regarding topics like this. I would be happy to support a 72-hour 1RR and a BRD requirement as an experiment but essentially, like many other topics, the page will be edited by those seeking to promote opposing views regarding good and evil and for the dedicated editor, restrictions are just a nuisance to be worked around with tag teaming etc. What does "BRD" mean here? It sounds like an indefinite 1RR that applies to everyone, not just the person who did the first revert. I had to remind myself what would be involved in restrictions: see
    page restrictions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Tamzin: Sounds good. make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talkcontribs) 10:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that 1RR per 72 hours is a better initial sanction than BRD. Effectively, try the simpler approach first to see if that works. If it's gamed, admins can then either look to change it to BRD or individual sanctions. I'd suggest that, because of that, it would be prudent to allow any admin to modify the 1RR to BRD without requiring a consensus to do so. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster

There is a consensus to lift
AA2 subject area. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:39, 14 October 2022 (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 Grandmaster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Topic ban appeal

I would like to appeal my indefinite AA topic ban per this report: [11] by User:Armatura (now indef banned). I was reported for posting a link to a news site article in a talk page discussion. While I agree that the link that I posted was not a reliable source, I never used it in the article, nor did I propose to use it. But it was a poor choice, of which I regret. I understand that I should use better discretion when selecting sources, even if they are intended just for illustrative purposes. I promise not to make the same mistake again. Another reason for Tban was mentioning an IWPR reporter's Armenian nationality to demonstrate the usage of the discussed term in various countries and the reporter not being an Azerbaijani propaganda source. I understand that mentioning nationality during a dispute, even for good faith reasons, could potentially create a battleground atmosphere. As Rosguill advised, I should have just limited myself to pointing out that IWPR was not in cahoots with the Azerbaijani government. It was a mistake on my part that I promise never to repeat.

After my first appeal I was advised to take some time off (6 months at least) to edit other areas, which I did. [12]

In the last 6 months, in addition to various edits, I created two new articles: Fyodor Arturovich Keller, about a notable historical figure of the Russian revolution era, and Destroyed Russian military equipment exhibition, related to the war in Ukraine. The former became a DYK and was featured on Wikipedia main page. I have been a long time contributor to Wikipedia, I made more than 24,000 edits, and I contributed pretty much to every notable article about Azerbaijan, and created many new ones. Right before the ban, I created another DYK article, Lazar Bicherakhov, which was one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022, and largely rewrote the article about Gobustan State Historical and Cultural Reserve, which is a world heritage site, and was in a very bad shape. I think I could positively contribute to improving Azerbaijan related articles, as I did for many years, so I would like to ask the admins to lift the topic ban. Thank you very much. Grandmaster 14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioning admin is User:Rosguill. I did not personally notify him. Sorry, I did not know that I had to personally notify him. I have notified him now. Grandmaster 18:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, thanks for letting me know. Grandmaster 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, thanks for commenting. Regarding your question, I have not been sanctioned in the last 15 years, until this tban. Grandmaster 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Grandmaster

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 Grandmaster

Statement by (username)

Statement by Abrvagl

During my newbie days, Grandmaster suddenly stopped responding to the ongoing discussion, despite the fact that I pinged him several times. I only found out Grandmaster was Tbanned after another user explained me. That piqued my interest because it was new to me, so I began exploring the case.

I will be honest here, my first impression was that Grandmaster was targeted, because, as I understood from Grandmamster’s reply[13], same user filed number of reports on him in a short period of time. I didn't fully understand what warranted indefinite Tban at the time, but after reading the appeal, it became crystal clear to me, and I actually took some lessons learned from it. I believe that the fact that the individual understands what he did wrong may identicate that he has improved his behavior and addressed concerns. What I don't quite understand is which policy defines duration of the ban and this confuses my understanding. For example, a user, who assume the ethnicity of other editors and challenge RfC outcome based on ethnicity of participants, get a 2-month Tban [14], while other editor get an indefinite Tban for highlighting the reporter's ethnicity to prove the article is not Azerbaijani propaganda.

With regards to appeal, considering the fact that Grandmaster understood his mistake and given the points raised by Rosguill, I would opt for a trial period during which any battleground mentality from Grandmaster will result in an immediate Tban. I believe giving Grandmaster a trial Tban lift is a reasonable solution, because, as Rosguill suggested, how else can editor demonstrate that concerns regarding the A-A are addressed if he cannot contribute in that area? A b r v a g l (PingMe) 21:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Grandmaster

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Just a quick question: Grandmaster, who is the sanctioning admin and have you informed them about this appeal? El_C 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grandmaster, thanks. Yes, it's required. Because it wouldn't make sense to evaluate the sanction imposed by said admin in absentia. El_C 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kheo17

reliable sources noticeboard rather than reverts to help resolve disputes over source reliability in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:56, 15 October 2022 (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 Kheo17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Kheo17 (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:ARBAA2
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  2. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  3. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  4. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  5. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  6. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  7. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  8. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  9. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  10. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kheo17 continued to use the source Qərbi Azərbaycanın türk mənşəli toponimləri ("Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan") after being warned of it's unreliability. The "Western Azerbaijan" in the title is actually referring to

Azerbaijani irredentism source that is explaining how the names of every Armenian city and town are actually of Turkic/Azerbaijani origin. The book's author, Ibrahim Bayramov, co-wrote another book about how all of Armenia is Azerbaijan's rightful territory
.

I explained to Kheo17 on his talk page why this source is unreliable, but he continued to restore it on several Armenian town articles regardless. I'm shocked that an editor who has been editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles for over a decade would not understand why a source claiming all of Armenia belongs to Azerbaijan is not acceptable. --Dallavid (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill My apologies, I had misread that sample example amid the multiple other examples close to each other, and mistakenly read it as "Previously given a discretionary sanction alert for conduct in the area of conflict" because the "Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict..." and "Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict..." examples were close to it. --Dallavid (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[15]

Discussion concerning Kheo17

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 Kheo17

The accusation by Dallavid is baseless. An irredentist title does not make the information in the publication automatically biased or unreliable. The paper uses tens of reliable references from Armenian, Azerbaijani, Russian and European sources. For every statistical information, it provides a reference right after the statement. Using the same logic, all the reliable sources with "Western Armenia" in the title should be removed from Wikipedia?

Unlike Dallavid argues, the source does not try to claim any territory or prove that every Armenian settlement was only inhabited by Azerbaijanis. It is just a research paper on the Turkic origin of some of the settlement names in current Armenia at certain period in time.

Second of all, I expanded articles and created content using two sources: Korkotyan (1932) - an Armenian author and Bayramov (2002) - an Azerbaijani author. The demographic data from 1831 to 1931 was only sourced from Kokotyan (1932). However, Dallavid kept reverting all of my content independent of what source I used. It seems Dallavid is more dissatisfied with what my sources say, rather than their reliability. Thank you--KHE'O (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Abrvagl)

This appears to be a content dispute case that almost escalated into an edit warring when both users demonstrated a lack of ability to handle the matter wisely. User Dallavid made the correct decision by initiating the conversation on the user Kheo17's talk page. However, I feel that the discussion, which began with a DS notice and was written in a demanding tone was not a good start and generated a hostile perception. Then user Dallavid did not wait for the reply and reverted 23 edits of the user Kheo17 on the 23 articles within 8 minutes of initiating a conversation, which I think also fosters a battlefield environment rather than fostering healthy discussion. Furthermore, I reviewed the all of the 23 reverts, and it looks that user Dallavid has never contributed to any of those articles, which, in my opinion, may make other user feel hounded.

On the other hand, instead of attempting to reinstate some of his edits, user Kheo17 could have attempted to comprehend Dallavid's concerns, continued the discussion in order to achieve an agreement, and maybe taken the source to the RSN or to some of the dispute resolution boards. I am not an administrator, and I believe administrators will know more than I, but I see nothing but two people arguing about the content, who need to learn to manage things wisely in order to maintain healthy atmosphere. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 15:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kheo17

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

Aman.kumar.goel

No action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:27, 17 October 2022 (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 Aman.kumar.goel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
103.244.173.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Aman.kumar.goel (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
whichever applies
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 20 August 2022 Removed sourced content. In the edit summary, he said that pakdef.info is not
    WP:RS
  2. 28 September 2022 Did the same here
  3. 12 March 2020 Changed the result even tho the source agreed it was a Pakistani Victory.
  4. 17 January 2022 Changed the claim of F-16 shot down to disputed even tho the source cited agreed it is considered false. Sock per report here.
If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)

[16]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Let me clear that the issue is not removing content cited with pakdef.info it was indeed not reliable. The issue was that he also removed content that was cited with reliable sources--103.244.173.68 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Aman.kumar.goel

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 Aman.kumar.goel

Pakdef.info is an unreliable source that now redirects to a casino guide. When it was live as a pro-Pakistan military website it claimed "Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world."

Anyway, I am not surprised by this bogus report because the IP is a serial ban evading sock I reported almost a week ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NomanPK44. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the report per
WP:SOCKSTRIKE following results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NomanPK44. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Aman.kumar.goel

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

Bookku

Topic banned indefinitely from the intersection of Pakistan and Feminism, appealable after six months--RegentsPark (comment) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (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 Bookku

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Bookku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBIPA
or whichever applies
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Repeatedly blamed me for victim blaming in discussions despite my clarifications (1, 2)
  2. Told by User:Thinker78 about
    WP:BLPPUBLIC but still held a vague RfC blaming me for non-cooperation (3, 4
    )
  3. Editors commented in the RfC about suspects to be
    WP:PUBLICFIGURE but still not accepting it (5
    )
  4. Told about difference between
    WP:NBIO but still bent on otherwise (6, 7
    )
  5. Bludgeoning the process users told him to be concise but continues to create walls of texts making difficult for editors to have a say (8, 9)
  6. Calls himself a South Asian gender studies student but his editing mostly centred around pushing POV against one country and sometimes one community (10, 11)
  7. Accepted his POV in the topic area (12)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict (diff, diff)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have previously worked with User:Bookku over Feminism related articles and was ready to discuss the additions to

WP:NOTFORUM for which he was previously told
as well. One more thing which is though a couple of years back happening but since we both were directly involved in a redirect discussion where I was called supporter of Pakistani deep state, promoting Armed Forces' narrative, wisher of soft censors by him.

In conclusion his behaviour seems like just lingering on the matter in an attempt to

exhaust contributing editors by doing argument for the sake of argument, refusal to accept the other views and hell bent on resisting these changes and inability to understand the situation to follow policies and guidelines. USaamo (t@lk) 14:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

User:Robert McClenon thanks for your mediation offer, you have my full cooperation. Appologies that my response got longer in last discussion but before that I tried to be as concise as possible. He kept on making long replies for which I reluctantly have to reply but still he said to me that I'm not co-operating and his concerns remain unaddressed. In last thread I just combined my responses from above in a single post as I was not in a mood to reply again and again. USaamo (t@lk) 10:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Deepfriedokra since @User:Johnuniq himself saying that sources does say it, on Wikipedia content needs to be sourced. I believe its inclusion for reasons I explained here esp 2nd and 3rd point. In brief Police found the said audiotape from victim's associate phone as call recording which is quite likely. The same guy later turned to be the main accused as charged by her. Also audiotapes are not denied by any party and are admitted fact in proceedings since victim charged her associate on its basis and accused himself accepted the tapes reiterating it in his statement that victim wanted to extort money and I disagreed with her so she charged me.
Anyway AE is not a place to discuss content disagreements for which I've expressed my full cooperation to RM. But other than this dispute there are POV issues with Booku's editing as well which need some kind of action. For not accepting an RfC outcome I was partially topic banned from here two years back which I accept I was wrong and happened because of my inexperienced approach but I have no agenda of any sort. I would also like to mention observations of an experienced editor User:Fowler&fowler from an AN3 thread who worked alot for NPOV in ARBIPA area for a general reference. (13, 14, 15) USaamo (t@lk) 11:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel I have abided by my topic ban from articles of wars between India-Pakistan and I haven't even appealed it after two years for which I was eligible after 6 months because I don't want to edit in that area.(16) I edited The Kashmir Files once only thinking it to be a film article and had no further intention of editing it but when I was told by User:EdJohnston that the said page also cover my topic ban, I duly abided by it. You bringing that here seems to settle the left over scores against me like always. While you yourself have been the editor mostly up on nationalistic lines as noted by editors (17, 18) and your recent undue addition of similar pattern to 2022 Pakistan floods reverted by me and subsequent edit warring by relatively new accounts to add it reverted by other editors. (19, 20)
@User:Dennis Brown the said talk page has three discussions opened by Bookku and I remained as concise as possible in first two discussions but he kept on making long comments for which I reluctantly have to reply, still he said to me that I'm not co-operating and his concerns remain unaddressed. My response only got longer in last thread where I just combined my responses from above discussions in a single post as I was exhausted after seeing another long discussion by him. USaamo (t@lk) 13:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, My body my choice and Mera Jism Meri Marzi was another case of

WP:UNDUE from you since MJMM was an Urdu slogan with no history or usage outside Pakistan while Mbmc had a global usage where that was best suited. I explained that on talkpage before removal. And that redirect discussion was not a humorous essay but a serious discussion and there was no joke happening there. USaamo (t@lk) 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Inline with TarangaBellam's observation about Bookku's drafts; he started
he likes it this way.(21) USaamo (t@lk) 21:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff


Discussion concerning Bookku

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 Bookku

  • Requesting
    goodfaith
    . Pardon me for minor hiccups, spare for bad faith attacks on my talk page some of which I might not have replied. Over all I have been following WP policies to best of my understanding.
  • My re to TB. (1)
  • Previously covered a bio regarding Public spaces. Non–military mass sexual assault (Indian incidence draft pending for very old ref books) caught my editorial attention months before Pakistan incidence (2). Noted other global incidences @ Talk:M.S.A for later expansion.
  • Few other examples of my editorial neutrality: ( 3, 4, 5)
  • See time stamps of My body, my choice was started before USaamo's Mera Jism Meri Marzi. Mb,mc is global in nature not targeting Pakistan only. @ MJMM I added Indian feminist issues and USaamo and other Pakistani users removed reserving the article for Pakistan. Can provide many more editorial neutrality examples on request.
  • Dif cited by USaamo (6) itself is proof I am not personalizing but the case may be otherwise (7), In another cited case ( 8) I was in light-hearted passed comment with smiley at beginning to bring a point home (then didn't know One has to specifically note humor as humor, I request pardon for.) but that too did not intend to name/ target USaamo in any way. (I have other humor related drafts too.)

Assuring you all, I am very much here to build encyclopedia constructively. Pl. let me know any other/ more clarification needed. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @
    right great wrongs
    ..' fits me well in spite of POVs, since I don't believe WP is last resort.
  • I do have a long list of examples of my well sourced relevant and even very neutral content being deleted or declined and I have not made even any RfCs for most of them. This time too if it would not have been serious BLP violation (agreed of being BLP violation at least 4 users by now) I would not have taken to this length. In spite BLP rules would have allowed me to delete directly or create RfC for direct deletion I am going to great length to seek mediation and best possible accommodation.
  • You are admins, your decisions I would surely respect and accept. The concern is this time itself a user selectively clubbed multiple bad faith attacks and came here asking for admonishment of mine. You admonish me next time some one like them will have more authentic admonishment to add in their list and corner me. WP political realms can do very well without my contributions. How many nonBLP consistent contributors WP has on women's rights front?
  • Even if some content is believed to be WP:Undue why it can not go through content dispute resolution mechanism at respective talk pages and needs to be personalized and brought to this forum in this fashion is not entirely clear to me.
  • Your admonishments are not an issue, the users keep finding it easy unquestioned route to personalise issues in stead of preferring talk page resolutions of content disputes, concerns me more.
  • You all are experienced admins you must have gone through all such discussions earlier too, it is all for you to decide. I will respect and accept whatever you decide. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deepfriedokra I read through Aman.kumar.goel. For some one like me academically sourced edits like this ( 9) giving all sides can be example of ideal neutrality. But when narrative of every side gets affected, people tend to trade some strange adverse charges. Why all those content disputes can't go through RfCs ? rather than clubbing all strange misrepresentations and corner or oust uncomfortable neutral user.
    • Why don't we have a condition every one bringing up charges over here prove neutrality of respective strangely charging users first. I know that inconvenient won't happen here.
    • Is not that usual Wiki gaming. I understand admins too have to grow and live through same environment and systems. And I would understand whatever your decision you take. As of now I bow out. Many thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C, The whole thing is simple content disputes and 'we don't like it' so 'we will take ARE shortcut' attitude of some users. If you do not agree with me I will take 72 hours break on my own. This is primarily case of a BLP policy violation in plain sight. Other 4 users seem to classify it as BLP policy violation 1a, 1b, 2 (This user says ".. still fails BLP on other grounds .."). If proper BLP protocol would have been followed, I would not have needed to write a single sentence. See time stamp @ Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard I said ".. It is close call. .. I am seeking guidance in writing briefly and systematically the way it happens in DRN ..".
Bookku (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also while I am very much following protocol mentioned WP:DDE guideline the accusing side seem to miserably fail the protocol mentioned in the guideline. Bookku (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Reply with details 2
Statement by Bookku (2)
  • This is additional subsection for ease of navigation and reading.
  • [Humor] In Textbook case things seem going on lines, where mob ready to WP:BLUDGEON even a dead horse alleging WP:BLUDGEON. Group of triggered pupils in the school pressuring their hall monitors to clip the wings of fellow student alleging the student has flaws in completion of assignments (he simply writes what we don't like!) hence that student's behaviour ought to be considered bad and punished for. Every one would not understand such parallel or may not like it they might call names bully more, that is fate of that student. They can also take this opportunity to say that this user even does not understand Wikipedia is not forum or standup comedy stage and trail show must reach to it's decided **logical end. :) End of humor note.
  • If this ARE is the ultimate forum for content decisions then why not officially acknowledge that. And when big pile of charges is being brought by multiple users against a single one that single one need to get reasonable time to provide response at least for mental satisfaction.


  • Following is more for my own mental satisfaction and record.


  • I have already submitted whatever closing admins action would be I shall co operate constructively.
  • At times whether to respond back or not is quite catch-22. On one hand lectures being handed over to me being asked to be concise, to their long list now even funny charges being added, idk, intends to just mock me or subvert the system. Now usual content deletions of my sourced contributions like at even
    Non-vegetarian
    are being cited as great examples of my bad personal record. I am confused Idk whether to laugh or cry.
  • Here roughly 9 months before TB wrote to me ".. Love in Pakistan and Urdu Feminist Literature are fascinating (and valid) topics - if you need resources, give a ping. I will take up the article on forced conversion. .." But as soon as women's issues are covered at Public spaces their patriarchal structure and power on Wikipedia feels threatened.
  • Take google.com, books.google.com, scholar.google.com search for "Public spaces" "women" and various countries names including Pakistan, for many countries including Pakistan entire WP articles can be written and substantial part can be criticism, Let global women know why a sections dedicated to women issues in public spaces can not be there in
    Public spaces article and all women related issues are to be compulsively restricted to special for women articles. Why public spaces article can not be opened. Was there any restriction to begin with Pakistan and later adding others? Some one already covering those sources will naturally cover that. Show me existing article talk page RfC consensus against. Is that affecting male power structures on Wikipedia that I am being mansplained and dislodged. For that they bring me to ARE with repeating fake bad faith attacks of proven long duration sock accounts? (More details on request or visit later User:Bookku/ARE
    for updates)
  • One likes or not likes or not, as of this day 1969 Rabindra Sarobar Stadium en masse sexual violence controversy is first known on record non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy with multiple reliable sources for notability. Idk why any one should be afraid that to be covered.
  • Examples after examples (17) like this one show my best possible editorial neutrality. With all humility I submit, if any one feels my content is not perfect then should have been discussed on article talk pages without resorting to personalization tactics.


  • I would request discussion closing admin to let me know if they want any specific content related clarifications from me for the baseless pile of them submitted by USaamo AKG and TB. Any detail logical scrutiny will prove most of that to be just frivolous much of it making mountains out of molehills intending to smear and hound for their own POVs being hurt in some way. As such I shall update my detail submission with detail study at User:Bookku/ARE as time permits me.
  • Last but not least, in any case, let me wish best luck to ongoing hounding and synchronized symphonies for times to come. I repeat I have already submitted whatever closing admins action would be I shall co operate constructively.

Bookku (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Own sign is updated with fresh to avoid bloating

Reply with details 3
Statement by Bookku (3)
  • The latest reply of T.B. 18 shows continuation of unnecessary diatribe proves their
    WP:IDONTLIKETHEM
    strategy, to respond or not is quite catch 22 to me. If I don't respond they shall continue take ARE forum and Admin confidence for granted, continue bypassing regular content dispute mechanism by making blatant misrepresentations here, not only for me but multitude of other users in times to come. If I respond admins will need to enter in detail content analysis and end up saying detail content analysis is not my job at this forum. This way TB and company seems to be manipulating and misusing ARE in plain sight.
  • Any ways topic is raised I address as brief as possible. If you do not want to take google search yourself, Ask @ WP:Reference desk/Humanities if they can find any other notable 'non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy' before the Calcutta controversy. The day you find one, ignore my words and update the article Mass sexual assault for the same, I will be first to thank any one for any such efforts. If not then one ought to examine Calcutta controversy thoroughly and not just by selective reading. An autobiography or authorized biographies written by any one how those can be last word in themselves. How do you ignore what other reliable sources are saying just like that. The controversy had been covered by multiple reputable Indian print media and analysts. The quote TB is giving weight to, itself says, ".. and catcalls soon turned to more physical expressions and .. . Women too were allegedly molested.". Jyoti Basu's biography does not ignore controversy but includes it and you want to censor it?
  • Words 'alleged' and 'controversy' means this really happened as claimed or not we don't know. We Wikipedians can not sit on judgement, if reliable media and sources are covering it it has to be on Wikipedia. You are not supposed to sensor. Would you not consider what women parliamentarians said ?
  • ".. On 14th April 1969 members of Lok Sabha debated various incidences and situation in West Bengal. In respect to Rabindra Sarobar stadium incidence Congress leaders namely Sucheta Kripalani, Sharda Mukherji and A. K. Sen, former Law Minister, criticized unconstrained hooliganism at the Rabindra Sarobar stadium in which many women were molested and subjected to every forms of humiliation. .."
  • ".. The issue came again in Lok Sabha on 10 th December 1970 Ila Pal Chaudhari asked who was author of the Rabindra Sarovar incident? Jyotirmoy Basu said a High court judge has given lie to that. Ila Pal Choudhury responded back saying it is it is a heart-rending; women came to her crying; they showed their clothes which had been torn. Pal Chaudhari says, in reality, commission of inquiry headed by the High Court judge turned out to be a farce since it was not allowed to function freely, because witnesses and the lawyers including including Pal Chaudhari's own counsel were intimidated with grave threats as none will be left alive in their family if any one gives evidence. .." ~ Ila Pal Choudhury * Lok Sabha is India's parliament and person with similar name 'Jyotirmoy Basu' is parliamentarian of Jyoti Basu's party. You don't know Jyoti Basu was not chief minister but just home minister then. His then Chief Minister Atulya Ghosh himself publicly protested against own ministers and later resigned.
  • At least one contemporary leftist Calcutta newspaper too criticized incidence. Another leftist investigative journalist from another Indian state traveled to Calcutta plays down with words rapes not likely to have happened but agrees incidence of molestation likely to have taken place. Then other news papers including Indian Express with then reputable editor Frank Moraes, Reputable Bengali Journalist Barun Sengupta and at least one research paper of North Bengal university discusses the controversy. You are free to deny what you did not see yourself, how you can deny notability of controversy widely covered in contemporary media and books?
  • Do you want all those paragraphs and references at this forum itself or you will sincerely address the topic looking for old references including those you don't like and discussing at appropriate talk pages first.
It is whose mistake I had to type wall of text here itself. Will you blame me for providing logical credible presentation too?
  • I am not used to personalizing content disagreements in this way, though I do have more proofs against such questionable maneuvers. "I repeat, manipulation and misuse of this forum to oust unwanted content and contributors is quite frustrating. Problem is not me getting unfairly punished likelihood of other genuine users too may keep suffering concerns me much more." (Please read again 10000 times.)
Bookku (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TB

Will make a statement in support of a logged warning. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Booku is essentially trying to right great wrongs - that is what I perceived of his rambling reply to RegentsPark's AC/DS alert, prodded by me. Such a political stance is not condemnable —much less, blockable— in itself and is the raison d'être of acclaimed Wiki-projects like Women In Red etc.
However, as the mindboggling edits on
Public Space (diff-ed by Johnuniq), Drowning (link), and Tourism in Pakistan (link) show, Booku either does not understand our core content policies concerning DUEness of content or chooses to flout them intentionally. Besides, there are inane article creations like Superstitions in Sikh societies
(check history) filled with dubious sources and dubious content derived from illogical synthesis. To compound things, their walls of text are mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand, makes for painful reading, and only serves to digress.
All in all, I think a good case is made for an indefinite TBan, at least from all topics connected to Pakistan, and women. Alongside a logged warning that any further shenanigan will extend the Topic Ban to include India. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, thanks for the query. I meant the latter option (union); not certain that my choice of punctuation was appropriate. The intersection won't work - see RegentsPark's evidence of strange drafts lying in his user-space.
I express my firm disagreement to Deepfriedokra's and Dennis Brown's idea of a time-limited TBan. This is not some garden-variety case of edit-warring to necessitate a cooling-off penalty! As RegentsPark — one of the few administrators who patrols S. Asian topics — notes, there is a borderline CIR issue at play and it is irrational to expect the problems to go away in a span of few months! Booku has been here for years and he has been made aware of these issue by multiple editors (see evidence by AKG). My proposed scope of topic ban is quite narrow and if Booku can edit competently in other areas, I won't oppose an appeal as and when it is filed. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Came across Booku's edits at
Non-vegetarian and yet again, a fundamental disregard for NPOV, DUE etc. Much of those additions have been removed by others. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I will add another (the last; please bear with me) evidence and expand in some detail, which exemplifies everything that is problematic with Booku's editing. Over the course of a few many edits, Booku added the following paragraph in wikivoice to Rabindra Sarobar Stadium:
Analysis

In the first quarter of 1968 at the Rabindra Sarobar Stadium, a scheduled musical night of large gathering, called 'Ashok Kumar Nite', failed to take place due to faulty amplifiers; mob went unruly, women attending the gathering were molested and sexually abused en masse. [...]

Now, what do the (three) cited sources say?
The first source is the (unofficial) mouthpiece of the political party, which governed the state during the incident. I won't rely on it for anything and even then, it contains a single (indirect) reference:

There is still an enquiry in progress on certain reported incidents in Rabindra Sarobar stadium in July when there was to be held what was called Ashok Kumar "nite", in aid of the reputed Bombay actor. Brassieres were alleged to be all over the place, as the whole show broke up in chaos.

The second source is a contemporary speech by Hem Barua, a legislator from an opposition party, belonging to another state (Assam). He taunts the Government of West Bengal to launch an enquiry on the incident, albeit to deflect from a discussion that centered on another issue (firing on workers who striked):

If you are so enthusiastic about holding inquiries [on the firing], why don't you hold an inquiry into the incident that happened in Rabindra Sarobar Stadium where women were made naked, women had to return home in a state of nakedness? Then what happened, Sir? After this discovery, a large quantity of torn sarees and torn brassiers were found there on the spot. The incident at the Rabindra Sarobar Stadium was a ghastly incident and I want to say that, instead of holding a parallel inquiry into the Cossipore firing incident, the State Government, if it is so enthusiastic about holding an inquiry, can hold an inquiry into the incident at the Rabindra Sarobar Stadium where women were humiliated and insulted. Even today I hear - this is my report; I do not know how far this is correct - that 30 women are missing because of this incident. Whatever that my be, that was a ghastly scene or a ghastly spectacle and I say that an inquiry should be held into it.

It shall be obvious to not rely on partisan political tirades, though they might be true.
Now comes the relatively-decent third source - a biography (albeit, official) of the-then Deputy Chief Minister by an academic:

The first major problem he had to deal with occurred in April 1969 and threatened to tarnish the reputation of his ministry. A musical soirée, Ashok Kumar Night, at Rabindra Sarobar stadium tumed ugly. The immediate cause of the audience's restiveness was faulty amplifiers. Boos and catcalls soon turned to more physical expressions and an angry audience started to throw chairs at the stage. Women too were allegedly molested.

The police, who were attacked with grenades, crackers and other missiles, were compelled to open fire and fifty people were injured. The media played up the incident and reported several deaths, claiming that corpses had been fished out of the adjoining lake. Maverick politician Raj Narain, ever willing to fish in troubled waters, issued an official statement saying that the police found two truckloads of women's undergarments. [compare with Hem Barua's speech.]

At the time, Basu was in New Delhi where a deputation of women belonging to the Jana Sangh came to meet him to protest against the incident. In reality, the audience had turned unruly and had completely ignored the police orders to stay calm. The police action was the only way to restore order. The United Front government ordered a judicial enquiry into the incident. By now the Congress Party, aided by the Centre, as well as some members of the ruling front itself, had begun efforts to dislodge the United Front government. Accusations of the misuse of government machinery were voiced and the United Front was accused of being dictatorial and non-cooperative. The Centre fanned the flames.

Do you see anything of this in the original paragraph, added by Booku despite the citation? I leave it to you to decide whether Booku is plainly incompetent or .... TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is first known on record non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy

Somebody ban this editor from anything that has to with women, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark, Deepfriedokra, Johnuniq, and Dennis Brown:: This has been stale for over a week. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I became aware of the dispute over

forum shopping and said to file in one place. Bookku replied and said they would also need help from other pages. It appears that Bookku is running around in a panic and not helping things. Both Bookku and USaamo need to be civil and concise. I haven't researched the details of the article dispute. If there is a content dispute, I am willing to try to mediate, but will impose word limits and other restrictions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Clarification

This may be a restatement of the obvious, but if a topic ban is imposed, I will not be mediating a dispute over an area where the subject is not permitted to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel

@

exhaustion for editors"[19] but USaamo himself wrote walls of texts.[20][21]

Topic ban of USaamo should be extended to cover whole ARBIPA.

Bookku is not understanding about the nature of their POV pushing. He has been already warned over WP:UNDUE, NotAForum, bludgeoning in the recent months. However, the activity of Bookku on

Public Space,[22] and 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault[23][24]
shows he has ignored these warnings and above message confirms great chances of similar disruption.

Bookku should be topic banned as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from both editors, Bookku and USaamo, to my above comment reinforces my view that both of them need a topic ban to cover whole

WP:ARBIPA. They simply don't see what is wrong with their own editing. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bookku

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
First, the general one: my view on timed TBANs is that rarely, if ever, they're useful. Could this be that one rare exception? I suppose it's possible, but there would have to be a good reason.
My 2nd note that's specific to this complaint concerns its length. Which is to say: disregard for this board's 500-word limit rule. As it stands, USaamo and TrangaBellam each exceed it by more than double, while Bookku by over 4 times. So I don't know what to do about that at this point, as it's a bit late in the day. Still, if parties and reviewers really want fresh eyes on this, then I dunno, maybe work to collapse...? Good luck! El_C 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to close this with the narrowest of sanctions (Pakistan and feminism) appealable in six months. Will leave this open for a bit in case there are other views. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dallavid

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 Dallavid

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dallavid (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:ARBAA2
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  2. 20 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  3. 19 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  4. 17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  5. 17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 24 March 2021 - Blocked from a user page for Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy.
  2. 19 September 2022 - Blocked for 72 hours from the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article for edit warring.


If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above 15 October 2022
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On September 14, 2022, Dallavid made this contentious edit to the

2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis
. article

Dallavid most likely did not even check edits made to the lead during their absence and simply copy-pasted their edit, because by reinstating their edit, Dallavid also reverted a number of edits from other users without any explanation. For example, their edit also reverted this edit, which was made based on a consensus between several editors.

Dallavid appear to have engaged in edit warring behavior, which continued even after they was blocked and warned for it. This could also be a case of tendentious editing, because Dallavid is not only pushing their POV and not

dropping the stick
after being opposed by a number of editors, but they continue to do so even after being told that their edit doesn't comply with Wikipedia's MOS. The version of lead Dallavid proposed, which contains things like The Azerbaijani Defence Ministry and Turkish media falsely claimed..., ...which was disproven by multiple third-party sources, delivers no new information, but was written in a tendentious way rather than in encyclopedic and neutral tone.


Since I made the report, Dallavid has continued their tendentious editing and edit warring:

  • 26 October 2022 - Dallavid partially restores their edit, justifying it with a very clear consensus despite the fact that there are three users actively opposing Dallavid's change.
  • 24 October 2022‎ - Dallavid restores a category by the name "Azerbaijani war crimes" in an article about Nazi massacre in Poland simply because of the participation of some ethnic Azerbaijanis.
  • 26 September 2022 - Although not done after the report, this is a good example Dallavid's tendentious editing: Dallavid removed a whole section from the
    OCCRP and The Guardian, justifying it with only "alleged" by one source with no evident reliability, is a BLP violation. Yet two days later, on 28 September 2022, Dallavid adds contentious material to an article about Nasimi Aghayev, a living person, and supports it with a bunch of Twitter links and a Fox11 source. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Done

Discussion concerning Dallavid

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 Dallavid

How is my September 14th edit "contentious"? It was reliably sourced and, as Abrvagl admits, I opened a talk page discussion right afterward to further elaborate and so anyone that wanted to dispute them could discuss it. Abrvagl is incorrect in saying that I reverted Viewsridge, who had claimed there was an issue with my sources in his edit summary but never elaborated what that was, and his removal of my edit also broke several reference tags. Viewsridge was instead reverted by User:Blaylockjam10.[25] Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users,[26][27][28] and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted.[29] When I restored the edits on September 19th, that had been two days after User:Knižnik (himself being reverted by Viewsridge) made a talk page post agreeing[30] that the "both sides accused each other" wording was very undue, given that multiple third-party politicians and organizations confirmed Azerbaijan was the aggressor. These false balance points were further agreed on by User:XTheBedrockX.[31] That is why I restored a version making it clear that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia; there was a clear talk page consensus to do so. But I didn't restore the exact same header, as I had taken care to reword it in order to address Sandstein's stylistic concerns. The user who reverted me was Viewsridge again[32], who bizarrely claimed "Changes opposed by multiple users and discussed against inclusion in the talk page" even though the False balance discussion showed the opposite was true; multiple users opposed the changes Viewsridge was making and he never even replied to them on the talk page. Abrvagl's September 20th edit was not the stable version, and it is very odd for him to have said "lets achieve consensus version at talk fist", because there had already been a talk page consensus established by Knižnik, XTheBedrockX, and myself. Abrvagl and Viewsridge continued to revert other users and asking them to "achieve consensus" while at the same time not participating in the talk page consensus they were reverting. Abrvagl was then reverted by Blaylockjam10 again[33], and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.[34]

As both the Undue weight and False balance discussions show, Abrvagl and Viewsridge never responded to any of the other users explaining to them why the "both sides" wording is undue after September 16th and 17th, respectively, but they both continued to revert other users well after those dates who were simply including what the talk page consensus decided on.

This is clearly just a content dispute, mostly from over a month ago. It's a shame that Abrvagl's first thought was to make an enforcement request instead of joining the talk page discussion he neglected to reply to for over a month. If he had bothered to read the talk page, he would know that the version he claims I proposed was actually a consensus established by multiple other users. --Dallavid (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed parts of my statement with invisible HTML Comments to meet the 500 word limit. I would like to be given permission to included those parts as well so that I can fully defend myself against the large amount of false accusations Abrvagl made. --Dallavid (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanezi Astghik

Dallavid had only made changes that the talk page consensus had already decided on. It is actually Abrvagl who has engaged in edit warring behavior, both with me and with other users on this article. --Vanezi (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olympian

@User:Vanezi Astghik If you took the time to read the evidence listed by Abrvagl, you'll find that in fact, Dallavid didn't adhere to talk page consensus at all. – Olympian loquere 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blaylockjam10

The main thing I remember about this is reverting edits that removed text and references that supported that text. It seemed like those edits were done to remove text and references that made Azerbaijan look bad. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XTheBedrockX

I definitely agreed with Dallavid that it was likely

WP:GOODFAITH, and I simply don't agree that Dallavid was being anywhere close to disruptive enough to warrant this. User:XTheBedrockX (talk
)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dallavid

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

Dallavid

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 Dallavid

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dallavid (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:ARBAA2
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  2. 20 September 2022 - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  3. 19 September 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  4. 17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
  5. 17 October 2022‎ - Restored their edit without reaching consensus
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 24 March 2021 - Blocked from a user page for Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy.
  2. 19 September 2022 - Blocked for 72 hours from the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article for edit warring.


If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above 15 October 2022
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5 October 2022.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On September 14, 2022, Dallavid made this contentious edit to the

2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis
. article

Dallavid most likely did not even check edits made to the lead during their absence and simply copy-pasted their edit, because by reinstating their edit, Dallavid also reverted a number of edits from other users without any explanation. For example, their edit also reverted this edit, which was made based on a consensus between several editors.

Dallavid appear to have engaged in edit warring behavior, which continued even after they was blocked and warned for it. This could also be a case of tendentious editing, because Dallavid is not only pushing their POV and not

dropping the stick
after being opposed by a number of editors, but they continue to do so even after being told that their edit doesn't comply with Wikipedia's MOS. The version of lead Dallavid proposed, which contains things like The Azerbaijani Defence Ministry and Turkish media falsely claimed..., ...which was disproven by multiple third-party sources, delivers no new information, but was written in a tendentious way rather than in encyclopedic and neutral tone.


Since I made the report, Dallavid has continued their tendentious editing and edit warring:

  • 26 October 2022 - Dallavid partially restores their edit, justifying it with a very clear consensus despite the fact that there are three users actively opposing Dallavid's change.
  • 24 October 2022‎ - Dallavid restores a category by the name "Azerbaijani war crimes" in an article about Nazi massacre in Poland simply because of the participation of some ethnic Azerbaijanis.
  • 26 September 2022 - Although not done after the report, this is a good example Dallavid's tendentious editing: Dallavid removed a whole section from the
    OCCRP and The Guardian, justifying it with only "alleged" by one source with no evident reliability, is a BLP violation. Yet two days later, on 28 September 2022, Dallavid adds contentious material to an article about Nasimi Aghayev, a living person, and supports it with a bunch of Twitter links and a Fox11 source. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Done

Discussion concerning Dallavid

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 Dallavid

How is my September 14th edit "contentious"? It was reliably sourced and, as Abrvagl admits, I opened a talk page discussion right afterward to further elaborate and so anyone that wanted to dispute them could discuss it. Abrvagl is incorrect in saying that I reverted Viewsridge, who had claimed there was an issue with my sources in his edit summary but never elaborated what that was, and his removal of my edit also broke several reference tags. Viewsridge was instead reverted by User:Blaylockjam10.[35] Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users,[36][37][38] and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted.[39] When I restored the edits on September 19th, that had been two days after User:Knižnik (himself being reverted by Viewsridge) made a talk page post agreeing[40] that the "both sides accused each other" wording was very undue, given that multiple third-party politicians and organizations confirmed Azerbaijan was the aggressor. These false balance points were further agreed on by User:XTheBedrockX.[41] That is why I restored a version making it clear that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia; there was a clear talk page consensus to do so. But I didn't restore the exact same header, as I had taken care to reword it in order to address Sandstein's stylistic concerns. The user who reverted me was Viewsridge again[42], who bizarrely claimed "Changes opposed by multiple users and discussed against inclusion in the talk page" even though the False balance discussion showed the opposite was true; multiple users opposed the changes Viewsridge was making and he never even replied to them on the talk page. Abrvagl's September 20th edit was not the stable version, and it is very odd for him to have said "lets achieve consensus version at talk fist", because there had already been a talk page consensus established by Knižnik, XTheBedrockX, and myself. Abrvagl and Viewsridge continued to revert other users and asking them to "achieve consensus" while at the same time not participating in the talk page consensus they were reverting. Abrvagl was then reverted by Blaylockjam10 again[43], and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.[44]

As both the Undue weight and False balance discussions show, Abrvagl and Viewsridge never responded to any of the other users explaining to them why the "both sides" wording is undue after September 16th and 17th, respectively, but they both continued to revert other users well after those dates who were simply including what the talk page consensus decided on.

This is clearly just a content dispute, mostly from over a month ago. It's a shame that Abrvagl's first thought was to make an enforcement request instead of joining the talk page discussion he neglected to reply to for over a month. If he had bothered to read the talk page, he would know that the version he claims I proposed was actually a consensus established by multiple other users. --Dallavid (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed parts of my statement with invisible HTML Comments to meet the 500 word limit. I would like to be given permission to included those parts as well so that I can fully defend myself against the large amount of false accusations Abrvagl made. --Dallavid (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanezi Astghik

Dallavid had only made changes that the talk page consensus had already decided on. It is actually Abrvagl who has engaged in edit warring behavior, both with me and with other users on this article. --Vanezi (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olympian

@User:Vanezi Astghik If you took the time to read the evidence listed by Abrvagl, you'll find that in fact, Dallavid didn't adhere to talk page consensus at all. – Olympian loquere 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blaylockjam10

The main thing I remember about this is reverting edits that removed text and references that supported that text. It seemed like those edits were done to remove text and references that made Azerbaijan look bad. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XTheBedrockX

I definitely agreed with Dallavid that it was likely

WP:GOODFAITH, and I simply don't agree that Dallavid was being anywhere close to disruptive enough to warrant this. User:XTheBedrockX (talk
)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dallavid

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

Hari147

Indefed by Bish --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:18, 1 November 2022 (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) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (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
Hari147 was topic-banned from ARBIPA topics in June 2020 [45]. As far as I can see, the TBAN was never lifted. They were blocked in March 2022 for TBAN violations [46]. Essentially every single edit they have made since is a TBAN violation: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], and [52] are a few examples. This user clearly has no intention of abiding by their TBAN, and an indefinite block is warranted. The authority of AE to place an indefinite block is somewhat vague, but I believe any admin could place an indefinite block as an ordinary admin action: TBAN violations are sufficient evidence of disruption. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.
  • Right. Yes, the user clearly has no intention of abiding by their T-ban. It was for extra belt-and-braces security clearly explained to them (without any sanction) by the banning admin Newslinger when they first violated it and appealed it in June/July 2020, and they were then temporarily blocked for violating it in March 2022. Indefinitely blocked as a regular admin action. Bishonen | tålk 08:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

TheCurrencyGuy

TheCurrencyGuy has been indefed by Tamzin. Unblocking admins should consider a topic ban as part of the unblock conditions --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:56, 4 November 2022 (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 TheCurrencyGuy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
User against whom enforcement is requested
TheCurrencyGuy (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
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 16:34, 1 November 2022
  2. 16:35, 1 November 2022
  3. 20:52, 1 November 2022

On 30 October (before TCG was alerted to the the Troubles DS), TCG added John MacBride (a participant in the Easter Rising) to our list of people who were executed, later reverted by Scolaire who pointed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals? where it was argued that Easter Rising participants should not be deemed war criminals. However, in the above three edits (all made after TCG was alerted), TCG twice restored their preferred version of the page (revert to first two edits here, to the third edit here) within a few hours, despite intervening reverts by Scolaire and Spelodrach. This should be a case of IDHT, if not of a breach of 1RR.

There are also other cases of TCG adding the criminal infobox to Easter Rising participants (which can be found in their contribs), but I will leave them out because they were not yet alerted of DS when those edits were made.

I understand that Arbitration is a serious matter, and I hope I didn't err too much in my first enforcement request; I apologize for any wastage of time that this request incurs. Thank you all for your time.

talk) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable.

If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)

Special:Diff/1119388769

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would like to fix a ping. @

talk) 04:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I have moved "On 30 October... for your time" one section up (under the diffs) and the ping-fixing comment to this section. Thanks. --

talk) 04:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@

talk) 19:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

On one hand, TCG declared that they have "abandoned" their account. However, I am inclined to take it as

talk) 20:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1119551559


Discussion concerning TheCurrencyGuy

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 TheCurrencyGuy

What Scolaire had done was not recategorise but removed the individuals entirely, something Spelodrach did again, somehow implying these people were not executed, I have not altered it since they were retained but shunted into a different category. I added the "criminal conviction" infobox in good faith after noting it on the articles of similar individuals likewise guilty of politically motivated crimes and I considered it an omission.

The argument over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals? is hard to follow. It is my position that if a person was lawfully executed and whose charge, conviction and execution is a pertinent aspect of their lives then it ought to be included in their infobox and should be supported by the categories the article is listed in. I am unsure whether the charge of treason by "levying war against the government" is technically considered a war crime, But I would have been happy to be advised to simply move them to another section. The heavy handed complete removal of them is what spurred my reversions.

The Banner: I also included persons who were victims of miscarriages of justice, marked "pardoned", Why are you upset at me categorising a person by the charge against them? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC) moved from Banner's section[reply]

Statement by M.nelson

The discussion at

WP:IDHT - trying to explain why they're right and everyone else in that discussion is wrong. -M.nelson (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by The Banner

Rather concerning is that The CurrencyGuy not only depicted the leaders of the Easter Rising as criminals but also as war criminals (example: [53]) or just branded a fighter as a murderer (example: [54]). The Banner talk 12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scolaire

I think this is a bit excessive. 1) three diffs are shown where in fact there were only two reverts: WP:EW defines a revert as "an edit or a series of consecutive edits", so the first two diffs make one revert (two is still too many, but bear with me). 2) Adding John MacBride to the List of people who were executed is a red herring, since it was not a revert. 3) The notice on TheCurrencyGuy's talk page was clearly about the articles where he was editing the infobox – a friendly warning not to revert any of those articles, which he did not. 4) Not having experience in Troubles-related articles, it would not have been obvious to him that

NotReallySoroka did not take the trouble to explain that to him. I don't think any action should be taken here. Scolaire (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

It was pointed out in the thread that by TCG's definition above, Jesus should be listed as a criminal in the infobox and categories. While I don't think action should be taken at this time, he does need to rethink his actions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

It appears that TCG has, um... retired. 23:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheCurrencyGuy

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I note that TheCurrencyGuy already has one topic ban in place (on currency, imposed 3 weeks ago after a number of visits to ANI) and has since moved into the topic of Ireland. Given the tone and content of their arguments in discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Were_the_Easter_Rising_leaders_criminals?, and Talk:List_of_people_who_were_executed#POV_removals_from_the_list, I would suggest that they are not a very good fit for this topic area, and should probably stick to something less contentious (or preferably, not contentious at all). I will note that (a) "arguing that they're right and everyone else is wrong" is exactly what got them topic-banned from currency, and (b) editors with existing topic bans do not usually end up topic-banned from a second area - they're usually just blocked indefinitely as a time-sink. Black Kite (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: I was half-tempted to indef based on them jumping into a new topic area and quickly running into issues -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're not going to answer for the edits they've been making, and are going to throw in some further inflammatory POV remarks on their way out the door, that's enough for me to think they shouldn't return to editing without first showing they can edit productively. Blocked indefinitely. Inclined to throw in an indef Troubles TBAN for their, well, troubles; but will hold off for now in case anyone else has further thoughts. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]