Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive311

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 : 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles


 * 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Placed a Ds/aware template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. (see current revision)

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.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Dave, like I said, I dont even want to be here reporting you. But you just said your edit was a WP:POINT violation. If you think something is wrong then say it is wrong and then raise the issue at the appropriate noticeboard if discussion proves to be unfruitful. Do I agree with Selfstudier's addition to the EL page? I dont really have a problem with them. Do I think an external links section should only have links in support of one POV? Obviously not. The solution there is to add other appropriate links though. But heres the important part. You cant just insult somebody like that. You cant double down on it. I understand this topic can be emotional for some editors. But if you get so emotional about it that you are incapable of participating like an encyclopedia editor then you should recognize that and walk away. I think you are, usually, a good editor. I think you edit in good faith. But that doesnt excuse that kind of attack, and then to double down on it? I would gladly withdraw this report if you self-revert your re-insertion and commit to not personalizing disputes and not violating WP:NPA and WP:POINT.  nableezy  - 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

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) Notified  nableezy  - 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_apartheid#Right,_look..._so_what_we_do_now? 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)

-
 * It was a comment on my perception of Ideological bias on Wikipedia, based on my own experience, I didn't mean to attack anyone. (do you have mind reading capabilities or are you failing to assume good faith?). I was indeed thinking about an event that I experienced, where I saw admins ignoring rules in order to vilify an allegedly conservative "free-speech" website. (I can provide diffs but I really don't want to get into that). And by the way I'm a Bernie suporter. – (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , as I said below, this was an "attack on our editors in general". I did not say that it was a personal attack on any specific user. But I am not violating 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)

-
 * I will never take back or apologize for saying that Wikipedia is biased in favor of establishment Democrats. This is a well known fact, a constructive criticism, not incivility, nor "a direct attack on editors in general". (I say this as a progressive Bernie supporter.) (Wanna permaban me for saying that? Fine. Just do it. It will just prove my point.)
 * I have a hard time being fake polite, and sometimes, I notice, people take my words harder than I intended. but I can try from now on, as a compromise, to force myself to sound softer even during disputes. For example, instead of saying "Selfstudier, You're a liar!", I can push my hardest to say things like "Selfstudier, sweetie, we're talking about this exact issue on talk, as I mentioned in the summary. I didn't explicitly wrote WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:POV in there because I thought you were already well aware of those. But you clearly weren't, despite having over a decade of experience. It's thus obviously my fault for being so... cryptic. I'm really sorry. >.< " – (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You forgot to say that, as I made clear, I restored positive and uncontroversial edits only. In many instances, including votes, I acted in ways that would let Yaniv displeased since I'm less pro-Israel than him, and I have the receipts. But since you're so committed at reverting every Yaniv edit, you might be interested in restoring this edit describing Sara Netanyahu as a cow, since it was corrected by Yaniv. (along with other edits that introduced crass errors in articles, some carelessly reintroduced by yourself) – (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ("Collapsing. Sorry for bringing it up here. Please note but ignore it, admins.")


 * It's fine Gizzy, just let the witch-hunt continue. I don't really care. Fun-facts that won't be mentioned here: (1) I once evoked the fifth pilar (WP:5P5) so a pro-Palestine user could vote in a split proposal, my rationale was: All his comments have been constructive and the 500 edits requirement is obviously meant to bar accounts created recently by bad faith actors, not editors who have been around for over a decade. (2) I once defended a pro-Palestine user here at AE on a complain brought forward by a "pro-Israel user", (3) I was probably the only "pro-Israel editor" to vote yes to the Israeli apartheid renaming. One of the most desired changes of the pro-Palestinian squad. So no, I'm not a puppet of a cabal headed by Mossad. And IceWhiz, NoCal and Yaniv aren't my overlords if that's what people are thinking. – (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement by GizzyCatBella
collapsing (ignore it please)

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)


 * @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)
 * ... and by the way, Yaniv's “cow” edit wasn’t restored by me --> 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)
 * 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)
 * 👍 - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We’ll talk about later, not here -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning Daveout

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


 * RE: you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith (diff) — yikes! El_C 17:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , a couple of things: 1. Please sign + timestamp any and all comments. 2. Attributing a possible error to a lie fails to exhibit good faith on your part. Also, even if you were able to somehow prove that it was a lie (singular), that does not mean that they are a liar (habitual). 3. Maybe tone down the the excessive bold (have mercy on our eyes) and other heated exclamations. Those do the opposite of of advancing your position, because they serve as distraction, one which does not come across as representing the dispassionate discourse expected for this topic area (and doubly so here, at WP:AE, where one's related conduct is placed under scrutiny). Thank you. El_C 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Clear personal attack and I don't see anything here which could possibly justify it. It seems to me that these editors just have different perspectives on this revert: Selfstudier pointed out that the edit summary doesn't contain a rationale for removing that specific link (which is true), and Daveout felt that a previous post on the talk page justified the removal. Neither is a wildly unreasonable perspective to have and certainly not justification for insulting people. Given the prior warning, and the fact that Daveout's comments here double down on the original comment, I think some sort of sanction or at least a stern logged warning would be appropriate.  Hut 8.5  12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We also have this newly made edit with incivility and an attack on our editors in general in the American politics arena. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since it does not appear that this editor is improving their behavior much if at all, I would not be opposed to a topic ban, or more than one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is a two for one deal? We have WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE and WP:INCIVIL behavior in American politics and Palestine-Israel. Doubling down on such behavior above? I think ArbCom wants us to tend away from indefinite TBANS, so one each for American politics and Israel-Palestine would be nice, but they were not DS alerted for American politics.  So six months TBAN for Israel Palestine. However, I see a trend that makes me believe a site ban may become necessary. The general WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is the opposite of what is required in a collaborative work environment. As the behavior escalated, I think a warning will not be effective. If anyone wants a limited duration site-wide block from editing, that would be my second choice.--  Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Time-limited sanctions are counter productive for anything other than petty vandalism or edit warring. I'm not up to date regarding Arbcom's latest effort to hamstring discretionary sanctions, but if there is any time that an indef topic ban was required, this is it. If that's now not permitted, I don't see why there would be less than a one-year tban. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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 : 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict by me before continuing to restore the edits, see the system log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 6 April 2021 by.


 * 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 Armenia, and is an 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)


 * 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)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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&#39;O (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Result concerning Kheo17

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


 * , I'm afraid you've misread or misrepresented my interaction with Kheo17: I gave them a standard DS alert, not a sanction. If you're making a report here, you should understand the difference between those things. I don't see any record of a logged sanction against Kheo17 at 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)

Muhafiz-e-Pakistan
''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 : 00:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * 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:NPOV and 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * @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)

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&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Clean Copy
''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 : 05:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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) 4 October 2022&mdash;speaking of Anthroposophy, which he is banned from.
 * 2) 15 September 2022&mdash;editing an article about Steiner's book, which he is banned from.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 18 March 2022, blocked 48 hours for breaching his topic ban.


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


 * Topic banned from Steiner and Anthroposophy, see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive301


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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.''

Result concerning Clean Copy

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


 * , 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)
 * 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)

Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center
''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 : 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

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:. 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)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * There was another revert today, and it looks like it was timed to avoid a 72-hour window: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I notified the editor who made that edit:, that I had commented on it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Notification of this filing at article talk page:

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.''

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&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 *  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)
 * Been thinking about this. 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would go with the 1RR over the BRD -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 23:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sounds good. make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Grandmaster
''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 : 14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

Topic ban appeal
I would like to appeal my indefinite AA topic ban per this report: 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. 

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. Grand master  14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

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. Grand master  18:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for letting me know. Grand  master  19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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 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, 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, 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)

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:, who is the sanctioning admin and have you informed them about this appeal? El_C 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , 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)


 * I think that the request here addresses the issues that led to the report the ended in the ban, and if this request had been made by a relatively new account I would have no issues lifting the ban. My lingering concern is that Grandmaster, at the time they made the errors that led to the ban, had been actively editing Wikipedia for well over a decade, and the fact that they would still make such flimsy arguments suggests to me that these were not naive errors but rather intentional opportunism motivated by an entrenched battleground mentality. Grandmaster is clearly capable of doing good editing work outside of A-A, but the presentation of such work is neither here nor there as far as underlying battleground concerns go. I recognize that it is hard-to-impossible for an editor to produce evidence that would prove that such underlying concerns have been addressed, so I do feel bad about saying (!voting?) no at this time, but I can't say that I really see cause to lift the TBAN. signed,Rosguill talk 19:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If there has been no recent battling, well after this TBAN was imposed, I would feel safe unTBANNing.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe in the WP:ROPE principle which suggests that it is easy to reinstate a sanction (would that principle unleash a reformed editor or someone better able to POV push while avoiding sanctions?). Nevertheless, my quick look did not find a knock-out reason showing that the tban should be forever. Has Grandmaster been sanctioned before, other than the last block which was for edit warring in 2007? I'm on the fence given Rosguill's reluctance above but am inclined to unban. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with Deepfriedokra and Johnuniq here. Grandmaster has been around long enough to know that further misbehavior in this area will very likely lead to reinstatement of the sanctions (at minimum), and that third chances are a whole lot harder to get than second ones. I am not entirely without reluctance, but I would be inclined to give such a second chance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

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 : 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict by me before continuing to restore the edits, see the system log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 6 April 2021 by.


 * 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 Armenia, and is an 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)


 * 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)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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&#39;O (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Result concerning Kheo17

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


 * , I'm afraid you've misread or misrepresented my interaction with Kheo17: I gave them a standard DS alert, not a sanction. If you're making a report here, you should understand the difference between those things. I don't see any record of a logged sanction against Kheo17 at 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)
 * Both editors here have well illustrated the point that it takes two to make an edit war, so if either of you gets a break from the area, then you both do. However, as the edit war seems to have subsided, I would give both editors a warning that, if the reliability of a source in question, that should be resolved with a reliable sources noticeboard inquiry, not the revert button. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel
''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 : 16:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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 and the source doesn't support the victory, but he also removed more content that was in the article and was supported by 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * 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)
 * 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 Sockpuppet investigations/NomanPK44. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck the report per WP:SOCKSTRIKE following results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NomanPK44. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

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
''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 : 14:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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:BLPPUBLIC and 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict (diff, diff)

I have previously worked with User:Bookku over Feminism related articles and was ready to discuss the additions to 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and expected him to assume good faith on my behalf but he made it quite a dispute. Since the start of discussion he continuously blamed me for victim blaming even though I clarified multiple times that I do not deny the happening of incident but there are other things that needs a inclusion for balancing the article and neutrality. He was not ready to accept the inclusion based on WP:BLPPUBLIC and making WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based arguments. He was also not ready to accept the other editor view who came on his notice to some project but held a vague RfC (as called by editors there) where most editors opined the suspects to be Public Figures for the purpose. He still did not accep their views and wilfully brings WP:NBIO to be criteria to include someone's name in the article which is criteria for a person to have separate article and was told about it. Bludgeoning the discussion by bringing irrelevant things to the discussion and creating walls of texts for which a couple of editors requested him to be concise but seems like he always does this as evident from his talkpage discussions. Although he calls himself South Asian gender studies student but his editing is mostly centred around pushing POV against a specific country and sometimes a community. He is even warned for shenanigans for an undue addition and singling out a specific country by User:TrangaBellam. He accepted his POV in his editing in the subject area contrary to Wikipedia is Not Advocacy and 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.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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) Inline with TarangaBellam's observation about Bookku's drafts; he started Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai which was rejected at AFC and then he started RfC to determine the topic's notability against due process and as in his responses here too he stressed on RfCs to be the only way out(quite ironic of him since he's not accepting the RfC outcome in the ongoing dispute). I was not much opposed to the said draft but he wanted me to do it without discriminating between Pakistan India sources as South Asians only in discussion. In his article My body, my choice too he mentioned India Pakistan just as South Asia while mentioning all other countries with name. Well both Pakistan India comes in South Asia but they have distinct identities which comes first. Wikipedia policies and nationalities can't be simply ignored because he likes it this way.(21) USaamo (t@lk) 21:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

diff
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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 &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Deepfriedokra First para in my user page is already clear, I can work in whatever area of cosmos available. While I put my agencies to utilization but I am not sure the description '..seeking to 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 &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @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 &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @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 ..".
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Bookku (2)

 * This is additional subsection for ease of navigation and reading.
 * 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.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Own sign is updated with fresh to avoid bloating

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.)
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TB
Will make a statement in support of a logged warning. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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, 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)
 * , 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 's and '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)
 * 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)
 * 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:


 * 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:
 * 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):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * Now comes the relatively-decent third source - a biography (albeit, official) of the-then Deputy Chief Minister by an academic:


 * 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)
 * Somebody ban this editor from anything that has to with women, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been stale for over a week. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been stale for over a week. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
I became aware of the dispute over 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and of Bookku on 11 September, when Bookku posted to the DRN talk page asking for mediation; see Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. The posts of both Bookku and USaamo are too long, didn't read in detail. Bookku was saying that they would be requesting assistance at DRN and at BLPN. I advised Bookku against 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)

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)

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel
@ and USaamo remains topic banned from conflicts related to India and Pakistan, and has violated that topic ban as recently as May 2022.  USaamo treated allegations as facts on this diff and wrote it in wikivoice. That was a BLP violation. On talk page, USaamo tells Bookku to "be concise in discussions as your comments are bludgeoning the process by creating walls of text and are a cause of exhaustion for editors" but USaamo himself wrote walls of texts.

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, and 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault 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)

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)

Result concerning Bookku

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


 * Awaiting statement by TG. Noted Robert's statement. Hopefully, this can be resolved without AE action.--  Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Willing to go with a logged warning per TG, and in hopes of dispute resolution with Robert. Unless someone has a better idea. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it is glaringly obvious you've brought a personal point of view and possibly an 0ff-Wiki agenda into the encyclopedia. Your latest post makes me feel that while you are capable of leaving that agenda out of your editing, you have at times chosen to include it. I'm willing to "admonish only" if it is clear you will cease and desist from the POV pushing moving forward. , it looks like your edits have been unfortunate as well. I echo what  Johnuniq has said below. More concise and clear information is always useful. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought you would be arguing for a warning. Now I must reëvaluate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Read it all, and I support Dennis Brown's short-duration (about 1 month) TBAN proposal. The intersection of Pakistan and women/feminism seems a good starting point. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Will defer to my colleagues on indef vs time limited. The time limited seems a happy middle ground between a warning and an indef.  If we go with short duration TBAN, please see it as a boon and an opportunity. If we must address this matter again, the result might be more than a indefinite duration TBAN,  considering issues TG has raised. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will ask my colleague to close  this. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bookku added a section on Pakistan at Public space (diff). That was totally WP:UNDUE in that article and indicative of someone seeking to right great wrongs. However, USaamo's edit at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault (diff) with claims of "alleged audiotapes" (with a handy dubious tag!) in the lead is worse (yes, the sources said that but don't add "dubious" material to the lead merely to repeat gossip—how likely is it that someone has an audio recording of a conversation showing criminal intent on their phone?). I would like to see if there is further commentary that might enlighten us regarding whether something stronger than a logged warning is needed. I agree that other editors need relief from walls of text. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Couple of points: Aman.kumar.goel, does raise some interesting questions, that this may be the pot calling the kettle black, but more importantly, I want to point out that writing one or two TLDR comments is not the same thing as WP:BLUDGEONing (itself a subset of WP:DE), as bludgeoning is a pattern of doing so, usually in the same thread or topic. From what I see, this looks like someone trying to Right Great Wrongs, and while a logged warning is ok, I guess, I get the feeling we will be back here soon enough.  This is where I differ from my compatriots, and think timed tbans can be effective, as a month off a subject but with the promise of being able to return may provide incentive.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to formally weigh in on this case based on past interactions with editors party to it, but I do have a clarifying question:, is your intended suggestion for a TBAN of the topical intersection of Pakistan and women, or of separate TBANs for topics pertaining to Pakistan and topics pertaining to women? signed,Rosguill talk 19:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I support some sort of topic ban. TrangaBellam brought Bookku to my attention and a look at their contributions shows a focus, not necessarily misplaced, on womens rights issues in India and Pakistan. However, the steamroller approach demonstrated in Public space, Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault, Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Sikhism, other declined drafts, and the rambling response to my templated notice are problematic and borderline WP:CIR. Perhaps a topic ban on topics related to women? A timed one like Dennis Brown is suggesting? That might give them some space to explore other topics, get comfortable with incremental editing, and then return to the gender area which appears to be of significant interest to them?--RegentsPark (comment) 23:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. On responding to an ECP edit request, I came cross this hard-to-figure-out discussion. I'm beginning to think that we may have a CIR issue.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * DFO asked me to close this, but I probably owe closure to WP:AE before any other report on this board. But I'll make 2 notes, a general one and one specific to this complaint.
 * 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, and  each exceed it by more than double, while  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)


 * 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)

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 : 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * 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 September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article, after which they started a talk page discussion on Talk:September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes. They also made a similar edit to the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis article. Dallavid's edit on the September 2022 clashes article was reverted by another user who also replied at the discussion Dallavid had opened. On September 15, while the discussion was still going on the talk page, Dallavid restored their own edit. This time, I undid their edit and requested that they first reach a consensus within the edit summary. I also commented on the discussion to further explain my objection to the edit. Another user then restored Dallavid's edit, but the user reverted it with this edit summary: No opinion on the merits, but this version of the lead is confusing and a stylistic catastrophe; see MOS:LEAD. On September 19, Dallavid restored their edit once more. I asked Dallavid to go back and reach a decision first in accordance with WP:ONUS. On the same day, Dallavid again restored their edit after another user had undone it. On September 20, I restored stable version of the lead and asked the involved editors to reach consensus. Dallavid stopped reinstating their edit for about a month after that. A number of editors improved the lead during that time. On October 17, however, Dallavid abruptly reinstated their edit once more, citing the edit summary no additional discussion in the talk page about the lead's undue weight. as justification. They also reinstated same edit on 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 Ruben Vardanyan (businessman) article, which was supported by reliable sources such as RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, Eurasianet, 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)


 * 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. Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users, and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted. 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 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. 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, 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, and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.

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)


 * 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)

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)

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. – <b style="color:#fcc203">Ol</b><b style="color:#fcba03">ym</b><b style="color:#fcb103">pi</b><b style="color:#fca903">an</b> <b style="color:#a3a0a0">loquere</b> 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Statement by XTheBedrockX
I definitely agreed with Dallavid that it was likely WP:UNDUE to state that both sides blamed each other without mentioning that a number of third party sources also claimed that Azerbaijan was encroaching into Armenia. The non-regional perspectives were important, and also, I think, notable enough to mention in the lead. In any case, though, I don't thank an arbitration request was necessary to resolve this. Contentious reverting without consensus is certainly uncalled for - but questions and debates about WP:NPOV and consensus-building are also a normal part of Wikipedia. I believe Dallavid was acting in WP:GOODFAITH, and I simply don't agree that Dallavid was being anywhere close to disruptive enough to warrant this. User:XTheBedrockX (talk)

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 : 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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 discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * 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 September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article, after which they started a talk page discussion on Talk:September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes. They also made a similar edit to the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis article. Dallavid's edit on the September 2022 clashes article was reverted by another user who also replied at the discussion Dallavid had opened. On September 15, while the discussion was still going on the talk page, Dallavid restored their own edit. This time, I undid their edit and requested that they first reach a consensus within the edit summary. I also commented on the discussion to further explain my objection to the edit. Another user then restored Dallavid's edit, but the user reverted it with this edit summary: No opinion on the merits, but this version of the lead is confusing and a stylistic catastrophe; see MOS:LEAD. On September 19, Dallavid restored their edit once more. I asked Dallavid to go back and reach a decision first in accordance with WP:ONUS. On the same day, Dallavid again restored their edit after another user had undone it. On September 20, I restored stable version of the lead and asked the involved editors to reach consensus. Dallavid stopped reinstating their edit for about a month after that. A number of editors improved the lead during that time. On October 17, however, Dallavid abruptly reinstated their edit once more, citing the edit summary no additional discussion in the talk page about the lead's undue weight. as justification. They also reinstated same edit on 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 Ruben Vardanyan (businessman) article, which was supported by reliable sources such as RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, Eurasianet, 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 (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 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. Abrvagl also neglected to mention that, in edition to my edit, Abrvagl was also reverting the edits of several other users, and that User:UserXpetVarpet restored my edit that Abrvagl reverted. 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 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. 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, 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, and Abrvagl continued to remove other user's edits such as User:Vanezi Astghik.

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)


 * 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)

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)

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. – <b style="color:#fcc203">Ol</b><b style="color:#fcba03">ym</b><b style="color:#fcb103">pi</b><b style="color:#fca903">an</b> <b style="color:#a3a0a0">loquere</b> 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Statement by XTheBedrockX
I definitely agreed with Dallavid that it was likely WP:UNDUE to state that both sides blamed each other without mentioning that a number of third party sources also claimed that Azerbaijan was encroaching into Armenia. The non-regional perspectives were important, and also, I think, notable enough to mention in the lead. In any case, though, I don't thank an arbitration request was necessary to resolve this. Contentious reverting without consensus is certainly uncalled for - but questions and debates about WP:NPOV and consensus-building are also a normal part of Wikipedia. I believe Dallavid was acting in WP:GOODFAITH, and I simply don't agree that Dallavid was being anywhere close to disruptive enough to warrant this. User:XTheBedrockX (talk)

Result concerning Dallavid

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



Hari147
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Hari147

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan,
 * 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 . As far as I can see, the TBAN was never lifted. They were blocked in March 2022 for TBAN violations . Essentially every single edit they have made since is a TBAN violation:, , , , , and 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)

notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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.''

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 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 &#124; tålk 08:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC).

TheCurrencyGuy
''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 : 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: 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 who pointed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland 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. 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. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Not applicable.

Special:Diff/1119388769
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I would like to fix a ping. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I have moved "On 30 October... for your time" one section up (under the diffs) and the ping-fixing comment to this section. Thanks. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In this edit, you did remove MacBride. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

On one hand, TCG declared that they have "abandoned" their account. However, I am inclined to take it as AE flu, since their previous attempt at declaring abandonment (in July) lasted for about a day. For details, please peruse the history of TCG's user page. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 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

Statement by M.nelson
The discussion at WT:IE is not all that hard to follow - it's clear that there's significant opposition to TheCurrencyGuy's changes, which was apparent before their post-DS alert reverts. Their response here is 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)

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: ) or just branded a fighter as a murderer (example: ). The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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 List of people who were executed would come under the Troubles ArbCom's remit; that was not made clear in the notice, and 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)

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)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
It appears that TCG has, um... retired. 23:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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, and Talk:List_of_people_who_were_executed, 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)
 * @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)
 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 11:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)