request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.
Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.
To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions
All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
^The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Closing a thread:
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Rough consensus for a topic ban for Southasianhistorian8 from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. This explicitly covers India's foreign relations and Sikhism. This topic ban will expire when six months from today have passed and the editor has made 500 edits outside of the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
02:11, November 14 Repeats the same WP:COATRACK behaviour at another article, just over 24hrs after Nyttend (a longstanding administrator) warned them about WP:COATRACK on their talk page.
08:49 November 14Personal attack towards me on their userpage in response to sharing my concern about diff2 and agreeing with Nyttend, claims I'm "piling on my t/p over a topic that does not concern you as a form of petty bullying/harassment and revenge." (bolding mine; Nyttend was the only other user with a message on their talk page)
10:05 November 14 Leaves a retaliatory message on my talk page, spurned by my reverting of their edit in diff2.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:31, 2021 November 27 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
SAH continues to push their anti-Sikh POV into articles. Diff1 shows them adding repetitive content which was already covered in the article, not to mention that it has its own article. Repeating in such detail can only be interpreted as an attempt to draw a equivalency between Khalistan movement and the Canada-India row that is not supported by sources.
Diff2 shows them doing them same at Hardeep Singh Nijjar, using that article as a COATRACK to add content about a tangentially relevant person, content which belong in an article about that person, and attempting to further their POV that Nijjar was a "militant".
Diffs 3 and 4 showcase an unwillingness to self-reflect when conduct concerns are brought up, getting defensive with personal attacks, retaliatory warnings, and digging up of past dirt (which they already mentioned in the last AE thread about them). At no point do they acknowledge WP:COATRACK either in response to Nyttend or myself.
Contribution history shows they nearly-exclusively edit about Sikh topics, suppressing positive information and restoring negative information. Talk page history shows numerous NPOV warnings. At this point, we either have a LISTENing issue or a WP:NOTHERE issue. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: While BLPCRIME is a reason why I reverted diff 2, it was not the only reason, with the other reason being that I felt SAH was pushing a POV using WP:COATRACK edits, something they had been warned about 24 hours previously for the edit in diff 1. My issue with the edit to Hardeep Singh Nijjar re: Arsh Dalla is beyond the BLPCRIME issue. It goes into the aspect of using another person's arrest to further a POV that Nijjar was a militant extremist.
The fact that SAH filed a report about Simonm223 to AN today[2] for simply trying to engage with SAH at SAH's talk page[3], then WP:BADGERed voorts at voort's talk page after voorts closed the thread[4] shows that SAH's conduct is the primary issue, not the content of any article. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)23:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Okay, seriously, this is getting out of hand now. SAH's response to being asked to state concisely what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same at DRN is to post a wall of text outlining their entire rationale to insert what they call "a brief few sentences or paragraphs" (huh?). Is this not WP:BLUDGEONING of a discussion?[8] ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
(Note, below is SAH's original statement, the one people have commented on. The altered statement, where he removed/changed the things others had criticised, so that their criticism no longer made sense, can be found here. See my comment down in the admin section (in a moment from now) for why I've put their original statement back. Bishonen | tålk09:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC).)[reply]
Talk about desperation. Any outsider can take a look at my handling on Khalistan movement and see that I handled myself very responsibly as opposed to GhostofDanGurney who keeps lobbing personal attacks at editors he dislikes. I only made one revert, and when Nyttend posted on my t/p, I told him I would not revert further,and initiated a discussion on the t/p. The content I added was literally a direct result of the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistan activist, and the RCMP's allegations of India's operations against Khalistan activists, so clearly the event is relevant to the page at least to some degree and I'm extremely confident that editors at 3O or DRN will agree. The content there wasn't even authored by me, I copied it (with attribution) from the Canada-India diplomatic row. If I was so biased, wouldn't I be trying to suppress this information? I figured that precluding such a consequential event would be irresponsible and make it appear as though the page was skewed towards a pro-India narrative. What more do you want from me?
@GhostofDanGurney- Is one revert on the Khalistan movement page, in which I believed the removal from Nyttend to be a simple misunderstanding and subsequently went on the t/p, and zero reverts on the Hardeep Singh Nijjar page - for a grand total of one revert considered "edit warring". If so, you've edit warred hundreds of times as well Ghost.
You've also told people to "fuck themselves", called them "thots" and "hypocrites" and more; I've never come close to saying something like that. Again, I strongly urge admins to issue a block for these juvenile insults. Literally every disagreement on his t/p is met with a nasty response-[10], [11].
This ill-researched statement is like the last time when you falsely accused me of plagiarizing your work.
@Black Kite, I saw a thread on the article's t/p in which two editors expressed a desire to move the paragraph about the diplomatic row in the lead of the article. I removed the paragraph from the lead, and intended to move it and expand on it in the body of the article, but was unexpectedly called away before I could. By the time I returned, you had reverted me. In hindsight, I should have made my 2nd intended edit immediately afterwards and linked the t/p discussion, so my apologies for that. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for this edit-[15], I explicitly stated that it shouldn't have been in the lead-Please gain WP:CONSENSUS to add this to the article's lead, in accordance with the t/p discussion. I already apologized for the poor communication on my part here (I should have stated my intention to move and expand the para and linked the t/p discussion) and admit that I should take care to not add WIP edits, but I feel like AGF should apply here, especially when I already apologized and it involves my private life. I'm willing to own up to when I make a mistake.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all, I think that a good solution to this conflict(s) would be a 2 way IBAN between Ghost and myself, after the DRN or any other consensus building forum has concluded. Our editing seems to primarily intersect at two pages-Hardeep Singh Nijjar and Canada-India diplomatic row out of the many hundreds of pages we've edited, the C-I row is not a page I'm particularly interested in anymore. There may be more developments on those two pages surrounding the ongoing criminal investigation, but that's not something I'm too interested in and will likely not make edits towards. I'm committed to resolving the Nijjar content dispute peacefully through consensus, and I hope Ghost will too, and I'll also commit to avoiding GoDG as much as possible from hereon. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I agree, but a lot of my earlier thoughts/responses were unorganized as this a pretty complicated, high stress dispute. Would me linking my earlier responses be a good solution? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would also like to point that Bishonen is not an uninvolved administrator and is posting in the wrong section. We've had disagreements in the past regarding a blocked user's sock/meat status-[17]. That was a case in which I and another administrator believed the blocked account to be a sock, while Bishonen believed them to be a m/p.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had 2 disagreements in the past over users alleged to be HaughtonBrit socks barely a few months ago. In the other case, a user who was initially deemed to be "unrelated" to HaughtonBrit, was later deemed a "possible indicator of sockpuppetry" after my report highlighted significant developments in their editing patterns. I believed the user to be a sock, Bishonen stated that she believed that they weren't. Given the contested nature of the latter disagreement, I dont think Bishonen counts as uninvolved administrator. This is what WP:UNINVOLVED states:Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
@ScottishFinnishRadish:, I feel like a topic ban is unnecessary. It shouldn't be ignored that this A/E request is primarily based of a content dispute which is currently underway at DRN-[19]. It should also be highlighted that I provided detailed and policy backed reasons for my proposed changes there, whereas G and Simonm gave curt one sentence responses. Is that not telling? I sincerely request that I be allowed to participate in the consensus building. It should also be noted that I did not edit war anywhere, and am making sincere efforts to gain consensus for my changes.
I also do a lot of work in cleaning up articles in this topic area, which is inundated with POV pushing, poor sourcing and lackluster content. Could you please consider allowing the DRN to conclude and a later IBAN between me and Ghost? I strongly believe that would cease any further conflicts. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel like my inexperience and mistakes at A/E shouldn't dictate the fate of my editing in the Wikipedia mainspace, which are vastly different from each other. The vast majority of my editing in the main space and on talk pages is productive, and I've worked to arrive consensuses consistently over the past 2 years. The dispute between Ghost and myself became so acrimonious and litigious, that it's impossible to handle both discussing on the article t/p, DRN, and handling numerous dogpiles on A/E. Again @ScottishFinnishRadish, please consider an alternative. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish, could you please let me know if something else other than a topic ban is on the table? Again, I find it punitive when I'm contributing substantially to the DRN and trying to seek a consensus there. Can we at least not see the assessment of other editors in that content dispute and what they make of Ghost and Simon's BLP/coatrack claims? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. Honestly, after seeing the immense toxicity on this site, where numerous editors dog-pile on you, lob false accusations against you, gaslight you and arm-twist you into believing their falsehoods, and just in general playing favourites with those in their own clique, all to get one over someone else in a content dispute, I've realized that Wikipedia is no longer a suitable place for me.
I would concur that both editors should probably both get some space from each other for a few days. A short-duration 2-way iBan might be a reasonable remedy here. Most of the edits in contention from both editors don't seem disruptive although both could be a bit more careful with sourcing to avoid primary sources and to ensure that secondary sources are included in major edits. The only point of contention I'd take with either's position (as I don't think either is actually entirely wrong so much as operating at cross-purposes) surrounds the interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. Arsh Dalla is not a public figure per the definition laid out by WP:PUBLICFIGURE because his notoriety is entirely from the circumstances of him having been accused of a crime. As such the guidance, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime very much applies here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Southasianhistorian8 there is a key difference between Bishnoi and Dalla. Bishnoi stood trial and was convicted. My understanding is that Canada has declined to arrest and extradite Dalla. As such, since he is a free person and considered innocent both under Canadian law and by Wikipedia's standards, and since all the media coverage around him is about whether he did any criminal acts, we should not be commenting on him on Wikipedia. I hope this clarifies WP:BLPCRIME for you. Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly my attempt to provide some friendly help regarding the BLPCRIME issue has left me a bit more concerned about WP:IDHT than I was at the outset. Especially since WP:OSE statements do not override BLP policy. Simonm223 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully my last comment here I just want to apologize to @GhostOfDanGurney for originally interpreting this as a two-way interaction problem. I saw this and tried to sincerely help Southasianhistorian8 and the result was an ANI complaint, a DRN page and several repetitive textwalls. This is much more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND situation than I initially assumed with Southasianhistorian8 specifically and, what's worse, they appear to assume any attempt to assist them is an attack. I have struck my initial comments about a 2-way i-ban as I no longer believe that would be an effective remedy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of which side is correct on the merits of the arguments, it does *not* help SAH's case that they've presented their opposition to Ghost of Dan Gurney in an uncivil and excessively inflammatory manner. "he clearly has an extreme vendetta against and is desperate to hound me off this page" fails to assume good faith. So does accusing them of having "a long history of suppressing any critical information on the page... saw this opportunity and rushed to try to hound me further." Vaguely handwaving at a previous report does not suffice to make that anything less than an aspersion. Saying "I find it reprehensible that this bullying behaviour has carte-blanche on Wikipedia" is both uncivil, inflammatory, and presumes that the behavior is 1) bullying, and 2) has "carte-blanche" despite this AE request existing and there having been discussion about it in multiple talk page forums already. Regardless of how this AE gets decided, I'd admonish SAH to find a more constructive, less inflammatory way of expressing their positions. I think all involved would do well to be reminded that in a contentious topic area you need to be on your best behavior. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!21:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had several of the articles that SAH has been editing come up on various boards that I monitor. Unfortunately, I've been unable to positively contribute for a lack of time to read through the wall of text that SAH generates through their apparent POV-pushing style, and then sometimes Wikilawyering to support their POV. While I think that the situation is primarily one-sided, and GDG is doing a fair job of handling it well, just a reminder that the integrity of WP is not solely upon him to keep other editors in line, and perhaps not taking it too personally. I think a formal TBAN with 500 edits is a good place to start for SAH, and perhaps, if anything, an IBAN for GDG. TiggerJay(talk)21:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a mediation case at DRN involving User:Southasianhistorian8 and User:GhostOfDanGurney on 20 November that had been requested by SAH on 16 November. I made a mistake in opening the case, because this dispute was already pending here at Arbitration Enforcement, and DRN does not handle any dispute that is also pending in another content forum or conduct forum, and this is a conduct forum. I have closed the DRN case as failed. The instructions that I gave to the editors to prepare draft sections of material that they wanted to add or to shorten are still good advice as part of discussion and normal editing. I have no opinion on the conduct of the editors, because I try to avoid conduct issues when I am trying to mediate a content dispute (including when I am trying to mediate a content dispute by mistake). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've looked into this a bit more, but even based on their behavior at this report, the bludgeoning and walls of text, the incivility, and the retaliatory filing below I'm thinking at least a 3-6 month and 500 edit topic ban for tendentious editing with the hope that it will be enough of a sanction that their behavior will be better when they return. I'm also open to an indef topic ban if other admins believe that they should have to offer some proof of constructive editing to return to the topic area.
This seems like a plain dispute over interpretation of BLPCRIME with respect to an edit that was made yesterday, but instead of a discussion at WP:BLPN, there are three enforcement threads visible on this page and another at WP:AN. Perhaps the editors involved should try BLPN first, or other forms of dispute resolution, instead of running here to get each other banned? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encouraged these editors to take their dispute to DRN. I think everyone needs to de-escalate, step away from the article, and let the process at DRN play out. If that fails and this acrimony continues, IBANs, TBANs, or page restrictions might be needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also haven't had time to research this properly, but I've noticed without difficulty that SAH's behaviour on this very page is poor. SAH, you point out that GhostOfDanGurney told someone to go fuck themselves in 2018, (near the beginning of their Wikipedia career) called somebody else a thot in the same year, and you "strongly urge admins to issue a block for these juvenile insults". A block? Six years after the fact? Please don't air ancient history at AE, especially when it has nothing to do with the matter in hand. I see you offer the same diffs and others from your historical collection in the retaliatory report below, too. I'm also interested to see your explanation of Black Kite's point that during this AE, you removed sourced and DUE information at Hardeep Singh Nijjar, 'almost like [you] want to be sanctioned'. You explain that two editors on Talk wanted to "move" the information, and therefore you re-moved it, intending to move it to the body and even, virtuously, expand on it there, but were interrupted at this very point. This statement of yours flies in the face of a) your edit summary for the removal,[21] and b) what you yourself said about it on Talk.[22] In view of that, the drama where you are "unexpectedly called away" is unfortunately not credible. Bishonen | tålk04:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Just noting that I think Southasianhistorian8 has rewritten much of their statement here today. Many comments others have referred to are now absent from their statement. I know that the length of their content was a concern but I don't think a participant should basically rewrite their original statement in response to other editors' complaints. It's confusing when one tries to understand the flow of the discussion. LizRead!Talk!06:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed they have, and that's not acceptable. Before I commented, I counted SAH's words to see if they had complied with shortening their statement. Yes, they had, it was 554 words. Then, after I had complained about poor behaviour, specifically asking admins to block G over ancient diffs, and trying to explain away Black Kite's complaint of disruption during this case, they "substantially altered it for length and because a lot of the responses were spur of the moment/unorganized". That's one way of putting it. Another would be that after my criticism and Simon223's, they removed the things we criticized. That's unacceptable on talkpages, and just as unacceptable here. Linking to the old version doesn't help much. You simply shouldn't have done it. I have restored the version I commented on, with a link to your new, massaged, less "spur of the moment" version. The time to think is before you post here, not after people have told you what's wrong with it. Note, if you decide to no longer offer an argument that's been criticized, you may of course disown it. But that's done by crossing it out, like this. Not by removing it. Bishonen | tålk09:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
SAH now suggests I'm not an uninvolved admin. I think I am, and I hope one or more admin/user here will please follow SAH's link to evaluate this putative involvement. Bishonen | tålk11:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The need to both wait 3 or 6 months and make 500 edits outside of the topic area. This way they have to demonstrate constructive editing elsewhere rather than waiting out the tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am good with SFR's suggested 3 or 6 months (I lean 6) topic ban AND making 500 substantial edits outside the topic area (by "substantial" I mean not just adding commas or moving around stuff, but engaging with content and showing that they understand how to use reliable sources and how to edit collaboratively) Ealdgyth (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Southasianhistorian8, you don't need to quit editing or be indefinitely blocked. You just have to continue to be a productive editor without getting yourself into disputes. I don't see any favoritism here in this discussion. But when I look over your most recent 200 edits in your contribution history, almost all have to do with arguments with other editors. Can you coexist with editors you don't agree with? That's what the rest of us do. And, believe me, there are longtime editors here who have had disagreements with each other that are deeper and longer-lasting than your dispute with GhostOfDanGurney...we just keep a distance between us and do not provoke each other. Remember, this is not just an editing project but a collaborative one so you have to be able to collaborate even when not agreeing. Can you do that? LizRead!Talk!04:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
23 October - Whitewashing with misleading edit summary. Trying to show that allegiance with Nazism and Imperial Japan is considered bad only in the western world.
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.
<moved from Capitals00's section> I am not such kind of user. I adds contents with reliable sources. Sorry if anyone gets such vibes.. Sorry to.l Wikipedia communities. Love for Wikipedia always. Loveforwiki (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I appreciate it can be frustrating to edit in a topic area where your views are often in the minority. If you find yourself in such a position, you'll need to come to talk pages with high-quality reliable sources (in high-profile contentious topics, scholarly sources may be needed to convince others). Using misleading edit summaries, attacking other editors (rather than focusing on content) and edit warring are incompatable with editing in a contentious area. Here, and with a previous warning [25], they do not seem interested in acknowledging fault and learning from mistakes. They continue to tag edits as minor [26] that aren't, after being asked to stop in September. Further edits outside of the field ([27]) indicate there may be a broader competence issue here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:loveforwiki: could you please answer my request to explain when you need to provide attribution in your edit summary? And explain what edit warring is (you denied you were engaged in an edit war on India before). . —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most AGF reading of this is that there is a CIR/language issue that is making it difficult to communicate effectively instead of deliberate POV pushing. Either way, I don't think they're a positive in the topic area. For me, the question is if there is a narrow topic ban that would be effective rather than the standard IPA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking about a carve-out of cinema and sport? Are they neatly separated from politics in India, or do conflicts flow over to these topics a lot? I'm open to a narrower topic ban, but I do wonder if the CIR/language issue isn't going to lead to problems elsewhere. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen there can be quite a significant amount of crossover, e.g. The Kashmir Files. This, along with few admins being very familiar with the topic, is why the topic bans in ARBIPA so often end up covering the whole kit and kaboodle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though in the latter case we preserve the ability for the editor to potentially edit some other area of interest instead of just revoking that possibility. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)07:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rasteem is topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
02:59, 1 November 2024 - Edit wars over the same page move with another user while calling it vandalism .
13:52, 9 November 2024 - Does not understand that he is edit warring in spite of being warned about it and doing exactly that.
13:58, 9 November 2024 - Labels edit warring warning he received from me as "retaliatory" when I never interacted with him before this encounter.
14:21, 9 November 2024 - Calling a general sanctions alert on caste topics as a "retaliatory warning".
00:51, 10 November 2024 - Accuses another editor of POV pushing when no one other than him was making a pseudohistorical claim that Zafar Khan of Muzaffarid dynasty was a Jat contravening the academic discussion on the same.
01:32, 10 November 2024 -Misidentifying an academic Priyanka Khanna with a fashion designer to remove sourced content [32]
11:28 10 November 2024 - Removes good faith talkpage message about above and a general note regarding using minor edits while calling them retaliatory.
01:49, 15 November 2024 - Does not understand WP:BRD, immediately restores his content after being reverted and then asks others to follow BRD.
17:31, 15 November 2024 - Tells others to follow WP:BRD while edit warring to restore his own edits that were reverted, the irony is lost on him.
01:13, 18 November 2024 - Tries to poison the well against me based on a made up on the spot rule ("2RR") when I simply gave my feedback which was requested by an Admin before granting their WP:PERM/RB request.
02:00, 25 November 2024 - Abuses warning templates on a new user's talkpage and then reverts the user when they clear their page. Also review this revision history of their page to see the severity of abuse of warning templates and WP:BITEY behaviour.
Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Rasteem is repeatedly failing to meet the standards of acceptable behavior, biting new users, and assuming hostility and bad faith on the part of established editors. His editing in this topic area has been tendentious.Despite being alerted sanctions on caste and WP:ARBIPA, he continues to take part in this behavior and displays WP:CIR issues. There may also be a language barrier given his poorly written or incomprehensible responses. To prevent further disruption in this highly contentious area, I believe a topic ban is the minimum necessary measure here.NxcryptoMessage10:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot to unpack in the wall of text posted by Rasteem.
6th - This is entirely misleading [34]. You did not address how my warning was retaliatory, in fact you are basically still saying that my first ever interaction with you was still somehow retaliatory, this explains it better than I can do
7th -It was not a copy edit, you used a poor cited source(that doesn't have an author) for pushing his caste as Jat, the source in question & quotation in question was added by you in the first place[35].Wikipedia is not a place for boosting a certain caste.
8th - You say that you understand what 3RR is but you are still claiming that making 3 reverts in 24 hours violates it which is not correct.
10th - If you are allowed to remove your messages after you read them, why did you restore your warnings on a newcomer's talkpage, if they have removed it themselves?
13th - Bringing up the conduct of other users in order to make their comments less valid when your own edits are under scrutiny is classic Poison the well fallacy. Your continued attempt to defend that hostile stance there is concerning
14th - You were simply told to leave warnings, not abuse them, abuse is when you give warnings that are not appropriate. I can see that you have given that user multiple final level warnings for vandalism when they clearly did not vandalise, see WP:NOTVANDAL and you are not supposed to issue a warning that is meant to be final again and again, for example you reverted this addition of hyperlinks by a new user @HistorianAlferedo: and issued them a final warning for vandalism,[36] when no one would ever regard that edit as vandalism. You reverted this sourced and well explained edit by the same user and gave them a final warning for vandalism[37][38] Similar thing here [39][40]. You also restored your warnings after they had cleared them despite being aware of the fact that when a user clears their talkpage it is assumed they have read it. The fact that you do not understand that you were abusing the warnings and are now deflecting the blame saying admins told you to do that is very concerning. NxcryptoMessage02:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested[41]
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.
1. This was my first sourced article. I wasn't aware of close paraphrasing. After this note,[42] I didn't repeat this mistake.
2. & 3. I moved Hoysala Kingdom > Hoysala kingdom twice. I thought the word "Kingdom" was not part of the full name. After this notice,[43] I didn't repeat such mistakes.
5. On Political marriages in India there was a content dispute among different editors.[44] I had talked to the editor who reverted my edits, explained to him why I considered his GC note as retaliatory.
[45]
6. About General notice of GSCASTE. I gave an explanation to the editor who gave me this notice and explained to him why I considered his warning a retaliatory (see answer#5 & diif #[4]).
7. Addition in Zafar Khan's paragraph as Jat ruler was a copyedit per the cited source.[1] I wasn't trying to promote a specific POV.
8. On 9 November, I accidentally committed a 3RR violation. At the time, 'I was unaware that the 3RR was not only about making 3 reverts using Twinkle. Please accept my apology considering it my first mistake. 'when I said I didn't conduct an edit war, I said it in the sense that I made only 2 reverts using the Twinkle'.
9. There are multiple authors named Priyanka Khanna. I thought journal written by this
author[46] but actually was written by this.[47]
10. As I'm allowed to remove own talk page messages after reading it. For explainations about retaliatory warning (see answers #5)
11. & 12. On 14 November after this revert, I didn't make further reverts on this page.[48] And left a notice on Talk:page[49] regarding recent revert and removal of content.
13. I gave a reply to Crypto's comment.[50] I gave there my explanation; it wasn't in the intention of Poison in the well.
14. I was advised by admin that you have to leave an edit warning for every revert you made without checking edits of a user. I asked him, Will it be Back Bitting?[51] If I give many warnings for each revert I made or just after their 1st or 2nd vandalism. He said that's incorrect, & it is necessary to leave an edit warning for each revert.[52]
I've condensed my answers to fit the word limit, but I kindly request a slight extension to provide a more accurate and comprehensive summary. As this is my first time at WP:ARE®asteemTalk22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. You didn't ask me for the clarification so I didn't get a chance to clarify. In this conversation I discussed how many warnings I considered retaliatory and for what reasons.[53]
7. Your provided diff is an older one when I added 3 paragraphs with four sources.[54] Later I removed the word 'Jat'[55] from this paragraph, then I thought someone would object why I removed this word then I copyedited.[56]
8. I think I understand the 3RR rule.
13. My clarification on the rollback request was just to reply to Crypto's comment.
14. I just gave a warning notice for each revert I made (See some disruptive edits).[57][58][59][60][61]
This edit removed the word 'Yaduvanshi rulers' & added random 2-3 links.[63]
This edit removed the content 'Chaudhary family & Lohar clan of Rajputs'.[64]
Users are allowed to blank their talk pages, so restoration of the old revision was not required. It was in the sense user learn nothing from their past disruptions & I was compelled to report user at WP:AIV.
Femke, Thank you for clarifying the 3RR rule for me. I'll step back from making mistakes & I'll make sure I understand the policies before discussing them. I will focus on the content rather than the person in future. I admit it was not a good practice leaving warning even after 3-4 warnings. Yes, I did report this user at AIV.[65]
Seraphimblade, ScottishFinnishRadish, I had a content dispute with two editors, and with one of them, I've talked and settled the dispute. The person who reported me here, I didn't get a chance to talk to him; that's my bad luck. Please don't topic ban me, as I've already slowed down editing in contentious areas. I've tried hard to refrain from repeating such first-time mistakes. I assure you I will not repeat these mistakes again. I've already accepted my mistakes, also shown by my behavior; I've always refrained from repeating it. ®asteemTalk17:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first & last interactions with NXcrypto was limited to Political marriages in India there we had a content dispute. On my rollback request, he was asked for his opinion: "He claimed Rasteem is on the verge of the topic ban." Later, he filed this report instead of resolving the content dispute on article's talk page. This report seems like a coordinated attempt to get rid of edit disputes from Arbitration Enforcement. I'll request the admin please also consider this and check my contributions that is largely for reverting vandalism at RC patrol.[66]
Seraphimblade I respect your decision & appreciate your involvement in this report. I've seen your closing comment.[67] I kindly request you consider reducing the six-month period of topic ban, if possible, since most of the mistakes I made were first-time errors. If not possible, you can please ban me without the condition of an unban appeal after the time period of my fixed ban.? I asked for it because I've read the comment of admin:Valereee that the appeal is very hard[68] even though I'm not fully aware of the policies of WP:ARE. ®asteemTalk05:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at their edit history, I think Rasteem is doing a good job across wikipedia. I have had very brief interactions with @Rasteem:. Came across this page when I was posting a message on their talkpage and was surprised to find this complaint. I do not see any POV pushing for any caste by Rasteem. Most of the above items seem to be unintentional innocent mistakes - made by many senior editors - and I will go through each of them one by one. For example, Priyanka Khanna misidentification might just be because google showed up the incorrect search results. They are also polite, for example - [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=prev&oldid=1256533002 ] here they even apologised to @Adamantine123: although it was not necessary. I don't think any ban is necessary.LukeEmily (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rasteem: your response is now over 2,000 words. Per the instructions, can you please summarize this within 500 words and 20 diffs or ask for a (small!) extension to the word limit and summarize it to the new word limit. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rasteem, you're again over the word limit. I'll grant you a 200-word extension for your "Further answers", so please condense this significantly. Also, please avoid "shouting" via excessive bolding and colouring.
On the merits: in general, Rasteem is not the only to resort to disruptive behavior: there is too little discussion. In particular, Rasteem, you really need to WP:focus on content, rather than on the person. For edit warring, I expect an editor of your tenure to know that (a) you don't need to break the 3RR red line for something to count as edit warring. Experienced editors usually use BRD, meaning they only do 1 revert. (b) violating 3RR means at least 4 reverts, not 3. Move warring in particular is really not done (and WP:RM/TR is not the place for contentious moves. A normal WP:RM is). In terms of warning a new user, 4 final warnings does not make any sense, please ensure you report to AIV instead. The advice to leave a warning on each revert does not apply after 4 warnings. It's a good sign you admit when you're wrong in some cases, but you need to step back and ensure you understand policies before talking about them.
I think this is more a case of trying to go too far, too fast than any malicious intent, but in a highly contentious area, that can be every bit as disruptive, Regardless, once you know other editors are objecting to what you're doing, it's time to slow down and talk to them, not just carry right on. I think I would favor a topic ban at this time, but with the expectation that if Rasteem shows constructive editing and discussion in other areas for a good period of time, it is likely that such a topic ban could be lifted by a future appeal. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a time and edit topic ban would fit here, or just a standard topic ban that has to be appealed? I find that the time and edit topic bans are a bit lighter-weight without letting people just sit them out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the time-plus-edits topic ban is an interesting idea. If you've found them to work well, I don't have any objection to that. I think it's normally six months with 500 edits? SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do prefer the user need not appeal, and in particular when they believe they're making a sincere attempt to learn. Appeals are hard. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is acceptable to me too. They seem keen to learn, and doing that outside of a contentious topic area for a while would be useful for them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the consensus is for a topic ban from the India-Pakistan area for 6 months and 500 edits outside the topic area, whichever comes later. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by InedibleHulk
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sectionsbut should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
I'm not sure I understand Femke's question. Problems (namely using female pronouns for a mass murderer most believed was a man and for too heavily arguing my case) led to my block; repeated assurance that I would stop eventually led to my unblock. I think the "avoid American politics" part came up because mass murder and gender disputes were hot-button issues at the time; some wanted me banned from gun control instead. It may have had something to do with things I said in previous elections about how Trump was preferable to Clinton or how Harris should have beat Biden. I didn't really have much to feel or say about Trump vs Harris, even if I could have, and that much hasn't changed. I was only as interested as I was in Trump's prior campaigns because he was a pro wrestling personality; now that he's more fully transitioned into a regular politician, I'll let politics regulars handle him, his opponents and whatever resultant subtopics and drama. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this doesn't address the circumstances of the ban/block and explain why this editing restriction is no longer necessary, I don't know what will. The elections are over and I've lost interest in the only politicians I've bickered about here. If there's something else this restriction was meant to stop that I haven't addressed, please, be specific. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And while this appeal seeks an AP2 unban alone, I think GoodDay is right that I might prove myself an improved GENSEX editor now as well, if given that chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is still entirely an AP2 appeal. I wouldn't mind a GENSEX unban, as "gravy", and have certainly learned my DEADNAME lesson long ago. But discussing both at once would get confusing and I run into far more AP2 pages "randomly", so that leads. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish, my issue with your issue is that I wasn't topic-banned (from AP2) for any particular issue, so I can't say what I'll do to avoid whatever it is except to say I'll let politics regulars handle him, his opponents and whatever resultant subtopics and drama.
Femke, I agree that my summaries are often misunderstood. They have been for almost 19 years and, as always, when confusion arises, I try to explain. In this latest case, Read it again? was a question intended as a suggestion, not a demand, and not a dumb suggestion either (since Seraphimblade seemed to see what Liz didn't from reading the same part). Also, I'm IH, not EH.
Aquillion, last year, I vowed to back away from that case altogether and would rather say as little as possible about it still. Generally speaking, though, I don't use the word "believed" to imply just belief. Beliefs are at the root of all we say, think and know. I could have used either of those verbs instead, in hindsight, but they all have their own plausibly troubling connotations if one focuses on what's not written. They (just) thought (but didn't know), (merely) knew (but didn't say) or (only) said (but didn't believe). I'm far from always a perfect communicator, but that was me on my best behaviour. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TiggerJay, consider the shouting and unduly harsh talk over. I'm not sure what these "other things" you allude to are, but I can guess swearing is one thing, questions (rhetorical or not) are another and the rest is probably reasonable and doable. I'll try to fall more in line with ESL, by simply and succinctly saying what I did, but won't follow the given examples precisely, on account of the roboticness. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, yes, I had an iffy feeling about that one shortly after I hit "Publish changes". Then it was confirmed a bad feeling on my talk page. Now you're the third one here to reinforce that sentiment, after I'd already agreed to save words like those for self-deprecation (which will likely stop now, too). Like all edit summaries, it's become unchangeable, but still forgivable. I'm sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more complete statement more addresses what happened, and in the original scenario, the AP2 issue was a more tangential one, so I don't have a particular opposition to lifting that. If this request has now been modified to also be an appeal to the GENSEX topic ban, that was much more directly on point when the original incident occurred, and I don't support lifting that at this time. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk, I think the edit below ([69]) might kind of illustrate the problems with your approach. I realize it's certainly not related to either of politics or GENSEX, but that edit isn't so bad as to be a flagrant lie, and it doesn't even seem all that implausible to me. At most, it's unreferenced. Do you see how using the edit summary of "LIAR!" comes across as needlessly aggressive? You could still remove it with a summary of "I don't think this is accurate" or "This would need a citation" instead, and that would be far less confrontational. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Describing what happened here as using female pronouns for a mass murderer most believed was a man and for too heavily arguing my case is downplaying the diffs; but beyond that it's hard to miss the fact that InedibleHulk is still, even in an appeal, carefully wording their statements to avoid referring to Hale as a man and is in fact presenting that as just a belief. While this isn't a GENSEX appeal, it's pretty glaring to see that sort of wording even in an appeal (where one would expect someone to be on their best behavior). --Aquillion (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While InedibleHulk has generally been contributing positively, making useful edits in non-TBAN areas, his edit summaries are concerning, sometimes falling under WP:ESDONTS and can appear as uncivil, even when doing otherwise mundane. Such as using the edit summary of "LIAR!" when removing an edit. Left unaddressed, this can easily spiral out of control again when these same edit summaries are applied to contentious articles. Even in his own defense above, he cites this on his talk page, and in it, clearly illustrates that he finds his edit summaries otherwise acceptable and that his summaries are simply a shout into the darkness instead of intended as a personal attack. I choose to AGF that he does not intend to be uncivil, however, before lifting any TBAN in any contentious topics, I would like to see his edit summaries conform more to WP:ESL and completely avoid the "shouting" or other things which, regardless of intention by Hulk, which can and have been broadly understood to be uncivil. TiggerJay(talk)16:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
This appeal is very light on details. What problems were there that led to the unblock conditions and how do you plan to avoid them in the future? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on two minds. On the one hand, AP2 is a wide topic ban and the GENSEX ban may sufficient to prevent behaviour like last time. On the other hand, I do find EH'sIH's use of edit summaries not that conducive to editing in contentious topics. For instance [70] (which said LIAR!), but also at this AE [71] "Read it again", after Liz indicates she still found the appeal to short on information. Most often, the edit summaries are simply cryptic. I'd like some more assurances for EH to improve communication via edit summaries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Femke. InedibleHulk, usually when an editor is appealing a topic ban or block, they make a formal request/argument that addresses the circumstances of the ban/block and why this editing restriction is no longer necessary. I don't really see that here. LizRead!Talk!05:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to give this editor a chance to demonstrate they can edit constructively without having to stay miles away from the topic. Topic bans are something we should be using only when really needed. It's been a year. Let's see if it's still needed. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IH irks me sometimes (often his edit summaries, mentioned above by others), but I have no concerns about removing the AP topic ban and giving him a chance. I'd be slightly more concerned about the GENSEX topic ban, but (a) he's not asking for that to be lifted, and (b) I'll acknowledge that this might be a knee-jerk instinctive concern. But sure, let's at least lift the AP topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Context: Following a content dispute whether the "Gaza genocide" should be included on the Israel article, an RfC on the topic was started on 22 November.
On 27 November, despite the ongoing RfC, User:Selfstudier added content related to the "Gaza genocide" to the article anyway. [72]
Another editor reverted the addition and requested that Selfstudier refrain from adding the disputed content while the RfC is still ongoing. [73]
A few minutes later, Selfstudier restored it anyway [74]
Selfstudier says the RfC is about the lead, not the body, but the RfC is clearly about the body too (check the text here [75]).
I contacted Selfstudier on their talk page asking them to self-revert [76] but they said this wasn't edit warring [77], asking me to re-read the RfC (which I read, and is clearly on the body too) and threatened to report me for making a 'false accusation'. Then they went on to remove our discussion from the page [78].
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.
When that suggestion was not taken up, I prepared a suitable paragraph and posted it at the RFC with the intention of adding it to the article body and which I subsequently did. Any editor could have done this at any time nor was this edit warring, as reporting editor complained of at my talk, because the material that Huldra had previously added to the article was completely different and was added to the lead not to the article body.
When my addition was reverted, I reverted on the basis that the RFC was about adding a link to the lead and not about adding relevant material to the body. Thus, I made precisely one revert, which is not edit warring. In my subsequent !vote, I then indicated option 2 and specified where in the lead the link should be placed. I didn't go ahead and add that link because from my perspective, that is what the RFC is actually about and what RFC opener had actually tried to do initially.
I have no idea what the POV pushing allegation is about, seems reporting editor is simply padding their report. If they think those accusations have any merit, then I would suggest they include them with proper evidence at the current ARBCOM case, where I am a named party. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to comment on the examples given concerning previous possible POV pushing
Genocide of indigenous peoples - The first RFC results were "no consensus" with the closing words: "Our policy on WP:NOCONSENSUS provides further guidance on what to do in situations like this."WP:NOCONSENSUS says "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.", so Selfstudier was correct to revert to the status quo, which was inclusion.
I apologise for having no time right now for an indepth analysis, but when I first saw this I assumed it was Selfstudier bringing this here. So far as I know the 0revert imposed upon ABHammad by User:Barkeep49 still remains in place. Doug Wellertalk17:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that, if ABHammad believes that this is evidence of misconduct, it should be entered as evidence at the current ArbCom case. I do not see anything of such urgency that we would need to consider stepping in rather than letting that process run its course. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sectionsbut should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
I'm indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict for creating the Rapid Response Unit (Israel) (a translation of its Origin[he]) when I had approximately 460 edits with no WP:ECR permission.I was subsequently blocked for 3 months due to my edit here, as ScottishFinnishRadish claimed it was a violation of my TBAN.
My edit involved correcting the nationality of Yoav Gallant and Benjamin Netanyahu to indicate they are Israeli nationals, not Palestinian nationals. My intentions and the edit itself were not related to the conflict but rather focused on accurately representing their nationality.It appears that my edit was reverted 3 hours later (here) by TRCRF22 because the table in question is not about personnels and their nationality but rather about personnels and the countries that the ICC's investigations concerned. This proves a misunderstanding on my part regarding the table's purpose, as I would not have edited in this area if I'd understood it correctly.Approximately 10 hours after the revert, I was blocked for 3 months. IdanST (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were previously blocked twice for ECR violations, with two failed appeals, then topic banned for ECR violations, permission gaming, and NPOV issues. This block was made after violating that topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
You regret editing against your topic ban because you made an error in the edit. This gives me little confidence you would abide by the topic ban if you see future errors. I'm not seeing sufficient reason to grant the appeal. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this illustrates very well why a topic ban means to not edit in the restricted area at all. If IdanST thinks that making an error is the problem, then I would decline this appeal. Don't edit anything that even seems close to the line. Go edit articles about chemical compounds, or Spanish literature, or medieval architecture, or any of the myriad of other subjects that aren't about Israel and Palestine. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IdanST, you cannot go anywhere near the topic, including not to make edits you think are correcting errors. You cannot discuss the topic anywhere, including leaving barnstars. When you are topic banned, you need to go edit somewhere else completely. From your user talk and your failed appeals, it seems clear you don't understand what a topic ban means. We tried to give you an opportunity to learn how to edit outside of a contentious topic, which is a terrible place to learn, and you didn't take advantage of that opportunity. I can't support an appeal right now. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
14:53, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb removes the same material from the article again with edit summary "Stop using sources that are antisemitic. The statement is false."
15:15, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb removes the same material again with edit summary "This is garbage. If we have to discuss whether to remove something that's obviously antisemitic, then something's wrong."
15:34, 6 December 2024 I left a message on their talk advising them that they had violated active arbitration remedies in regards to compulsory BRD on the article and request they take more care (it turns out that they'd violated 1RR and enforced BRD twice)
16:42, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb leaves a comment on my talk "I'm sorry, but if you're going to use that as an excuse to justify not doing anything about what is obvious antisemitism, then something's wrong with you. Many of those sources are antisemitic propaganda, if not all of them."
17:10, 6 December 2024 comments at Talk:Zionism "No, it's not. Israel is not engaging in ethnic cleansing. That is pro-Hamas antisemitic propaganda used to distract from the truth."
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15:21, 6 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I tried to be helpful and request that they take more care in the future and obviously this editor is not here to be a net positive. Of note, one of the sections of text that they were removing has the script <!-- The following text is the result of consensus on the talk page. Changes to the text have been challenged and any further edits to the sentence should be discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained to change.--> just before it.TarnishedPathtalk12:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update, since the filling of this report Mk8mlyb has made the following comments on his and Selfstudier's talk:
Following on from M.Bitton's statement below, this topic area already has enough heat in it without having editors wading in and weaponising accusations of antisemitism. TarnishedPathtalk04:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
OK, so I got here after a brief discussion, and so I'd like to ask again: what did I do wrong? I'm trying to remove what is clearly antisemitic content and propaganda. I'm just trying to tell the truth. Zionism is not about clearing the land of Palestinian Arabs, at least not the mainstream type. And the sources I removed are from a guy who has demonstrated antisemitism and justified the October 7 massacre. I read the article I was given and it explains that Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased because of the variety among its users and to promote critical thinking. It seems that using an antisemite who justified a terrorist attack as a credible source, especially over sources that debunk his claims, goes against that. If you're willing to defend antisemitic content that violates the site's neutral point of view for the sake of procedure, that says more about you than me. And even if it didn't, presenting a neutral point of view does not mean ignoring basic facts and showing a false balance between facts and lies. I want an explanation for this. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? I didn't say that. I basically said that my edit was in line with the site's guidelines. The fact that you won't even explain what I did wrong and write me off as a bad guy is just dumb. If you have a good explanation for this that doesn't involve antisemitism, I'd be happy to hear it. I am here to be a net positive, it's just that people don't like what I think that involves. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are Wikipedia's standards on what is antisemitic? Because whatever they are, the result has been a swarm of anti-Israel bias. Article after article slams Israel, from accusing it of human rights abuses such as denying water and food, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, to outright genocide, to even comparing it to Nazi Germany, none of which are closely true. Losing a war is not genocide, and it's Hamas that started the war when they invaded Israel and killed hundreds of innocent Jewish people. Israel has repeatendly sent food and aid to Gaza and the West Bank to help the Palestinians, and it's Hamas that has repeatedly stolen the aid for its own selfish gains. Israel consistently put their own soldiers in danger to protect the Palestinians from their attacks on schools and mosques where Hamas hides its rockets and missiles. Look, I don't mind showing the suffering of the Palestinians and criticizing the Israeli government. Israel is not perfect. But to act like there are fine people on both sides of Israel and Hamas is a false balance. This is not American politics, where both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the situation. It's not both sides, and Israel is in the right to defend itself against genocidal terrorists. If Wikipedia is to truly maintain its credibility and commitment to facts and a neutral point of view, it needs to fix the articles to show these facts. But we're not. And that's the problem. You're probably wondering why I'm bringing this up here when I should have brought it up on the talk page, and I guess you'd be right. I probably could have handled this a little better. But my point still stands. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I guess I can see the issue. But I have to say, if the rules allow such bias to permeate through the articles of the Arab-Israeli conflict, then the rules have to be changed. And I am not acting on media misinformation or social media. I did some research on my own. Also, it's not just about one sentence or source. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? You haven't even fully explained what the problem is. I'm not here to cause trouble. If you give me a chance I'll back off and let it be. Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it. I was wrong to edit the sentence against consensus and without checking the rules. I'm not doubling down. But I do have a source proving that the writer in question defended the October 7 massacre:[1]Mk8mlyb (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment by Mk8mlyb says it all. Not only do they not recognize the issues with their editing, but they are insisting that they are right and everyone else is wrong (or pro antisemitism, to be precise). A topic ban will probably prevent them from digging themself into a bigger hole. M.Bitton (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me struggling to connect the words to the actions? There are 14 sources cited. What is the specific meaning of the statement "the sources I removed are from a guy who has demonstrated antisemitism and justified the October 7 massacre"? Why is the editor at that specific article out of 6,920,655 articles editing that specific sentence in such a seemingly bizarre way detached from policy? Have their actions been caused by external factors like misinformation in the media, social media commentary etc.? If they have an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, they should probably not be editing an encyclopedia, let alone articles in a contentious topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, Mk8mlyb, let's assume for the sake of argument that all statements after 'Because whatever they are...' are the case. It still doesn't explain or justify your actions, actions that resulted in this AE report, removal of a statement with 14 sources. Wikipedia claims to be a rules-based system. It looks like your actions, regardless of any larger scale patterns that may or may not exist in Wikipedia's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, are inconsistent with the rules. That seems to be the issue. Can you see it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor shows no sign of acknowledging fault or of understanding what editing within the rules requires. This (false) BLP violation would justify action all by itself. Besides that, it's about time that administrators cracked down on casual accusations of antisemitism, which are becoming more and more common. Zerotalk04:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I'd like to see if Mk8mlyb recognizes the issues with their editing and will commit to not doing that anymore so we can leave this with a logged warning, or if we'll end up at a topic ban. I looks like all of their problematic editing in the topic has happened just in the past day so I'm willing to go with a just a warning if some understanding is displayed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that a warning is sufficient here. Mk8mlyb has, I think, been presented here with the problems with their editing, and instead of taking that on board has just doubled down. I think all a warning does is see us right back here, probably sooner rather than later. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mk8mlyb is doubling down, which makes it difficult to avoid imposing a topic ban. They are fairly new, so may be able to demonstrate they can learn from feedback outside of the topic area and appeal in due course. To answer their questions: Antisemitism has no place on Wikipedia, but well-sourced content critisizing the current government of Israel is not antisemitism. If there are sources that are of insufficient quality, please do bring this up on talk when challenged, but don't WP:edit war over it: the topic area is sufficiently contentious as is. A more serious issue is the unsourced claim that some writer defended the October 7 massacre per WP:BLPREMOVE. You should never add contentious material about a living person without a source anywhere on Wikipedia. Just to note they also edit in line with their own interpretation rather than sources in different topic areas [85]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, this user made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. example,contribs log during the time period A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th, about 325 by my very rough count. They stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. Granted at 16h00, final edit of the day at 16h03 They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. They now have over 1,400 edits. Since then they have focused almost entirely on the PIA space, but have dedicated some time to the invasion of Ukraine. In the Russian invasion space, they've concerned themselves with making sure that a pro-Russian narrative is represented. [86][87] They appear in Billedmammal (talk·contribs)'s ARBPIA statistics broadsheet, which shows their edits as being 100% in PIA for the remainder of 2023 and 75% PIA for 2024. I sought input from SFR before making this report, because I see deeper implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023.
I have not interacted with this user, beyond notifying them of this report.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 Oct 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 8 May 2024 (same incident as the warning).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Re: Liz's comment, I was unsure whether this was stale given that their further edits would put them over EC by now, though likely not without counting the PIA-related edits. This was why I asked SFR on his talk page first, who advised me that there likely wasn't a stale period for permission gaming. I haven't tried to assess recent content or conduct beyond a brief look at the Russia/Ukraine related edits. Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Since this editor now has about 1400 edits, if those edits had been gaming, they would be EC by now without them. I'm not sure how we assess possible gaming from over a year ago. Are there recent edits that concern you? I'd like to see what admins who frequent ARE think about this case. LizRead!Talk!21:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Liz said, they'd be well over EC by now anyway. I'm really not inclined to go over stuff dredged up from a year ago unless there's been actual misconduct since then (and then it would be the more recent misconduct that would concern me). It evidently wasn't enough of a concern for anyone to raise in a timely fashion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
