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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Clean Copy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPS WP:ARBCAM

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

1. [2] 31 January 2022 Whitewashing Rudolf Steiner's pseudoscience ("termed" instead of "are pseudoscientific" or "he was a peddler of rank pseudoscience")
2. [3] and [4] 30 January 2022: removing mention of Rudolf Steiner's pseudoscience.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [5]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have also reported the edit warring to WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to Clean Copy that a term does not have to be mentioned verbatim in order to fulfill WP:V requirements (the term termed isn't present in any of the cited RS, either). And if he still does not see why Steiner's ideas are rank pseudoscience, maybe one of us is in the wrong place. I mean: he does not have to agree with the mainstream view, just acknowledge the mainstream view for what it is. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information that Steiner was a rank pseudoscientist is spread in various Wikipedia articles, but till now never got centralized at Rudolf Steiner. See e.g. [6]. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clean Copy: I did not edit war against termed or described. I would very much prefer are, but I will follow the consensus. And, yes, one can like or dislike Steinerian architecture, but that's a matter of taste, not an objective judgment. Also, at your 30 January edits, the Dugan reference had 3 (three) pages mentioned for verification. Of course, Google Books only shows one page. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

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.

User:Tgeorgescu's original insertion of the text "He was also a peddler of rank pseudoscience" used a citation that linked to a specific page that said only, "Effects of the preparation have been verified scientifically." This clearly did not support the claim. It did not occur to me that the link he inserted (which was to page 32) was not to the page he meant to cite (page 31).

Once the page reference was clarified, and further citations were added, I modified the language from "a peddler of rank pseudoscience," in which "peddler" and "rank" were loaded terms supported by no citation, and a clear violation of WP:EPSTYLE, to "His ideas have been termed pseudoscientific," which is clearly accurate and less strident. I am certainly open to other language that reflects the tone and content of the citations and appropriate to an encyclopedia.

There has been no violation of WP:3RR, for example; I just made these two changes. Clean Copy^talk 03:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been comments about my reference to ""Anthroposophy's uses of Goethean science "have been verified scientifically.""

I want to clarify that User:Tgeorgescu linked specifically to this page in his citation. The page's only text relevant to Steiner's scientific status was this quote. It appeared such a flagrant misuse of a source that I quoted the actual text from the page he had cited. I would never have used such a source myself (I don't feel that popular works are particularly good sources, particularly when the authors of their articles are not recognized authorities in any relevant field). I genuinely had no idea that he had linked to a different page than the one he intended.

I also want to point out that a vast range of serious work from verifiable sources is cited in the article; Steiner's work in education, philosophy, social reform, and many other areas is not remotely treated as pseudoscientific. To ignore this is one-sided. I do feel the statement, which I put in once there were more sources than the above, that "His ideas have been termed pseudoscientific" reflects that there is a wide range of opinion here.

I also want to note that a topic ban based on a single edit removing a statement that admins agree was flagrantly in violation of the tone of an encyclopedia is a remarkably harsh response. Clean Copy^talk 11:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More a detail than a statement, I noticed Clear Copy recently when assessing the state of some related articles after a notice at FTN. My comment is to share these links in relation to a conflict of interest: 1, 2 (agreed 6-0 by ARBCOM at the time in 2006). —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone not aware, the Clean Copy account was formerly named Hgilbert, and has a long history of strongly biased pro-Steiner editing.[8]

• I have posted to WT:A/R and note that Alexbrn's comment that Clean Copy formerly edited as Hgilbert is confirmed.
• There were adverse findings of fact against Hgilbert in the 2006 ArbCom case ArbCom case Waldorf Education that included a finding of biased editing of the Rudolf Steiner article. Though this was a long time ago, it is relevant background when considering allegedly problematic / biased editing of the same article. It is also another remedy under which action might be considered and Clean Copy is aware of this case as a party to it.
• ArbCom are presently considering a motion regarding the utility of DS in the Waldorf Education topic, where editors might like to offer their perspectives.
• Anticipating any concerns: Yes, I have an account that I have stopped using. No, I was not involved in the Waldorf Education ArbCom case. No, I don't recall any interactions with Hgilbert / Clean copy, though I do believe that pseudoscience topics needs to reflect scientific reality. Further, I offer no comment on Clean Copy's edits... I am simply noting that, as Hgilbert, there were specific ArbCom findings in a previous case relating to the same article. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This edit is an extremely misleading misuse of the source cited. It added a statement that "Anthroposophy's uses of Goethean science "have been verified scientifically."" Although the source is the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Volume 1, that phrase is taken from an extract from the website of the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, which the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience quotes to illustrate what proponents of biodynamic agriculture believe. Nor is the phrase taken from the section on Goethean science but from the section on Biodynamics on the same page. Clean Copy then removed a statement that Steiner's ideas are considered pseudoscience, using this quote to argue that Steiner's work has been scientifically verified, rather than that the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association doesn't think that biodynamic farming is pseudoscience. This does look like tenacious promotion of a fringe theory to me. Hut 8.5 19:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I sympathise with Clean Copy's opinion that "peddler of rank pseudoscience", stated in Wikipedia's voice, is overly strident phrasing. It shouldn't be in the article. However, Clean Copy's own misuse of the source, which Hut 8.5 describes, is hair-raising. It's very difficult to believe it was perpetrated in good faith. I recommend a topic ban from, at the least, Rudolf Steiner and anthrosophy, broadly construed. Bishonen | tålk 22:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• You would think after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education Clean Copy would be much more careful in this topic area. I support a topic ban here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am in broad agreement with Bishonen's analysis. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2022 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Clayoquot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

71.114.58.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

1. January 14 BLP violation
2. Jan 26 BLP violation that was revision-deleted by Drmies
3. Feb 2 BLP violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I filed a complaint about this user at WP:AIV; it was declined because the user's last warning was "stale". I requested protection for Steven Salaita and Steven Salaita hiring controversy at WP:RFPP; nothing was done because an administrator said there hadn't been enough disruptive activity to justify protection. I filed a complaint about this user at AN/I and the only outcome was that Drmies deleted some of this user's edits. So I am wondering how long this has to go on for before we do something to prevent this user from making further BLP violations. For the record, I do not personally agree with the views of Steven Salaita, but we have BLP standards that should be upheld.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

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.

• Hard to enforce DS with an ip, so I decided to be creative. The IP address is listed as dynamic, but a look at the contribs says it is remarkably stable (mine at the house hasn't changed in years either, so it happens). I have blocked the IP for 6 months as a standard admin action. I left a template on the IPs page to this effect. If they come back with another IP, we may look at semi-protecting the pages. Leaving this report open in case any admin wants to opine or change my actions, which I'm open to. Otherwise, any admin can just close it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:30, 3 February 2022 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kleinpecan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

207.47.175.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19

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

1. Special:Diff/1022910385: soapboxing about COVID-19 lockdowns with a reference to  The Epoch Times (RSP entry); no relevance to the GBD
2. Special:Diff/1022931757: "... in this article there is no science, just opinion from people who either are erring on the side of overabundant caution of authoritarian origin, or who are grinding axes in an effort to justify same."
3. Special:Diff/1023681990: "In its place, so-called 'reputable sources' made up a fiction that a few dozen questionable signatures taint[] all 10's of thousands of signatures, which clearly is a biased POV ... The cost benefit for the fear mongering of the CDC, whose story changes as each abundance of caution POV is show[n] bogus on a nearly daily basis, is devastating people's lives."
4. Special:Diff/1024964885: "OK, the CPSO, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, whose job it is to license physicians in Ontario, Canada, has issued a dictatorial decree prohibiting discussion of anything that does not agree with their ruinous POV. ... Perhaps those who risk their careers by disagreeing with your authoritarian POV persuades you of nothing ... I am speaking up and occur a risk of being canceled. I hope for your sake you do not get what your are [sic] wishing for, a dictatorship wherein your neighbor can turn you in for 'counterrevolutionary ideas.'" This comment was removed by Hob Gadling for soapboxing. The IP has restored it and removed some parts but instead twice accused Hob Gadling of censorship.
5. Special:Diff/1025472252: "Moreover, sources like Google and YouTube censor content and demote Covid therapies that do not agree with their biased political goals, so you cannot take any sources as unbiased without investigating policy for those sources. ... Hiding behind biased sources promoting fiction does not establish your POV as either common or more importantly real."
6. Special:Diff/1025486875: "That statement [referring to the CPSO's "dictatorial decree"] is reminiscent of the reaction of the authors on this website: Totalitarianism with no descent [sic] acknowledged."
7. Special:Diff/1069878899: "You should follow the money for the critics of the GBD if you want to see special interests. What I do not see here is any discussion of epidemiology and quarantine ... Failing that, there is no scientific content in this post. ... this post is just axe-grinding."
8. Special:Diff/1069907948: complaint about the article's lack of "discussion of epidemiological models for disease"; no relevance to the GBD
9. Special:Diff/1069926124: "The argument that SARS-CoV-1 has nothing to tell us about SARS-CoV-2 merely because it predates a politically charged discussion steeped in ad hominem bias is farfetched. ... You are badgering me by quoting rules of evidence that are irrelevant [referring to Alexbrn's and Slatersteven's note that the IP is engaging in synthesis]."
10. Special:Diff/1070324389: complaint about Wikipedia's description of The Epoch Times as far-right; no relevance to the GBD

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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

Special:Diff/1069927988.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1070719792.

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.

• Dynamic IP but very stable. Discussions are sometimes heated, but on topic with sources backing the claims. Not editing article, just talk page. A bit on the WP:FORUM side but not overly so, the same as others, and it all applies to the article. Fairly civil, even if a bit snippy sometimes (then, so am I). They aren't trolling, others are engaging them. Total of 7 comments in the last few days, which isn't excessive. Annoying? Probably, but I'm not sure this rises to a level that justifies WP:AE action at this time. Minority opinions are welcomed if the editor is reasonable. I wouldn't recommend any action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 8 February 2022 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ali Ahwazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ypatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#RfC moderation

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

1. 15 May 2019 A now-banned user adds a section
2. 17 December 2021 The content is removed after 2.5 years
3. Here I and Vice Regent say that the removal of this old content needs consensus building. In truth, we say the user wasn't banned at the time that he added the content. Ypatch and The Dream Boat (outed himself to be a meatpuppet) say it ought to be removed due to the user. Ypatch keeps repeating that the content is added by a now banned user and hence should be removed. He edit wars against other users over this [11], [12], [13].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 10 December 2019 Ypatch blocked for edit warring on an IRANPOL article.
2. 27 April 2020 Topic banned from IRANPOL articles broadly construed, for 3 months.

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

• He knows there were some decisions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ypatch ought to create consensus for removing the old content, but instead of that, he is railroading other users by beginning a wrong RFC and I told him this. The user has reverted other users three times while he only commented once in talk about the dispute. AFAIK, because the content has been there since 2019 and the user adding the content had no problems at that time, Ypatch needed to make consensus before removing the section. Instead of that, he says inserting the content needs consensus. He has opened a RFC for insertion of the content while the RFC ought to be for removal of the content.

Mr @Vanamonde93:: But the first line Wikipedia:Silence and consensus reads that "Consensus can be presumed to exist until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." That content was there for 2 and a half year. More than one month later after Kazemita entered the content, Stefka (now banned) only changed the title of the section. So the consensus existed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I informed/notified the mentioned user Here

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.

I really don't want to get involved in this, but even those in favor of having this content in the article are saying the content needs improvements. Ypatch (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too trigger tempted with the revert button, but i did not violate 3RR and Ali Ahwazi and Vice regent both reverted a few times too, yet they are reporting me for reverting (Vice regent received a warning in the recent ArbCom case for battleground behavior in this area). I opened the RFC hoping to solve the issue (about content that we ALL agree needs improving). Ypatch (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I agree that consensus is achieved through discussion, but I don't believe Ypatch's behavior has been constructive.

• I proposed a compromise version on 15:50, 24 December 2021 and again on 20:47, 27 January 2022. Ypatch didn't respond to either one.
• On January 27, I gave 4 policy-based reasons: (1) allegations are WP:DUE because they were made by multiple organizations, multiple journalists and covered in 11 secondary reliable newspapers[14], (2) Ypatch's proposed text was a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, (3) that one of the sources in this text was quoted incorrectly, hence a violation of WP:V, and (4) that another source was not WP:RS[15]. Ypatch didn't respond to any of these 4 arguments, but continued to edit war on January 28[16].
• In fact, while Ypatch has reverted 3 times, they have made just two comments relating to this content. When you spend more time reverting than discussing, it's not a good sign.
• You credited Ypatch for starting an RfC, but Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Arbcom found that past RfCs attempted "to railroad preferred changes". Given that neither Ypatch nor Bahar have responded to my Jan 27 policy based objections (even though both visited the article on Jan 29), it does seem like voting is being used as a substitute for discussion.

Other examples of Ypatch's recent unconstructive engagement:

• This discussion: I gave alternative English names of PMOI/MEK in the "Names" section, but was reverted. So I provided 25 RS in support (yes, 25!!) and gave ngram evidence that suggested one of these names may have been the most popular until the 1980s. The evidence was strong enough that it convinced not just Ghazaalch but also an uninvolved user[17]. But Ypatch opposed this[18] in a vague comment, not addressing any of the evidence above.
• I added a very relevant image, but Ypatch reverted it[19]. Ypatch insinuated a copyright violation[20] but the image's copyright is just fine. Ypatch tried to have the image deleted at Commons, but an administrator there found Ypatch's attempt "politically motivated"[21][22]. After Mario restored the image[23], Ypatch invoked WP:CRP[24].
• Another example: on Jan 28, Ypatch claims "You haven't explained what is wrong with my summarisation", yet I gave a detailed explanation right above on Jan 15. This is WP:IDHT.

Ypatch's behavior is demoralizing. I spend hours in crafting a thoughtful response (researching, wordsmithing proposals etc), only to be ignored, reverted and stonewalled.VR _talk 17:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Ypatch shouldn't edit-war, but participation in a single brief edit war that hasn't breached the 3RR isn't sufficient to bring to WP:AE, especially when the filer also participated. It is also true that the text is longstanding; it was created (shortly) before the editor's other account was banned, so WP:BANREVERT doesn't apply, and we don't automatically revert someone's contributions just because they were later banned. But the article is extremely low-traffic, so even though the text has been there for a year it's also reasonable to conclude that it doesn't have a strong consensus behind it - at least not to the point of rushing to AE to defend that extremely low level of implicit consensus. Also, it is absolutely not the case that text is required to be left untouched while discussions or an RFC is ongoing, so Ypatch's reverts are at least not a violation of the specific RFC moderation sanction mentioned. But honestly everyone would benefit from worrying less about conduct at this stage and focusing more on content and the underlying dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VR and AA edit warred too, but it seems that if one doesn't agree with VR's version proposals then to him that's something that should be brought to AE. That seems like "civil battleground mentality", which apparently he has been warned to stop doing already[25]. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• When will the lot of you learn that what you should be focusing on is discussing content, and not procedural wikilawyering about what version should exist while an RfC is under way? The content was added by a user subsequently banned. You've not provided any evidence that it had consensus at the time it was inserted; indeed, the page history suggests it didn't. As such, it requires consensus to be placed in the article. Yes, Ypatch is edit-warring, and he should be less trigger-happy with the revert button, but he's not the only one guilty of reverting before discussing, and he did in fact start the RfC, which was the right thing to do. In case anyone reading this decides I'm somehow favorably disposed toward Ypatch, I'll note that I have sanctioned him before for battleground conduct, of which I'm seeing plenty from several different users. I would close this with a warning to all parties about battleground conduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ali Ahwazi: You're missing the point, and repeating what I told you not to do. All content in an article requires consensus, and consensus is primarily built by discussion. The content in question has never had consensus reached via discussion, and as such there's no excuse not to discuss it. Under the circumstances, how long it's been in the article cannot change the need for discussion. It's only relevant to the status of the article while discussion takes place, which, as I've said, is a procedural matter, and not what the lot of you should be spending your energies on. We had a whole ARBCOM case about this; editors in the area who were not parties to that case would do well to read it, and not repeat the problematic behaviors identified there (this goes for both of you, and anyone else involved in this dispute). Please go discuss the substance of the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vice regent: I am seeing sub-par behavior from several parties, none of which quite rises to sanctionable behavior. Everyone involved could afford to engage more substantively with the sources, and to rely less on procedural objections, as I have said. I'm not going to go deeper into the history than the evidence provided here; I've spent what energy I have for it already. If another admin chooses to levy sanctions, I will not stand in the way, but as is par for the course here, the walls of text discourage anyone uninvolved from commenting. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bahar1397:, what's most concerning about your post is that you've come here to complain about Vice_regent, with no information that hasn't been posted here already, despite your involvement in this dispute being restricted to a single RfC comment, and no other engagement in the topic area in the last six months. Enforcement options exist for when behavioral problems disrupt ordinary consensus-building. I don't see much evidence of you attempting to engage in the substance of this dispute. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Less than ideal situation, like so many. I don't see a need for action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless an admin comments to the contrary in the next 24 hours, I'm very likely to close with no action. Assuming another admin doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict, imposed here:

User_talk:Iskandar323/Archive_1#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Palestine-Israel_articles

Administrator imposing the sanction

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Diff notifying the imposing administrator. (NB: They are now inactive and a former administrator.)

I would like the length of my topic ban to be modified on the basis that the enforcement process was interfered with by Icewhiz socks. While I understand and accept my fault in the matter, I think the length of my TBAN is worth reconsidering in light of the latest round of Icewhiz SPI revelations (those involving Eostrix), which subsequently saw the account that launched the enforcement appeal, 11Fox11, and the two supporting accounts, Geshem Bracha and Free1Soul, blocked as Icewhiz socks. Upon my appeal to Callanecc, the administrator who imposed the TBAN, they agreed that based on these SPI revelations there may be scope for a modification of the ban's length. In their last active edit on Wikipedia, Callanecc noted their willingness to reconsider the length of the ban "as no longer necessary (based on constructive editing) after 3 months from when it was imposed (so towards the end of December)". Unfortunately, Callanecc no longer appears to be active and recently had their administrator "CU" permissions revoked. However, in accordance with Callanecc's suggestion, I would now present as evidence of my constructiveness in the subsequent three months my elevation of an article to GA status [26], two DYK credits [27][28] various new pages [29][30][31] (among others) and a confirmed SPI case [32]. Thank you in advance for reviewing my appeal. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: I don't see diffs made prior to the arbitration enforcement action in September (when I acknowledged certain issues with my understanding of process and my tone) as particularly pertinent to this appeal, which is based on the issue of sock involvement and my subsequent constructive editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde: Hi, I meant I understand my clear violation of the 1RR restrictions in place at the time, which was the reason for both AEs - in both instances because I was fairly rusty on Wikipedia and the stringent and broadly interpreted nature of the rules and discretionary sanctions in conflict areas, and blithely ran afoul of the parts about full/partial reverts, same or different material, etc., even when I thought (quite incorrectly) that I knew what I was doing. But also, in pushing up against what I thought were the limits of the 1RR restrictions, my editing also demonstrated a degree of impatience and impetuousness that was hardly a model of the preferred BRD approach to differences of opinion (even if, as is possible, I was intentionally bated into the whole situation by the socks). In any case, all of this was me 5,000 edits back. I would like to think I am at least a little wiser now, a little more patient and understanding of the need to let edits breath, and hopefully far less likely to allow myself to be drawn into situations that prove to be a waste of time for all involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Iskandar323

• If someone points to you that you violated the policy do you still think[33],[34] its "drive-by disruption" and failing to assume AGF ?
• Do you still there are users that are antagonists [35]?
• Do you think this edit was ok [36] and why?
• It seems you recently received a warning about falling to assume WP:AGF [37] you have deleted the warning[38] could you please explain what happened? --Shrike (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2022 (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.

• Callanecc still has the admin bit, they just haven't been active in a few months. And yes, on their talk page, they did seem very willing to consider modifying the tban after a few months of positive editing. I have not reviewed enough to have an opinion, but wanted to clear that one item up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is tough. Your history over the last few months has had a couple of bumps (as Shrike points out) and the circumstances of the original tban was complicated by socks, but it's only been a few months. Given Callanecc's comments, and a fairly decent (but imperfect) civility record, I'm leaning towards a change is duration to "time served", but I really want more input from other admin, for a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me restate my above comment: I'm not going to act unilaterally to lift or deny this ban. I would request another admin look at this. I'm on the fence, so I'm guessing I wouldn't find a fault in whatever they decided because it is a close call, imho. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm fine with that Vanamonde93, and in fact, feel better about it since their last statement. I agree on your solution, and will move out of the way so you can do the paperwork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be amenable to lifting this in principle, but I'm not entirely convinced by the appeal. Iskandar, you say you "understand and accept my fault in the matter", but neither here nor in the previous AE action do I see explicit indication of what that means. I don't expect you to grovel—that's unproductive—but what is going to be different going forward, aside from the absence of Icewhiz socks? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Iskandar, thank you for that. Given the above statement, and the involvement of the Icewhiz socks, I would be willing to shorten the TBAN to time served; i.e., not overturned on the merits, but lifted moving forward. Dennis Brown, I'd like to check that you're okay with this, and if so, I'll likely close this discussion soon; it's been open for a while. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 11 February 2022 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Armatura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. 19:49, 16 January 2022 pushes outrageous website EPRESS.AM to prove his point that "even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons" for Agdam. The fact the "article" does not even have an author, that it is copy paste of unknown person's delusionary Facebook post, that it contains passages like "nomadic barbarian-vampires" and "they deserve this, I have f****d the city and the Turks' mother" about Azerbaijanis and that the whole website is a trash can with no editorial oversight or domain registration details, full of extreme profanity like "caught when jerking" or "I'd f***ed your mothers" does not worry Grandmaster. He does not want to hear, and keeps beating the dead horse again and again, and once again in ANI, by saying  he just “quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too.” , then accusing me for “making so much drama over one news link posted at a talk page, and bringing it to this board.” Such an "article" with racial remarks towards Azeris/Turks would not be normally tolerated another time, yet since it supports his “even Armenian media uses Hiroshima” POV, he isn’t bothered.
2. 17:02, 16 January 2022 Grandmaster turns a blind eye on pro-Azeri propaganda; he won't see why Azerbaijani president's aid Hikmet Hajijev's "this is Hiroshima" phrase applied to literally all cities damaged in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, in front of BBC camera, constitutes propaganda; on the contrary, he justifies it by saying it is because every settlement in 7 districts that were under Armenian occupation "looks like Hiroshima... What is propaganda here?"... and "BBC report shows the town of Jabrayil that looks like another, smaller Hiroshima".
3. 13 January 2022Grandmaster uses double standards, putting undue weight on "Armenianness" of the source, giving it undue weight, by downplaying Armenian village head's quote about Azeri president origin despite it was cited by neutral RS", or overplaying it like in Epress.am example above, depending on what better suits POV-pushing.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. En Wiki block log previous 10 blocks in English Wikipedia, mostly in AA topic
2. Ru Wiki block log previous 10 blocks in Russian Wikipedia, again mostly in AA topic
3. 29 May 2010 RU AE case - 6-month ban on Russian Wikipedia for leading the meatpuppetry Anti-Armenian group of a dozen Azerbaijani editors, some of which still support Grandmaster in discussions on English Wikipedia.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Grandmaster has veteran experience of POV-pushing with extensive history of blocks in Armenia-Azerbaijan topic in two Wikipedias. The provided diffs are just a few recent examples to show he has not changed but learned how to avoid bans by WP:CPUSH-ing as shown in diffs above. I think he is there not as much as to build encyclopedia, but to advance official Azerbaijan' positions on Wikipedia, in a nationalist mood, prohibited by WP:ADVOCACY. He is apparently unable contribute neutrally in topics he has ethnic conflict of interest with, hence I believe a topic ban from AA area, broadly construed (including Turkey and Turkic world), for at least 1 year, is required to help to sober him up, while allowing him to edit in topics he does not have conflict of interest with. I was advised by admins Rosguill and Robert McClenon to take the case from ANI to AE, and so I did.

UPDATE 25.01.2022 Grandmaster worryingly changed his replies here

1. 00:49, 24 January 2022
2. 01:18, 24 January 2022
3. 01:31, 24 January 2022
4. 15:15, 24 January 2022
5. 16:43, 24 January 2022
6. 10:17, 25 January 2022
7. 18:16, 25 January 2022

When this violation of talk page guidelines was noted by an opponent, he resented till another user notes the violation

Worryingly, Grandmaster now glorifies Epressa.am as a reliable example of Armenian media, to prove a point, despite what he refers to is not even an article by a journalist but a text of an unknown person' Facebook rave with an attention seeking FRINGE title “Did we (Armenians) drop hydrogen bomb on Agdam and Zangilan?”. Not sure about 2014 award, but that website is apparently hacked and vandalised, everyone can see the sheer random nonsense posted there: 1 2. --Armatura (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 29.01.22 Grandmaster, when the source is so obviously poor, it does not merit a discussion at WP:RS/P. WP:QUESTIONABLE sources are unsuitable for citing contentious claims (in article or talk page - does not matter) and minimal WP:COMPETENCE is required to see the obvious. The fact that you do not / choose not to see it after being on Wikipedia over a decade, your continued defence of that source even here, against all the evidence, is a sign of incompetence or inability to remain neutral in editing/discussing I am afraid. And what you call a "witch hunt" was a transfer of ANI discussion to AE, as advised by admins, that's all. --Armatura (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 02.02.2022 Many thanks for time and effort spent on evaluating this case, Rosguill and Ealdgyth. Are you happy to close it per your concensus? Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified on talk page by standart alert.

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 is already 4th report filed on me by Armatura. Such persistence in filing frivolous reports one after another indicates that this user is engaged in WP:Witchhunt. Previously Armatura joined now banned user Steverci to accuse me of various things, but that report was dismissed as retaliatory. [39] Then he filed a 3RR report on me [40], which was dismissed without action, and he did it when I reported a banned IP user, so it appears to be another retaliatory report. After that he filed a report on WP:ANI, asking to ban me: [41] So this is the report # 4, which for the most part repeats the report at WP:ANI.

Regarding Agdam, one can see that Armatura started the latest discussion by bringing up a BBC report that has no relevance to the city of Agdam, to support his claim that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" is used as propaganda by Azerbaijan (BBC says nothing like that, btw). But as was demonstrated by myself and other users, the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is used not just by Azerbaijan, but it was coined by British journalist and political analyst Thomas de Waal, and is used by mainstream international media such as Euronews, France24, AP, The independent, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. I quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too. I did not propose to include it into the article. In fact, Armatura's claiming that the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is propaganda after it was demonstrated that it originated outside of Azerbaijan and is used by media all over the world is tendentious editing in itself.

Then he accuses me of removing claims of an village head about late president of Azerbaijan allegedly concealing his place of birth for political reasons, but how qualified is a villager to make judgements about the motives of the Soviet leadership? Even if it is reported by a reliable source, it does not make the claims of a man in the street reliable or notable. But I only removed that line once, and when Armatura restored it, I left it at that. There was no edit war, or anything of the kind. I just tried to attract attention to questionability of that claim, per WP:BRD.

Regarding my blocks in en:wiki, as you can see, they are from 15 years ago, and incident at Russian wiki is from 12 years ago, and has nothing to do with en:wiki.

Per WP:Boomerang, I think the admins need to look at Armatura's own activity. Armatura repeatedly violated WP:AGF and WP:Civil, making personal attacks and incivil comments every time I try to have a polite discussion with him. For example, in his report at WP:ANI, he accuses me of having a "narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys"", which clearly is a bad faith assumption. In this report here, he accuses me of "advancing official Azerbaijan' positions on Wikipedia, in a nationalist mood", with no credible evidence whatsoever, which is again not in line with WP:AGF. How civil is it to write to another editor: do not test the patience of other editors with nonsense, it may be viewed as trolling? Here he told me: Because you simply refuse to understand when I explain anything, in a nihilistic fashion Bad faith assumption like this, when he accused me of not reacting to another user's erroneous closure of RFC, even though Armatura was explained by a Wikipedia admin that he cannot hold against someone not doing something: [42] Another bad faith assumption at the same page: [43] Here he demands from me "repentance", which he would "perhaps accept"? [44] As was noted by an uninvolved user at WP:ANI, Armatura WP:BLUDGEONs the discussion by arguing with my every vote and every comment, [45]. You may wish to check Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement and Talk:Agdam#RfC_for_"Hiroshima_of_Caucasus" to get the full picture of my interactions with this user.

Previously, Armatura was placed on interaction ban with another user: [46].

In sum, Armatura has difficulties with keeping it cool when engaging in discussions with other editors, which is why admins may wish to see if editing such a contentious topic as Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is something that he should be allowed to do. His behavior creates nervous and unhealthy atmosphere.

Rosguill, please note that I only cited epress.am once, at the talk page of Agdam. I made no further reference to that source. Every other mention was in response to Armatura, who brought it up again at his talk page and ANI. Also, the article was not nationalist, quite the contrary, it was critical of those people who made racist comments about Azerbaijani people and justified destruction of Azerbaijani cities. Armatura takes words out of context, but context is important. The author does not endorse racist attitudes, but protests them. Also, Wikipedia has no censorship, and profanity is not forbidden.

Regarding epress.am, it is certainly not a nationalist publication. Some information about them could be found here [47] [48] And here is an interview with its chief editor, who says that his publication is against nationalism, militarism, homophobia and violence. [49] It won Free Media Awards in 2014. [50] If you check English Wikipedia, it is used a lot in Armenia related articles. Grandmaster 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, epress was not proposed to be used as a reference in the article. It was only linked once at the talk page in the discussion, as an example of a term usage, and that news-site is used as a reference in dozens of articles about Armenia in Wikipedia. If it is not acceptable, the issue should be taken to WP:RSN, to designate it as deprecated, and stop its usage in Wikipedia. I don't think that a simple mention at talk is such a big issue as to demand someone to be banned or sanctioned. I changed some of my comments here to save space, as I was advised I need to keep it short. Grandmaster 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni:

1. 1st diff, which should be this, Billion was quoted by France24, a major French news outlet. [51] I used this quote on OSCE Minsk Group, not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him.
2. 2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about Lezgins, and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained.
3. 3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to be presented too, per WP:Balance. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made.

Additional comments.

1. 1st diff, Billion does not share Azerbaijani view, other international experts are also skeptical about future of the Minsk Group.
2. 2nd diff, I don't think Cornell is generally a good source here, as he is referring to private conversations with some people. But what he wrote about Talysh is there.
3. 3rd diff, EU parliament was already mentioned. Even if official Azerbaijani position is disputed, it still needs to be reflected, with attribution, according to the rules.

Grandmaster 17:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, you forgot to mention who brought up that source time after time at various places. Certainly not me. Grandmaster 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, it was actually me who suggested to stop arguing about that source right there, at talk of Agdam: [52] But Armatura kept taking it to various boards, and brought it up even at his own talk page, when I tried to discuss with him a technical issue. Grandmaster 16:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins may wish to look into ZaniGiovanni's own reverting activity today. He removed Didier Billion: [53], claiming that he was a genocide denier, even though the article has nothing to do with genocide, and Billion was interviewed by France24, major French news outlet. Normally, if you question general reliability of a source, WP:RSN is where you discuss it, and reach consensus with the community. Then he removed RFE/RL, which is a reliable source, claiming that he sees from photos that the mosques' roof is there: [54], when it clearly is not. If you compare photos #4 and #5 in RFE article, it is obvious that the metal hip roof is gone, plus he engages in WP:OR. Clearly POV edits. Grandmaster 16:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, it is clear from this picture taken before occupation that the triangular shaped metal roof is gone. Plus, you cannot engage in WP:OR and decide, what was and what was not removed. RFE/RL is a reliable source, and cannot be removed just because you disagree with it. Grandmaster 16:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, topic banning an editor for just posting a link to a talk page discussion is too harsh. And I don't think I held up author's "Armenian ethnicity as somehow equivalent to speaking for Armenians or Armenian sources". I just responded to the claim that the source was "ultra-nationalist", and tried to demonstrate that it was not. I edited Wikipedia for many years, and made tens of thousands of useful contributions, created many new articles. I don't think it is a proportional punishment for whatever I did wrong. Grandmaster 19:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, I think you do not understand why that argument was made. Armatura argued that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" was used only by Azerbaijani propaganda. But it was demonstrated by many users that it is used by mainstream Western media as well (please see comments at RFC there). I also pointed out that it was used by an Armenian reporter from IWPR, who cannot be engaged in pro-Azerbaijani propaganda. That is the only reason why the nationality of the reporters was mentioned, to demonstrate that they could not be a part of Azerbaijan's propaganda. I also pointed out nationalities of other sources, to show that the term originated and was used beyond Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 20:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, it is not about ethnic identity, but rather the fact that the source originates outside of Azerbaijan. I also mentioned nationality of British journalist Thomas de Waal, for example. But I did it just to show that the term used by sources outside of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 20:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, regarding epress, it was never used as a reference in the article, not it was proposed to be used. I only linked it once at the talk page discussion. I understand it could be a problem when unreliable pieces are used as references, but it was never my intention. I take the point that it is not a good quality source, and I will never make any mention of such sources anywhere. But a person can a make a mistake occasionally, I think. We are all human, after all. I don't think it is a adequate punishment to ban a log time editor with thousands of contributions for just one link posted at talk page. Grandmaster 20:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, once again, I did not defend epress, I only demonstrated here that it is not a nationalist source, as it was claimed. Grandmaster 20:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(clerking only, no comments on the merits)
Grandmaster, you are over the word limit by over 100 words. You need to trim it down a bit if you expect to reply again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Grandmaster 01:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok now, or more trimming needed? Grandmaster 01:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above, the limit is supposed to be 500 words total, which is often overlooked if you don't push it too far, but just be aware, that's all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a lot. Grandmaster 13:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ANI discussion, I was thinking wheter the suggested AE case would be opened or not, as there are other diffs of Grandmaster's POV pushing that weren't discussed. I believe as an involved party with the previous case, I should add my input. Some recent edits by Grandmaster that I believe weren't posted in either of noticeboards:

• diff 1 - Grandmaster adds Didier Billion as a source which supports Azerbaijani point-of-view. Billion is an Armenian genocide denier, (link). Billion trivializes genocide as "events" [55]. He's essentially a Turkish lobbiest, [56]. This isn’t the first time Grandmaster added an Armenian genocide denier as a source, see diff of him adding Christopher Gunn, another denialist.
• diff 2 - Huge WP:ALLEGED violation. Grandmaster removed any mention of the government falsifying records and just attributed it to belief.
• diff 3 - Grandmaster added WP:UNDUE Azerbaijani POV that a group of Armenian prisoners of war from 2020 Karabakh War were apparently a “saboteur group”. Even the Eurasianet source he cited casts a lot of doubt on them being labeled as saboteurs. It reveals one of the “saboteurs” is actually a civilian. And it also quotes an Armenian human rights activist saying they were taken as hostages. Yet another example of Grandmaster only citing what benefits his agenda and giving it a huge undue weight. Notable to add that the European Parliament source in the article states:
  • “whereas credible reports have been made that Armenian service personnel and civilians have also been taken prisoner since the cessation of hostilities on 10 November 2020; whereas the Azerbaijani authorities claim that these hostages and prisoners are terrorists and do not deserve POW status under the Geneva Convention;”
  • “whereas Azerbaijani forces detained these civilians even though there was no evidence that they posed any security threat that could justify their detention under international humanitarian law;”

I'm not an admin, I don't know what appropriate measures are against users in such cases. As someone involved in the ANI discussion, I wanted to share the problematic edits of Grandmaster I've noticed recently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st diff, which should be this, Billion was quoted by France24, a major French news outlet. [17] I used this quote on OSCE Minsk Group, not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him.

As I said, this isn't the first time you used "not Armenian genocide" defense when called out on your sources. You said the same thing about Christopher Gunn, another denialist, "This article is not about genocide". I struggle to understand how you don't get the point here, so I'll make an analogy: Do you think if someone is a holocaust denier, calls holocaust "events", says "JEWISH DIASPORA SHOULD LEAVE LIVING IN THE PAST” (he published an article about Armenian diaspora [57]), they can be considered credible on issues related to Jewish people?

I don't think so, but maybe you'll defend him again, as it seems like when your view is challenged, you go extra defensive missing the point entirely. And btw, unsurprisingly, Didier Billion takes the Turkish/Azerbaijani point of view regarding Minsk Group, and has articles published about himself and his views in pro-Turkish government paper Daily Sabah [58], denies the Armenian genocide, etc. Do you honestly not see the conflict of interest here?

• 2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about Lezgins, and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained.

2 sentences hardly counts as a "large unnecessary quote", this was a complete exaggeration by you used to embellish your point. The Lezgins part is there because in the next sentence, author directly makes the comparison to Talyshs, and how Azerbaijani government denies figures for both ethnic groups, "These figures are denied by the Azerbaijani government but in private many Azeris acknowledge the fact that Lezgins – for that matter Talysh or the Tat population of Azerbaijan is far higher than the official figure." (Cornell, Svante E. Small Nations and Great Powers. Routledge (UK), 2001. p.269). You also didn't explain why you attributed Cornell's words to “belief”.

• 3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to presented too, per WP:Balance. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made.

I re-checked the source you cited just to be clear, and have a couple of things to say. Firstly, that Eurasianet article concluded that the POWs even included a civilian among them, so the Azeri position of "sabotage group" is UNDUE and clear propaganda. And interestingly, somehow, you failed to include this information in your edit at all. On top of that, as I already said, the European Parliament source disproves the Azeri version, solidifying that it's UNDUE. Again, you cited only what benefited your agenda ignoring rest of the source, and gave it huge UNDUE weight. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, you still defend Billion and somehow don't see his conflict of interest after all the material I provided. On the other hand, you say "I don't think Cornell is generally a good source here", when in reality, Svante Cornell, being a Swedish scholar, specializing on politics and security issues in Eurasia, South Caucasus, Turkey, and Central Asia, being published by Routledge, one of the most respectable academic publications, is more than a good source here.

Regarding the POWs, you missed my point. I think I've explained myself very clearly already, and I know the EU Parliament source was included in the article, I said it myself in the opening statement. What any of this has to do with you citing disproven propaganda and giving it UNDUE weight? I think I've said it all, I'll leave it for admins to judge my points, as this is getting increasingly repetitive and long. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It was only linked once at the talk page in the discussion, as an example of a term usage

You defended that fringe article multiple times both in talk and ANI. No matter how you want to spin it, there is a limit to your WP:CRUSH and you breached it. You tried to portray that article to somehow be a legitimate part of Armenian news media and "term's usage in Armenia", which it isn't. I already addressed this in ANI, but for the last time, I'll address here.

If a website like EPRESS publishes blog style nonsense like these (the following don't even have an author and literally don't make sense) blog1, blog2, it isn't reliable. If EPRESS publishes FRINGE nonsense of self-proclaimed "Ruben Vardazaryan из Фейсбука" (Ruben Vardazaryan from facebook) with the title "Did our people use a hydrogen bomb in Aghdam and Zangelan?", which isn't supported by any academic consensus, it isn't reliable and no way near what you claimed it is (i.e, part of Armenian media and "Hiroshima" term usage in "Armenian media"). Armenpress is a legitimate Armenian media outlet, not some random blog style nobody / facebook self-published article.

• I don't think that a simple mention at talk is such a big issue as to demand someone to be banned or sanctioned.

You didn't just mention it, you breached WP:CRUSH, defended it multiple times in talk, and continued to defend it even in ANI and here. And the EPRESS WP:CRUSH wasn't your only problematic conduct recently, I provided other diffs of your POV push. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say stuff like this, And btw, even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons. This is an article by an Armenian journalist, titled "Did our people use a hydrogen bomb in Aghdam and Zangelan?", you should expect a reply. When you keep defending that nonsense even after the reply, you should expect your opposition to dispute that. When you keep defending it in ANI too and here, you should also expect the same. How is this so hard to understand? You keep saying "I didn't brought it up" as if you weren't the one defending it over and over when people asked you to stop. I can link all the other diffs but it would be long and I've already shown it in ANI. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that's a diff after Armatura asked you to stop, and he said if you continue presenting that as a "proof" of anything, he would report you. And secondly, you still continued to defend that "publication" even in your linked diff. This is getting ridiculous. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is getting ridiculous and probably needs a close. Regarding Billion, I explained my rationale multiple times here. And regarding the Agdam Mosque article, I removed one repetition which still is cited 2 times in the article (once in lead and once in history section). And the roof part, I actually partially removed your recently added edit of "no roof". It seemed clear from the source that the roof is intact, and I checked other images which show the roof intact, so your edit was misleading. And btw, this report isn't about me or about edits I just did. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing the premise? You did the same thing in ANI discussion. You claim one thing, then when you're called out, you change the topic to another as if you weren't defending the former relentlessly over and over again.

And it isn't just "single mistake", you kept defending that EPRESS nonsense in, A) talk page; B) ANI; and C) even in here. This raises huge WP:CIR issues especially for controversial topic area like AA, and just because you have "thousands of contributions" it doesn't excuse your behavior, also see WP:YANI. I've seen far better editors than anyone from AA including all the ones here, who have still been sanctioned for various reasons. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Having only reviewed the main diffs presented by Armatura and immediate context, it's hard to see the repeated invocation of epress.am as representative of Armenian media as anything other than disruptive; the assertion by Armatura that these are ultra-nationalist ravings with no significant editorial oversight or cachet appears correct. I'm less inclined to see the other two diffs as sanctionable, and am unimpressed by their inclusion in this report. I haven't yet read through Grandmaster's response and boomerang case at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, having read through Grandmaster's case against Armatura, setting aside the general merits of epress.am, I'm seeing a lot of IDHT related to the specific epress.am article in question, which very plainly states that it was sourced from Facebook, and am further concerned by Grandmaster's continued attempts even in this AE discussion to hold up a reporter's Armenian ethnicity as somehow equivalent to speaking for Armenians or Armenian sources. That repeated attitude, even in the absence of the other concerns raised in this report, is probably a sign that a topic ban is appropriate. Given that the evidence of Armatura's bad behavior here is limited to "assumptions of bad faith", which, given the concerning behaviors I've already highlighted, aren't really "assumptions", I don't think that a boomerang is warranted here, and I am left disinclined to review the tit-for-tat accusations against ZaniGiovanni. I would, however, very much appreciate additional administrators' input, as the editors involved here have more history than just the set of diffs presented in this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ealdgyth, that depends on whether you're looking for a "Cliff Notes on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" or "Cliff Notes on the Wikipedia battles over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict"; the former is doable, as our articles on the two main periods of conflict, First Nagorno-Karabakh war and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are relatively well-written. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Grandmaster, I think your response mixes the two incidents I was referring to: the bandying about of the epress.am article drawn from facebook is one; the emphasis of an IWPR reporter's Armenian ethnicity is another. My view is that frankly, these sorts of arguments belie a battleground and opportunist mentality that you should have unlearned by this point. If after 16 years of editing Wikipedia, you're still trying to use these kinds of arguments when discussing A-A, I don't think you should be allowed to edit contentious articles related to this topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Grandmaster, nope, I understood that perfectly: your apparently continued insistence that a specific journalist's Armenian identity (which appears to be inferred just from their name?) has any bearing on the situation is problematic in my view. If you had left those comments at just highlighting that IWPR is not in cahoots with the Azerbaijani government, I would have evaluated them differently. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This request slipped into the archive without action; I've now restored it, as I'd prefer to have ssomeone else close it, but if this stays open for another week I'm willing to close it myself rather than have it fall into the archive again, given most admins' apparent unwillingnes to touch this topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a "Cliff Notes to the A-A conflict" by someone not involved for us admins that don't edit in the topic area? I'm inclined to tban Granmaster but I'm very aware that I know little of the whole conflict and would prefer at least having some clue before going full-on tban... Ealdgyth (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having just spent a depressing amount of time reading pages that display bad behavior from editors, I can get behind a tban. When a topic area is contentious, the way to deal with it is to step up your editing and behave better, not sink down into the mud further. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2022 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles

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

1. 21:46, 17 February 2022‎ Revert restore of this [59]
2. 05:33, 17 February 2022‎ partial restore of this [60] removal of "modern Israel" and "Parts of Jordan" in both versions.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Topic ban for 12 month Topic ban which was lifted on appeal only a few days ago [61] he was warned that This means the threshold for harsher, and longer duration sanctions is much lower, and if basic policy on editing in these areas is not followed, will likely come without any warning. Please be careful.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It doesn't matter if it was different "premise" as you claim, you twice removed text that you didn't like . Partial revert is still a revert --Shrike (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown There are not connected but per WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page —' whether involving the same or different material' " If you say that user is allowed to revert different material I will ask to withdraw this request and ask ARCA clarification Shrike (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C So if someone else is reverting the user he is no immune to enforcement? the user just returned from topic ban in my opinion he should be carefull and not revert twice in the same article.Also it seems from the user response that he doesn't consider this are revert. So my questions is in similar sutatuin should user revert himself or no?

@Vanamonde93 The fact is he removed twice "Jordan" and "Israel" yes it was different edits but he couldn't wait 24h does such edits are ok? In my opinion is attempt to game 1RR restricitons Shrike (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 In similar cases should user self revert if asked so? Shrike (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per admin clarifications I am sorry for wasting community time and I understand that I should have asked the user first so I ask to withdraw the request but I still think that Iskander should understand what he did is incorrect and he should be more careful per his comments I don't think he is Shrike (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown Probably after this will be closed I will submit arca request because my interpterion is different I can remove two different texts and then restore in the same article each restore is different revert that how I see it Shrike (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand you do allowed to edit several times a day you just not allowed restore/remove text that was recently added/changed Shrike (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

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.

I count one revert and one mountain out of a molehill. Shrike has presented a series of edits, none of which remain in place or are being edit warred over, and the most recent of which is under active discussion (started by me) on the talk page as part of a healthy WP:BRD cycle. The second edit Shrike has presented is not clearly a revert. It was a different edit, making a different change and with a different premise, as explained in the edit comments. It has not been labelled as "Tag:Undo" and the edits before it has not been labelled as "Tag:Reverted", so clearly it was not enough of a revert to rile any bots, but, in any case, in the face of opposition from other editors, the matter was promptly dropped and everyone moved on.

... except for Shrike, who has notably not been involved in any of this editing, has not participated in or engaged with the discussion, did not raise any issues with me on my talk page, and appears to be only here for the drive-by attempted elimination of another editor (over edits that for everyone actually involved are dust on the wind). Four other editors were editing the page at the same time, and none of them see the contrived picture that Shrike now presents or have raised any issues on my talk page. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that AE was a recourse of last resort for raising serious complaints about disruptive editing, not raking over non-existent edit conflicts that have already being resolved by the parties involved.

At this point I would like to note that Shrike has been fairly relentlessly in pursuing me from a disciplinary standpoint the moment I set foot in the IP area, giving me my ARBPIA warning, raising an AE against me, being the only editor to turn up to object to my TBAN appeal (after just 15 minutes with a long list of grievances combed from my talk archive) and now here, having combed my recent edits. Aside from Icewhiz socks, Shrike is the only editor who has taken up major issue with my editing, despite our interaction outside of these enforcement actions being almost non-existent. I would like in turn to request an interaction ban between myself and Shrike so that this can end. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A user editing in good faith would leave a note to the user saying they believe there was a 1RR violation and ask them to self-revert. This is a blatant example of attempting to use AE as a weapon and it should result in a boomerang sanction for bad faith usage of this board. nableezy - 19:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This escalated a bit too quickly imo. I agree with Nableezy's suggested course of action (which should be the default procedure): when an editor is acting in good faith and not too disruptively (which I think is Iskandar323's case), it is best to talk to them directly, and ask them to self-revert before filling an AE complaint. (this happened to me before: I broke 1rr and editors, including nableezy, offered me a chance to self-revert and I appreciated that). - Daveout(talk) 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Shrike, I'm struggling to see how these two edits could possibly be related to each other for the purpose of 1RR. They are in different sections of the article. That doesn't mean they are good or bad edits, but for the purpose of 1RR violation, we normally expect the two edits to be (more or less) the same exact content. Can explain how they are connected? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But again, for very different information to be considered the same for 1RR, there has to be a clear link. If you revert out a birth date in one edit, and remove superfluous text that was just added, I need to see a link, or have it explained, in how they are related to each other, and not just two independent acts of editing. Otherwise, you would have to redefine 1RR to being one edit per day, not one revert. Show me the link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As some others have pointed to, technically, if you remove any text, that could be called a "revert", but that isn't a fair way to look at it for 1RR. That standard would grind editing to a halt. Some 1RR violations are blatantly obvious, some are more nuanced, and sometimes removing text is just cleaning up. If it isn't fairly clear, we aren't going to take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While it is true that reverts of different pieces of content can count toward XRR limits, I don't see this violating the spirit of the 1RR rule; in particular I'm struggling to see the second diff as a revert, rather than a normal edit. Furthermore, in an edge case such as this, I would expect a request to self-revert before an AE report; that such a request was not made suggests to me this request is less about curbing disruption and more about nailing a perceived opponent. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no doubt Iskandar needs to be more careful, but I stand by my reasoning above, and would not consider sanctions in this case. 1RR restrictions are meant to curb edit-warring, not to be used as a bludgeon against opponents. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, a self-revert would have been useful here, even if only to avoid wasting the community's time with requests like this. Please note though that partial reverts of previous text are not always going to be a problem; they are not infrequently the result of talk page discussion, and have at least some consensus behind them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanamonde, I haven't looked at the diffs (sorry, writing in haste), but during the time when I was more active here, I would straight up decline sanctioning for a 1RR report that lacked a self-revert request/warning (i.e. the AE report itself would be closed with such a warning).

Dennis Brown, my understanding is that 1RR follows the mechanic of 3RR: whether involving the same or different material. But I can understand wanting to omit that to lessen the gotcha/stumble factor somewhat. El_C 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shrike, it gets a bit murky when trying to connect, as a revert, replacing something with something else as opposed to simply removing that thing. Personally, I wouldn't count it as a revert in this instance, though the argument could be made that it, technically, is.

But returning to a self-revert request/warning: I don't think it ought to be limited to a fire-and-forget alert. Rather: Concerned user: you've broken 1RR at SNUH, please self-revert. Discerned user: oh, sorry, will do. Or if they say: I don't think I did, because of X, Y, T, then on it goes until resolution. Orr, if at an impasse, WP:AE. *** And they all lived hep'ly ever after. El_C 18:01, 18 February 2022 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

1. 10 February 2022: Falsification of source which does not mention a "bulli bai" case.

   The above was soon followed by the creation of Neo-Nazism in India[63] by this editor which is itself disruptive since the user had been already told that there exists no Neo-Nazism in India at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 2#Category:Neo-Nazism in India, but this editor appears to be on a crusade to prove some imaginary establishment of Neo-Nazism in India. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India is itself full of WP:BLUDGEONING by this editor and ultimately this editor is a WP:1AMer in this whole scenario.

2. 12 February: Puts an irrelevant image to make the connection of Nazism and India.
3. 12 February: Restores his WP:SYNTH with a misleading edit summary.
4. 12 February: In place of continuing the content dispute, he went ahead to seek protection by providing false reasoning as later also observed by admin Deepfriedokra.[64]
5. 12 February: Tells an opposing editor that: "page is currently being vandalized by an IP from Gujarat. The state with most Neo Nazi activities in India. You might want to look at the pre-vandalized version before drawing your conclusions." This message reeks of WP:BATTLE and ignorance of WP:NOTVAND.
6. 12 February: Removes maintenance tags without resolving the issue in the hand.
7. 13 February: Adds {{notavote}} despite participation by legitimate editors.
8. 13 February: "Why dont you guys stop pinging me and start emailing the historians and scholars who have written these scholarly references (linked in the article) about the rise of Neo-Nazism in India." The poor social skills and assumption of good faith required to communicate fellow editors are also visible.

I got to read about this all after the notification made by this editor on a familiar noticeboard. With so much disruption in an entire day, I think this editor is unfit to contribute to this contentious topic area.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

[65]

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• @RegentsPark: There would be content dispute if Venkat TL was not alone with his imagination that a Neo-Nazi movement exists in India but he is fighting tooth to nail to reject anything contrary and has been misrepresenting  sources. I believe a narrow topic ban is warranted given the lack of accountability and continuation of battleground mentality as seen from Venkat TL's own response here.  He has gone through a recent WP:ANEW report cited below and a recent ANI report from 11 February. It is already clear that this editor is not willing to improve but continue with WP:DE and this has been made clear by Venkat TL through his own response here as he doubles down with his false claims such as "request for page protection was to prevent this disruption" when no disruption by another editor happened and personally attacks me by saying "some random butthurt guy on a mobile" even after being notified of NPA. @Stifle: you should reconsider. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[66]

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.

TLDR: A list of minor stuff and content disputes have been grossly misrepresented and editorialized by User:Abhishek0831996 in his report to make them appear as though they are 'chronic, intractable problems'. The attempt is to paint a sinister picture. All this because, I believe User:Abhishek0831996 did not like the article I created.

Full response: User:Abhishek0831996 has published this list of diffs on a mobile, I think it is not easy to do this on a mobile, so credits to Abhishek0831996 for his dedication, time and efforts. I have never come across this user Abhishek0831996. So this report by him came as a surprise and looks very odd to me. Before bringing this to the admin page, Abhishek0831996 never discussed his concerns with me on my user talk page, where I could have explained and resolved every concerns he had about me and my intentions. Straightaway bringing this to the Admin Arbitration page for admin action, makes me suspect that, Abhishek0831996's intention here is not to resolve the situation or find a solution but the intention is to snipe me, using gross misrepresentation of the actual facts. Why? I have no idea, but my guess would be probably because he did not like the article I had created. Whatever the case may be, here is my side of the story.

1. This is not source falsification, both Reuters and CNN had covered the hijab row, so both supported the content that I had added in the diff. The content was copied from the Wikipedia Hijab Row article along with the source. While Reuters ref only covered the Hijab row. CNN covered both Hijab and the Bully bai case. In this diff [1] I only copied the Reuters reference and forgot to also include CNN reference. I realized this 2 hours later and promptly included the CNN ref. CNN article has a section titled "Muslim women further targeted" that covered the Bulli bai online fake auction case. This is not source falsification, as content was reliably sourced. A case of missing ref, may be. This is a trumped up charge suggesting nefarious intentions, when there is none.
   • Abhishek0831996 is presenting his claim that there is no neo-nazism in India as a fact, but it is widely documented by Scholars and journalists, Refs: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] (more refs in Article Neo-Nazism in India and AfD page)
   • I am not on any crusade whatsoever.
   • Remaining links added by Abhishek0831996 are regarding complicated content disputes of controversial political topics, where OP is grossly misrepresenting the situation.
   • Everything in the AfD article is reliably sourced. I have kept my replies limited to :

   1. reaching towards a consensus
   2. understanding what improvements may be needed in the article so that the article survives after the AfD
   3. and disengaging in case I get an idea that the AfD contributor is not going to change his opinion.

2. The swastika usage image was copied from Swastika#Hinduism and included in the article Neo-Nazism in India next to the section named "Neo-Nazism in India#Nazi ideology and imagery" which discussed both Nazi Swastika and Swastika#Hinduism. In the article I had provided both wiki links for the benefit of the reader. So the pic as a pictorial representation of the text, is relevant, and the OP is again misrepresenting my intentions.
3. This IP user from Gujarat had removed the content saying "source does not mention 'roots". I took his objection into account, and updated the content. While restoring the content, instead of blanket revert I copy edited and dropped the word "root". I added copy edit in the edit summary. This is not misleading and again the OP is misrepresenting and suggesting nefarious intentions.
4. The article was on AfD and this Guajarat IP was removing reliably sourced content breaking the flow of the article and making the article look awkward, badly written with out of place content. My request for page protection was to prevent this disruption of the article and allow the AfD contributors to judge the article on what it was and not the version butchered by the Gujarat IP. I had expanded my page protection request in a few mins of posting. Abhishek0831996 has (intentionally?) skipped this second diff where I had updated my request with more information. My page protection request after my second edit had said "Temporary protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing, Edit warring and removal of sourced content by IP while the article is being discussed at AfD.". The admin noted this in note at AfD. There was no false reasoning, but OP is misrepresenting the situation and suggesting nefarious intentions.
5. The Gujarat IP among other things had removed the prose section that had discussed the use of Swastikas. Reading User:Timtrent's reply it appeared to me as though, he did not check the page history and was unaware of the ongoing butchering of the article by the Gujarat IP. Since User:Timtrent had made inaccurate observations regarding the state of the article and the swastika image, so my note was to let him know that he should also review the un-butchered version from the page history. There is no nefarious intention in my message. Op is misrepresenting what happened.
6. Based on the tags and the objection by the Gujarat IP, I agreed to drop and not restore some of the removed content, the rest of the article did not merit the tag and the article was anyway on AfD for discussion. This sort of tagging of an article on AfD was unnecessary.
7. The note is self explanatory.
8. RKT7789 and पदाति were claiming that since there is no anti-semitism in India hence there is no Neo-Nazism in India. This is fallacious belief, not in line with what the reliable sources and scholars/historians have published. I had explained using Neo-Nazism definition, that it includes Islamophobia also. The two did not agree to the scholarly definition, and sensing this, I disengaged with the note that I had presented what scholars had said. As I understood that further discussion is not going to sway them I wrote "Do not ping me again." There is no way I can explain all this this on the AfD page, moreover it would be off topic, since we were discussing the notability and not the definition of Neo-nazism. Even though I had clearly asked not to ping me, RKT7789 pinged me again. The linked diff is my reply to RKT7789, where I said that instead of pinging me (when there is nothing for me to add), they should take up their cause with the scholars, who have written stuff that is contrary to what RKT7789 believed. OP Abhishek0831996 seems to have taken an offence that I had disengaged from the AfD. If I continue the discussion, Abhishek0831996 claims it is WP:BLUDGEON, if I disengage from the discussion, Abhishek0831996 claims poor social skills. Basically Abhishek0831996 is accusing me of discussing too much and also NOT discussing, in the same AfD thread. Damned if I do, damned if I dont.

I conclude saying I have acted in good faith with best intentions and contributed constructively. I will be happy to elaborate more if any further clarification is needed from me. Please ping me when you ask the question. Venkat TL (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @RegentsPark: When I had written [8] I meant it in a humorous way, obviously I did not expect anyone would start sending emails to historians after a debate with a random guy on Wikipedia. My point, I was trying to get across was that I could not get them to agree to the definition given by the historians, so convincing them was above my pay grade and they should find someone else (better than me) to debate this and leave me alone. I was not expecting that some random butthurt guy on a mobile will take the joke seriously, and then use it as a diff to file an arbitration case.
• I have pruned the statement, since I have to clarify the intentions as well as discuss the alleged content dispute, further pruning is not feasible. I cannot omit relevant facts to reach the 500 word limit. So I request the admins to bear with me.
• I believe there should be some cost and consequences for filing such false arbitration case and wasting everyone's time. Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @CapnJackSp That EW case was closed as no action. Interestingly, CapnJackSp was also edit warring there, that too to restore a blatant Copyright violation, that CapnJackSp had introduced into the article. [76] [77] 4 reverts by me in that case were WP:NOT3RR for removing the Copyright violation, that CapnJackSp was adding into the article. I did not report CapnJackSp because I am not into the habit of filling false or immature cases. Venkat TL (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OP, Cambridge Dictionary defines butthurt as offended and upset.

  Now read my full sentence once again.

  "I was not expecting that some random offended and upset guy on a mobile will take the joke seriously, and then use it as a diff to file an arbitration case." Venkat TL (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The desperation in this guy's comment speaks volumes. Such pleadings are only seen in unblock requests, but here being done to achieve the opposite. User:Abhishek0831996 through his second comment has confirmed [78] my suspicion, that this Arbitration case is an exercise in making a mountain of a molehill to snipe me due to the content dispute. Venkat TL (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade informal warning for what exactly? cracking a joke? Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark and Stifle: But see how Venkat TL has failed to justify the misrepresentation of source as evidenced on diff no.1.[79] He claims that the CNN source supported his statement when it didn't. See the discussion at Talk:Bulli Bai case#February 2022.

I would also mention that just 4 days ago Venkat TL was reported on edit warring noticeboard, where he was asked to stop with personal attacks[80] and the report evidenced that he was undoubtedly edit warring. The diffs cited on this report came after this yet another recent episode of disruption. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As far as I can see, this is largely a content issue (the article created by Venkat TL) that has some components of aggressiveness (on the deletion page) but nothing that isn't outside the norms of passionate editing. Perhaps a gentle reminder (of the sort below) to Venkat TL, but this isn't at the level of AE action. I suggest just closing this. @Venkat TL: you need to dial the passion down a bit on the deletion page (asking people to email historians and scholars, seriously!). You should consider pruning your statement above (it is way over the 500 word limit). --RegentsPark (comment) 20:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abhishek0831996: I still don't see this as an AE issue. Some amount of sniping is always a possibility and should come to AE only if there is sufficient disruption or egregious POV pushing going on. From what I can see, Venkat TL is aggressively defending their article but there is no evidence that they will behave disruptively if the AfD closes as delete or merge. I'd just drop this if I were you. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Conduct does not appear to me to rise to a level requiring action. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above that the behavior is not ideal but also not to a sanctionable level at this point. Unless another uninvolved admin disagrees within the next day or so, I would close this with no action or perhaps an informal warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:18, 15 February 2022 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mzajac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

1. 8 February 2022 Quote: "After the main article was renamed Kyiv, a reactionary group of editors voted to use the spelling “Kiev,” “in historical articles.” " (to be fair, after protests they crossed out the word "reactionary".
2. 11 February Quote: Ymblanter, I don’t think you have the moral authority to threaten me publicly... (as a response to a suggestion that AE might be in order).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive277#Mzajac Topic ban from everything related to Kiev/Kyiv for a year

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

previously topic-banned.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mzajac was topic-banned from everything related to Kiev/Kyiv in December 2020 after the AE discussion, where I demonstrated that they lack an ability to edit the topic area productively and were not capable of accepting the community consensus that the city in the historical context must be referred to as Kiev and not as Kiev. They probably were the only topic-banned administrator during this period, though I am not 100% sure. In December 2021, the topic ban expired, and not later than in February 2022 they resumed the same behavior - pushing their POV that the city must be referred to as Kiev in all contexts, replying to all opposition until people stop responding, and ignoring all arguments that do not support their views. I recommend to read Talk:Kievan Rus'#Kyivan or Kievan Rus' and Talk:History of Kyiv#Consistent spelling of the title term in the text, these two discussions are not long and give a good impression of their style. In addition, in the second discussion it looks like that they do not think they have done anything wrong but they apparently believe I have some kind a personal vendetta against them and consider a suggestion I may ask for AE sanctions about them as "public threats". I know that nobody wants to deal with Eastern European topics, and certainly nobody wants to deal with an admin, but I see now the same pattern which in 2020 made this already toxic area completely unbearable, and I think some action is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is ok, this can be closed and then we can wait this one seriously escalates. I personally try to avoid these discussions anyway, I took all these pages off my watchlist a long time ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN and WP:ANI are absolutely hopeless. I will not even consider bringing the matter there. If repeated behavior of a user which was already sanctioned for this very behavior is not actionable here then it is not actionable at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

previously sanctioned

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.

Re: User:Paul Siebert, composing a reply to this enforcement request will take more of my time and attention than individual article edits in spare moments. I hope you can appreciated that this is serious and not something I can just rattle off. —Michael Z. 04:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, to save space, I just provide a link to this my post [81]. I don't think calling other users "reactionary" should be considered a serious violation. However, I propose to take a look at that from different perspective.

• First, that statement was made not by an average user, but by an admin.
• Second, this admin demonstrates poor familiarity with our policy: the articles about historical topics can (and usually should) use historical names, especially when they are more frequently found in a special literature.
• Third, this admin seems to be active: he made several edits [82], [83], [84], but he haven't bothered to respond on this page. Does it means this user believes admins are "more equal" than other users?

In connection to that, I am wondering how can all of that be consistent with admin's status?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, if you have no time to respond, it seems polite to leave at least a short message where you explain when exactly you are going to post a full response.

In general, I don't find any serious problems with your behaviour as a user: according to my (internal) classification, your behaviour meets criteria of a relatively moderate POV-pusher, which is hardly sanctionable per DS (majority of us are, to some degree, POV-pushers). However, the problem is that you are an admin, and your behaviour is expected to meet higher standards. Being an admin, you are not supposed to demonstrate partisan mentality (divide users on "reactionary" and "others" based on their opinion on some quite innocent subject), demonstrate poor knowledge of our policy (historical names convention), and show respect to your peers (respond promptly at AE).

Again, I see not much problem with you as a user (in that sense, this request may be seen as frivolous), but I am not sure your behaviour is consistent with your admin's status. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Reactionary" was not a good choice of words, a bit of aspersion but it was struck as soon as somone complained. Some heat is expected in any debate, but I didn't see anything worse than this single word. Ymblanter, you are obviously on the other side of the table from Mzajac on several points, and I'm wondering if that is clouding your judgement. This is based on reading just the material you have linked. I'm not sure about his claim of you using personal attacks against him previously, then at ANI (I remember an ANI discussion, perhaps Mzajac can link it). As it stands, with the given evidence, there is zero chance I would recommend action at AE. I'm wondering why it is even here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure WP:AE is a good place for one admin to drag another admin to "calm the waters", however. Normally, WP:AN is the place to go, so a larger audience can be had. Frivolously filing at WP:AE, to me, is a problem in and of itself. An admin would expected to know this isn't actionable, just as an admin should know not to stir the pot with aggressive tone and actions. Neither action is sanctionable, both are disappointing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, although the discussion from Mzajac didn't use any overtly nasty words beyond "reactionary" - the tone of the discussion was quite battlegroundy and very definitely toeing the line. I certainly wouldn't find the discussion to be aimed at trying to find consensus, I found it very much of someone coming in to try to right some wrong and feeling like they needed to do battle. Your milage may vary, but I can certainly see with the past history that Ymlanter was better to come here to see if outside voices could calm the waters, rather than endure the undertones of battleground on the talk pages. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• We are getting close to the time where we need to walk over to ArbCom to have a serious discussion about Mzajac's continued access to the admin bit. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've read through the two discussions Ymblanter linked. I don't love Mzajac's tone, but I don't see anything sanction-worthy, especially given that they struck the worst comment. If there's more evidence of misconduct, I would like to see it. I do disagree with Dennis Brown above: AE is a far superior venue to bring this sort of fraught political dispute; an ANI discussion would rapidly turn into a wall of text detering participation from anyone uninvolved. Guerillero, I recognize the oddity of an admin with a recent TBAN, but do you know of any other reason why ARBCOM needs to get involved here? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Nobody's coming out of this smelling of roses. I find the request quite trivial. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2022 (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.

Thinking more about this, while I still stand by my statement, since there is no possible scenario where a 70k+edits editor is going to be action-ed here on the basis of 5-6 contested diffs from someone like me, I do not want to waste others' time as he has done mine. I'd like to WITHDRAW the following report, with apologies for those who already did go through this. Hemantha (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hemantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

(all bolding in quotes mine)

• 2022-02-13T02:29:32, 2022-02-19T20:15:22 : BJP Govt's contested-in-court POV in wiki-voice

Added text - Govt has empowered SDMCs and CDCs to decide on uniforms

He has admitted that it's minister's POV. Now claims that an executive order (a primary text) is enough and removes attribution. This interpretation of the order is being litigated in court. He clearly is aware of that since he

2022-02-19T20:30:54 - Added a partial quote, eliding the previous line which showed that it's a litigant's claim.

• 2022-02-12T11:45:04, 2022-02-14T00:32:01 : Political claims about CFI/SDPI in wiki-voice

Added text - CFI and SDPI emerge as key instigators of the dispute.

Neither source says anything close. Both take care to qualify it as claims - by political leaders, anon sources and so on. He, OTOH has had the conviction since early on, that the students and CFI/SDPI were colluding from the beginning (despite WP:RS carrying denials). He stonewalled discussion for 3 days, objecting to and reverting attributions with claims like Neither they nor CFI have denied any of this. When I removed it, posted a baseless accusation of "batting for PFI" (note P, not C; PFI is classified as an extremist organisation)

• 2022-02-20T15:27:31‎ Continues to implicate SDPI/CFI based on claims of competing political leaders, but now has deigned to attribute partially. Previously added (and restored) their claims in wiki-voice and insisted on keeping them so.

• 2022-02-13T20:35:44 Removal of text showing BJP MLA's early involvement

Text removed - According to the New York Times, the college banned the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician.

Claimed that Yes, all information from NYT about the so-called "ban on hijab" at Udupi is to be rejected because NYT didn't go to Udupi and check anything.. Even after I showed local sources corroborating BJP politician's involvement, he claims that The MLA is ... given prominence only in the New York Fog. Stonewalling the discussion since Feb 13.

• 2022-02-13T02:29:32, 2022-02-17T10:50:54, 2022-02-20T12:25:29

Source text: (DPUE) website ... points out that some college principals and managements making uniform mandatory is a violation of rules. ... Jayanna C D, agreed the uniform is not mandatory, but said that colleges have made it mandatory ... Sources said almost all PU colleges in the state have made uniforms mandatory.

Text added - the majority of college CDCs have adopted them

Adds "majority adoption" as fact despite his own source putting the claim as a quote and carrying contradictory statements from PUE dept. Stonewalled my attempt to attribute it to the official, with more personal attacks

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Has given DS alerts extensively. For one just before the time of diffs reported above, see - 2022-02-06

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He has expressed his own novel interpretations of WP:RS previously to disregard sources he doesn't like. Above diffs show that lackadaisical (at best) attitude towards source-text integrity in mainspace edits. But since it is employed to push specific convictions, I believe they require scrutiny. The WP:OWN behavior shown by the bristling at corrections, minor or major, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of filing reports (two in the past week - on me, on Venkat) make civil attempts at countering the POV push unduly difficult. Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentSpark, I've worded my report as neutrally as possible keeping in mind that view. Seeing subsequent report as retaliatory is an advantage to the litigious ones. I needed to enter this evidence (as I said above in my reply) and I've entered it. Given Kautilya3's views about DS and AE, he's succeeded already by thoroughly poisoning the well in his report. Close it, lapse it, boomerang me, I have nothing more to say about this than what I've already said. Hemantha (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1073176500

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.

Please put this on hold for a couple of days as I am quite busy in RL at the moment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that applies above applies here, too; this is basically a content dispute. Also, most of the time if you feel the filer is at fault for problems in the specific dispute they brought to AE, it makes more sense to suggest a WP:BOOMERANG than to start another section - but either way, this doesn't reach that point. Simply being wrong (assuming they are wrong) or having idiosyncratic views on how a source can be used isn't enough for something to be a conduct issue on its own; they have to be so obviously wrong that it either strains good faith or raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. None of that applies there - if we brought AE sanctions against users for stuff of this level, controversial topic areas would have almost no editors left. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: With the 500 word limit to the response in place. I don't think it is possible to merge the two requests. --Venkat TL (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemantha this comment should go on the top of the request or below your last comment. Middle of the request is not the right place. Venkat TL (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Hemantha: Are you sure you want to do this? It seems retaliatory to me. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:24, 21 February 2022 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hemantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

1. 15:16, 15 February 2022 In his first edit to the page, deletes content claiming it to be WP:OR
2. 15:35, 15 February 2022, 16:26, 15 February 2022; More of the same
3. 17:05, 15 February 2022 More complaints about "unsourced" claims, and when an editor reworded it, tags them with silly tags (04:18, 16 February 2022)
4. 06:56, 17 February 2022 Yet more claims of WP:OR the next day

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user created his account in 2013 but started any serioous editing in only November 2021. He came to the page on 2022 Karnataka hijab row on 15 February, roughly a week after it was created, and started contesting bits of existing content, claiming it to be WP:OR. In all cases, the sources do support the content in some form, even though they might be open to interpretation. Wholesale deletion would be uncalled for.

For this little bit of contribution to the main page, he made some 32 posts on the talk page between 15 February and 17 February (and apparently 8 more posts today). As an example of how this discussion goes, we can look at the discussion concerning diff 4 above, where it is apparent that content was supported by the cited source from the beginning, but the editor is not satisfied despite being shown several quotes from the source for support. Rise in student numbers is a commonplace phenomenon worldwide, and is in no way central to this dispute. No good faith editor should be arguing such details. (By the way, a later paragraph in the #Background section gives statistics for the rise in numbers, along with a comprehensive source.)

He has argued about the spelling of a Kannada word, despite the fact that spellings stated were as in the cited sources.

After having argued till yesteray that negotiations happened in December, today he started supporting the idea that ban was decided in January. If the ban happened only in January, what was being negotiated in December? It wouldn't make sense.

He has even edit-warred over where a reflist-talk box should go on the talk page! And there was discussion on it on my user talk as well.

Ever since he came on the scene, all new writing of content has stopped, despite new developments taking place practically everyday. We are having to spend all our time arguing with him.

His overall profile shows a similar trend, with low contributions (37%) to the main space. His top edited page in the mainspace shows only deletions, no new content. His other editing is similar as well.

Despite being clever and quite capable, this editor is showing only tendencies of WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, regarding the talk section #Removal of political role early in the dispute, the original editor took it to RSN, where, I don't think he found much support for including the New York Times information. As an editor from RSN phrased it, "was there a nuance missed by the NYT". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to CapnJackSp for reminding us about the Tek Fog article. There also, the content analyser shows zero content contributed by Hemantha, despite arguing intensely on the talk page. This seems to be a pattern with this editor. We need him to become a builder rather then a wrecker. Otherwise, he is just draining the energy of the content contributors.

In his long response he highlights my statement, "I understand". But the very next day, he started arguing for the New York Times, which didn't understand the very same point, in effect arguing against himself! What purpose is being served by this needless argumentation?

Even when he deletes content (which is about the only thing he does in the mainspace), it is not done in a manner keeping Wikipedia's interest in mind. For example, in Special:Diff/1072030378, he removed the names of two organisations (Campus Front of India and Social Democratic Front of India) being introduced, without any cognisance of the fact that those organisations appear in the rest of narrative. The same kind of insensitivity was repeated yesterday in removing "school management committees (SMCs) and college development committees (CDCs)" from the introductary paragraphs. The very next sentence mentions "CDCs", which is now without a reference! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every one, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemantha confidently asserts "there is nothing called school management committee". So, all these web pages would then be talking about non-existent things? This just shows the unhelpful, confrontationist approach that pervades all his work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion, all conduct issues ride on content issues to some extent (unless it is egregious misconduct). The point here is that the editor's tendency to do zero content work, but to engage in endless haranguing on the talk pages is in effect a WP:heckler's veto, and is obstructing other people's content work. The objection to "instigators" terminology is fine. I haven't contested it. But (a) adding tags like apparently^[vague] and (b) the example discussion I cited above (diff 4), which is covered in the last row of his table with this Discussion, where he says, instead of "most colleges have adopted uniforms", we should say "Deputy Director of PU department of the neighboring district said colleges have adopted them to aid in identifying students". This kind of nitpicking can go on endlessly, and completely lose sight of the fact that we are here actually to write an encyclopaedia, which the readers can read and learn something from.

I have worked on enough contentious pages for long enough that I know what disputes are. These are not "disputes". This is just mindless haranguing. He did it again this morning by the way, and he also deleted the content for which RegentsPark said "what the heck is Hemantha going on about". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

About the diffs reported here:

Rest of the screed by filer shows more about his own behavior than requiring any serious response from me. I note only that he is synthesizing two sources when he connects statistics about student numbers to the claim that "a rise required uniforms".

While I wouldn't see these as nitpicks, I agree with Tayi that these weren't major on Feb 15th. But then, I was reverted on each one of them with no basis at all. Apart from the one on CFI/SDPI, I had no idea that any of my edits touched the filer's contributions until I was reverted.

My vocalness on talk (though do note, filer himself had 40+ posts in the 4 days before my involvement) stems both from the stonewalling and from a previous discussion (possibly the roots of this filing) where the filer's disdain for Wikipedia sourcing policy and his attitude of making up his own rules was made evident to me(diff) The objection to NYT in this instance on flimsy basis also shows how he regards sources not aligned with his POV and the talk shows the lengths to which he will stonewall minor corrections. If I were to take an opportunity to present diffs (some samples) of filer's own (as well as WP:OWN) behavior in this instance, should I file a new report or can it be done here? Hemantha (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CapnJackSp has axes to grind. Nothing to reply in his bluster and fantasy filled tirade, so characteristic of the name. Hemantha (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Venkat and the incomprehensible reply above, it appears Kautilya3 is out to snipe somebody in this issue, no matter how daft he sounds. My statement is within the limit. New diff brought out shows how out of depth he is - there is nothing called a "School management committee". Moreover he has admitted that it is government's POV. It's rich to expect others to fix with 100% perfection his inaccuracies (especially when I'm certain I would've been reverted if it wasn't for this AR). I require more patronising "builder guidance" to grasp how his "I understand" reply in "later revelations" issue is related to my comments under NYT sentence issue.

I'll link a recent funny thread I'd stopped myself from before, out of, let's say, respect for the edit count. I have no idea what his contributions elsewhere are, but on current news events, I request Kautilya3 to look hard at his own edits to distinguish quality from rubbish. Hemantha (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, rewording - in the current context, 'school management committee' is a poor choice of words. But that had nothing at all to do with the diff you trotted out which was based on a different reason, which you yourself had admitted to. For somebody insisting on such perfection in talk page edits, your bile when others expect the same in mainspace smacks of hypocrisy. I won't respond anymore to content litigations. Hemantha (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR : Misuse of 'Arbitration Request' by OP to snipe an opponent of content dispute, instead of trying Dispute resolution.

I have been involved in multiple debates/discussions/disputes etc with Hemantha on article talk pages and Wikiproject pages. I have always found Hemantha to be a productive contributor who provides constructive feedback and engages in discussion in good faith with an aim to steer the discussion towards consensus.

The article being discussed in this dispute is a very controversial article that is still progressing as more facts are coming out as days progress. It is understandable that the participants will have objections and disputes. The discussions on its talk page are a clear indication of the controversial nature of the page.

On this article, Kautilya3 has not been acting as a saint either. Kautilya3 has already used Admin boards inappropriately in an attempt to snipe his opponents and get rid of them as a way out of content dispute. Few days back he had filed an inappropriate and made up Edit war report against me combining diffs of Copyvio reverts and already resolved disputes in trying to misrepresent the situation and painted a grim picture. Unfortunately for him the admins did not buy his claims and the report was closed as No action.

This Arbitration Request also appears to me as a second exercise with a similar goal to snipe a content dispute opponent. Instead of going for Dispute Resolution to resolve content disputes, Kautilya3 runs to admin boards and file complaints like this. Perhaps it has worked for him in past. I suggest the admins to also evaluate the behavior of Kautilya3 on this article before making any conclusion on his reports. Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemantha, in response to your Q. An admin might be able to better answer the question. I would have posted my diffs here itself. If an admin complains about word limit, you can split it into a new case. Documenting is more important than the bureaucracy. Venkat TL (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 who do you think you are, that you can call a fellow volunteer editor a "wrecker"? Who are you to tell others what they should edit and what not? May be you should read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service, if you have never read it. Users can edit whatever they like. He has already made some excellent contributions in Policy and guideline areas example WP:POI but it would not matter for you. For you what matters is getting the opponent of the content dispute out of the page by hook or by crook, as seen in this Arbitration request. Venkat TL (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion, indeed. It was conduct dispute to begin with but Kautilya3 decided he could utilize this to get some sanctions. The admins should not close this without warning to the filer Kautilya3. Venkat TL (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've headache by now and my interest in their dispute is mostly gone. Long story short, it started with a dispute over using an NYT article where Kautilya won't budge on using it which was followed by Hemantha essentially trying to nitpick some of Kautilya's other edits over which neither of them wants to budge. But yeah, this should just be kicked back to the article's talk pages considering there isn't any serious conduct issue from either of them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll split my remarks into two separate sections, one for my opinions and one for some issues raised by editors.

Personally, I would by and large agree with Kautilya3 here. Hemantha has been arguing over minute differences in terminology, with suggested rewordings being rejected outright. To me, often it seems the case of “my way or the highway”. Rewordings of the source are tagged as OR, and if written in a manner similar to the source it’s CLOP. Leaves little space for editing, especially in an ongoing matter.

This pattern was experienced before as well, during the creation of the Tek Fog page, where Hemantha raised irrelevant issues and ground to a halt any attempts to make constructive edits, demanding a consensus on every edit and then stalling DR on the talk page with WP:BLUDGEONING ^[a]. Till the intervention of editor Kautilya3, the article maintained a version grossly violating NPOV, with OR and SYNTH encompassing large parts of the material.

As for the remarks made by Venkat TL, I find them rather distasteful. Instead of the issues at hand, Venkat has somehow dismissed them on account of his personal opinions. His statements here appear extremely misleading - The edit warring notice against him was closed on a technical point, since he had stopped edit warring post filing of the report. Edit warring is clearly visible from the diffs provided. Venkat falsely accuses the OP of filing illegitimate reports. Venkat’s own report on ANI against me as well as his repeated misleading statements can be accessed here^[b]

TLDR- Edits made are not generally aligned with the good faith expected of editors. Sanctions left to the discretion of the admins.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, this just looks like a standard content dispute; AE isn't the venue to determine whether something is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH or not unless the situation is so clear-cut that one side is plainly WP:STONEWALLING, lacks WP:COMPETENCE, or is otherwise violating conduct policies. That doesn't seem to be the case here. In particular "instigators" is very WP:EXCEPTIONAL language (you're blaming the entire incident on those groups) which requires high-quality sources that unambiguously say the same thing. I'm not saying they're definitely correct, just that at a glance it's obviously not something so clear-cut as to be a conduct issue. Hash it out on talk, and if you're at loggerheads then have an RFC to call in additional opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also couldn't help but notice that this appears to be an almost pure content dispute with no evidence of anything AE-worthy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Confusing. I read this and thought "what the heck is Hemantha going on about" but then I read this and was "what the heck is Kautilya3 going on about". Clearly, this is an issue that is inflaming passions in less than productive ways. I suppose we should hear what @Hemantha: has to say and what @Tayi Arajakate and CapnJackSp: and others have to say, but it looks like we should just kick this back to the article talk pages. I don't see wikipedia benefiting from topic bans or other AE action here. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:12, 18 February 2022 (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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ekdalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nobita456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:CASTE

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

1. 08Feb22_1 & 08Feb22_2 Edit warring with neutral trusted editor, attempting POV pushing
2. 14Feb22 continued with edit warring
3. 09Feb22 Another one, incorrect edit summary, LukeEmily who added the tag was okay with it's removal, please check 06Feb22
4. 21Feb22 Misinformation; in spite of having discussion with Sitush, misrepresenting the fact saying I only opposed their proposed section; please check conversation with Sitush here
5. 22Feb22 Raising duplicate discussion at WP:RSN as pointed out by LukeEmily just in order to push caste agenda

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15Feb22 Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring at Brahmin

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

• Please check 25Jan22 & 01Feb22 for discretionary sanctions notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nobita456 is a suspected sock of Bengaliwikipro & their sockfarm, meant for POV pushing related to Baidya/Vaidya. CU has used the term 'Possilikely'; please check here. Admins are literally frustrated; please check here as well as here and even suggested topic ban here. Suggestion by senior editor e.g. this. IMO, Nobita456, whether a sock or not, is not here to build an encyclopedia; rather active only in order to push caste related personal agenda.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

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.

• Ekdalian almost tried every admin to block me but failed and now this.First he tried me to block for socking but failed. just because I exposed his POV in caste related articles he is getting frustrated with me. that guy using old sources to push his POV in wikipedia. I try to do conversation with other users before doing my edis. many users even thanked me for my edits. admins even warned Ekdalian for filing complain against me everyday,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Ekdalin reverted my sourced edits see. LukeEmily said it was well sourced see. other Editors Satnam and Chanchaldm also agreed with me see 1 2. I even initiated a RFC after that. Nobita456 (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dennis Brown this guy Ekdalian almost in every discussion try to represent me as a sockpuppet and do personal attacks on me like I am POV pusher. Nobita456 (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please see this how Ekdalian presented me to a senior user who has been absent for a long.is that not a attack on me and misinterpretation? please take some action regarding this if you find it necessary,Thanks.Nobita456 (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Now Trangabellam who also accused me of socking filing another case against me. Please note I already identified and fixed his faulty edits in Badiya article (like citing a direct census in a caste article and giving half information), Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He even told me this , even after Roysmith's comments on me in that sockpuppet investigation.is this not a violation of wikipedia good faith edits? and a attack on me? Nobita456 (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Another user edited the Baidya article but Trangabellam except him thinks everyone is a POV pusher.how can he revert sourced content by saying this?

It is all Wikipedia editor's right including me to verify sourced content, That's why I enquired about Hag nothing else. I even said if the source is reliable then I have no problem with that. Wikipedia is a platform that asks every editor to contribute, If Trangabellam reverts everyone's sourced content like this, then it is very hard for editors like us to contribute. Nobita456 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanamonde the block I got for edit war was really unintentional, though I should not have done that, after getting some experience and advice by Admins I really think edit war is a foolish thing to do. I promised it will not happen again and I will definitely follow it. and regarding the primary source any senior admin could have advised me not to put that as you advised me. but editors were too busy to complain against me. anyway I apologize for those actions, I really beg your pardon as a new editor who is still learning the rules of Wikipedia. and why my edits are limited to a subject I explained to Regendspark park on his talk page. please see it. I will definitely try to broaden my edit range, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ekdalian you are again cherry-picking Sitush comments, admins please see what Sitush actually said, He said I don't understand why a separate section would be required does that mean Rejecting? again a misinterpretation by Ekdalian? Further Sitush Said @Nobita456 :I am not interested. As I have said on a few occasions recently, I am using the app at the moment and it isn't great for tracking pings, reading convoluted discussions, or checking diffs. what does that mean? he is not able to judge it for his technical issues. After that I even initiated a talk section to gain consensus, LukeEmily did a great job there. The content-related dispute should not be taken here unless I edit war Or proven misinterpretation or use unreliable sources But He is trying to divert the admin's concentration from this. and regarding Socks, I cant see every intention of them, and defend myself one by one against it. Every editor do some grammar or spelling mistakes so what does that mean? Everyone is a sockpuppet? I already gave my comments at Sockpuppet Investigation before. Ekdalian is not talking about contents in the article's talk page as well But busy complaining here Trying their best to prove me shocking Which is already rejected. I can completely delete Hutton for which he doesn't have consensus WP:RSN See. But I did not remove it completely. Because it is essential. I am here to contribute to Wikipedia. It is very hard for me to defend myself every day against your repeated allegations. Nobita456 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I discuss every edit with senior editor.even said you can correct me if I was wrong. I corrected many errors in caste related articles, contributed and edited many caste related articles,which I have a good knowledge. Please see my good faith edits. Nobita456 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In my last edit about Adisura, the cited source itself mentions the same about Adisura see, not only this but some other reliable sources also give same information.thats why I added that.The whole thing is a myth see History section. I never had enough discussion with Trangabellam regarding that. See my edit summary " I said please correct me If I am wrong" Nobita456 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The case filer Ekdalin himself defends a certain community. see his contribution, HE even added some racist Aryan theories in Bengali Kayastha article ( Which Trangabellam removed). but all rules are only for me? I even edited many more caste articles not only Baidya, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Further, I was accused of putting The book of U. A. B. Razia Akter Banu a couple of times to achieve opposition on it. and now see what TB said "How is U. A. B. Razia Akter Banu an expert on ancient Bengal and demographic movements? Her book is an ethnographic work about a topic that is not linked to our subject". he even opposed this book. Nobita456 (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Three editors including TrangaBellam have expressed concern about the src., but still Ekdalian is pushing his POV to prove Kayastha as alpine Aryan see and doing racism. how this information see is relevant to the Bengali Brahmin article? Bengali Kayastha bore the surname of Nagara Brahmin, how it is relevant to the Bengali Brahmins article? Kayasthas are not Bengali Brahmins. Nidhapur and Dubi inscriptions are found in Assam and Nagara Brahmin who are not Bengali Brahmins, All are irrelevant But He needs to push his pov to include Kayasthas in this article. TrangaBellam also regarded this source as not reliable see. Ekdalian even judged scholars with their surname and caste see. admins should definitely need some actions to take against this racist and POV pusher Ekdalian, he can't get the shield of seniority every time. Nobita456 (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the pattern I have seen, I am in agreement with TrangaBellam when he says Nobita456 is a notorious POV-pusher (see block-logs, t/p, AE etc.) and I am quite certain that this RfC is a backhanded way to insert a POV-slant. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC) On evaluating the section inserted by OP, I stand by my guesses. here and here. I always assume good faith but now I feel he is only here for promoting Baidya(and probably demoting any rival community). I can come up with many more examples (given the time), but here is the latest for a backhanded promotion: There was a discussion started by Nobita456 with TrangaBellam about inserting Baidya caste for the mythological king Adisura in Talk:Kulin_Brahmin (I was not involved in the discussion). TrangaBellam gave plenty of reasons, quotes etc. and the discussion was not continued after 16th Feb. Thus the "baidya" caste was not inserted for Adisura in that article. Just recently, Nobita456 inserted Baidya caste for King Adisura in a related article on "Bengali Brahmins" here with the defense "If I am doing something wrong then please correct me" in the summary. His grammar and sentence construction on talk pages also seems to match talk of some banned Baidya POV pusher editors but since CU cleared him, will not comment on that. I reverted it but we could have easily missed this edit. TB rightly said The energy expended in these pointless discussions is a strain on the few editors who patrol these topics. I don't know why this rivalry is going on between the communities - maybe it is some political situation in Bengal. LukeEmily (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have said "Nobita456 is a suspected sock of Bengaliwikipro & their sockfarm, meant for POV pushing related to Baidya/Vaidya. CU has used the term 'Possilikely'." Dennis Brown, I have never claimed that the CU linked Nobita456 with a sockmaster. How do you say, "I find your representation of that SPI report to be very misleading and a real problem. That is the kind of misrepresentation that can backfire on you at WP:AE, and can even get YOU sanctioned." Did I misrepresent what CU said? They used the term 'Possilikely', that's the reason I used the term 'suspected sock'. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this open for a couple of days. I have a case to make against Nobita456. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite busy in RL but let me draw your attention to the latest antic of Nobita456 to have a source declared as unreliable, as emblematic of their worrying levels of incompetency:

• A cursory Google search should have led Nobita456 to Haag's faculty-profile at one of the most prestigious grandes écoles of social sciences in France, which has —

  Chaire : Psychologie et linguistique dans le monde indien:

  [..] Une reprise d’études l’a amenée à un doctorat en Études indiennes (2002) et ses recherches ont porté principalement, jusqu’en 2011, sur la grammaire sanskrite, la philosophie du langage et l’histoire des théories linguistique indiennes [..]

• The publisher (D.K. Printworld) is mentioned in our citations in the proper format but yet Nobita456 requests that we provide the name of publisher. Sealioning?
• Anyway, LukeEmily gave a decent reply and emphasized that a monograph written by a UPenn faculty and published by University of Chicago Press (Mukharji) had explicitly urged readers to consult Haag's work for a detailed discussion of Baidya mobility, thus being an obvious indicator of Haag's reliability. Nobita456's reply is borderline incoherent wherein one of the claims is that Haag's book was not published by a publisher.

• The energy expended in these pointless discussions is a strain on the few editors who patrol these topics. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider myself INVOLVED here, but I'm posting in this section as I'm contributing evidence, and I don't have the time to evaluate all of Nobita's conduct. I have had two exchanges with Nobita about their use of sources; 1, 2. In both instances, they were not being sufficiently careful to avoid original research, and more importantly, did not at any point acknowledge that they had overstepped. I would not impose a sanction for those instances alone, but some editors participating here may wish to read those conversations. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, Bishonen, I am posting here once again considering RegentsPark's remarks on behavioural evidence, and keeping this open for further comments. I would like to highlight some conclusive (IMO) behavioral pattern since as per CU as well, "Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)". Admins may not have the time to devote in order to dig deeper into behavioral evidence. I am thankful that RegentsPark pointed out the same & mentioned about the cursory look by the admin concerned, not just looking at the last statement by CU & drawing conclusions! Thanks Bishonen for your continuous support! Coming to the behavioral evidence: Bengaliwikipro and their socks showed unusual interest on Baidya, and another article Bengali Kayastha since they had inter caste rivalry during medieval times (regarding who ranks higher after Brahmins in Bengal); agenda is to promote Baidya (puffery) & demote Kayasthas (caste war in 2022)![reply]

1. 1 as rightly pointed out by TrangaBellam while rejecting Nobita's proposed section.
2. 2 Comments by Sitush clearly rejecting the proposed section, but misinterpreted (seems intentional) by Nobita. Sitush mentioned he could not submit his opinion on Bengali Kayastha talk page through his app, having trouble with pings, diffs & viewing convoluted discussions, and Nobita's interpretation is this on Talk:Bengali Kayastha.
3. 3 comments by Gorezka46 (another sock of Bengaliwikipro), who similarly showed interest on Bengali Kayastha apart from Baidya.
4. Behavioural evidence, random comments by Nobita, 1, 2, same pattern be it talk page comments or edit summary; just have a look at the sentences; none of the sentence begin with Caps after full stop. Same is evident for Bengaliwikipro & their socks e.g. Miller110's edit summary 3, Biplop4568's edit summary 4, in fact the sockmaster Bengaliwikipro's edit summary 5, also Nobita's edit summary 6, Miller110's talk page comments 7, Nobita's comments on RegentsPark's talk page 8 all follow the same behavioral pattern; no Caps even after full stop! It is actually difficult to hide your writing pattern (equivalent to signature); next time they would be cautious though.

Also, namimg convention as pointed out by TrangaBellam during the recent CU discussions, almost all the socks have similar naming convention, please check TB:s comments, "Another interesting similarity lies in the user names: 6 alphabets concatenated to 3 numbers. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)".

I guess it's too lengthy (since behavioral pattern requires details); can cite more, but I believe this is enough! Admins, you may remove/archive my comments after going through the same. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Let's take it point by point, using your numbering system.

1. I see a little revert jockeying, in the article as a whole, including some self-reverts by Nabita and others. I don't see this as edit warring at this stage, although several editors need to be careful.

2. A single revert, putting existing material back into the article. For the most part, that content is still in the article now.

3. You are kind of misrepresenting what LukeEmily said here. He didn't say he was ok with removal, he qualified it with a condition. It's a bit in the eye of the beholder, but it isn't a clear cut declaration or misprepresentation.

4. You're just linking your own comment, which doesn't provide any info.

5. As for raising issues at WP:RSN that have already been answered, I don't see how that is so disruptive, unless it was massive amounts.

The article is very active, lots of bumping here and there, but I'm not seeing the kind of activity that rises to the level that requires strong sanctions at WP:AE. It is normal in caste articles to have strong opinions and disagreement, but the talk page is being used, and while there is a little sparring with the revert button, it's doesn't seem to be genuinely disruptive. While sometimes heated, I don't see what is outside the norm here. Is there something I'm missing? Something bigger than what is here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm looking around and seeing lots of prior episodes with Nabita, but I may just have a higher tolerance than some admin on articles like this. I'm of the mind set that if you over-enforce, you only encourage the passive aggressive POV pushers and you lose balance in the article. This isn't saying Nabita is a model editor. Still, it looks like other admin have blocked them already, so I'm still not sure if WP:AE is the right answer if other methods are being used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing I forgot to point out, Ekdalian, is the claim that the CU linked Nobita456 with a sockmaster. You focus on this initial possible link but completely dismiss the actually finding by the CU: "I came back to this and took another look at Nobita456. I don't see anything that convinces me they're a sock,..." I find your representation of that SPI report to be very misleading and a real problem. That is the kind of misrepresentation that can backfire on you at WP:AE, and can even get YOU sanctioned. CU is difficult on SE Asia topics for technical reasons, which is why Roy was so careful and came back after doing some extra homework. I don't fault him, particularly since he didn't do a hit and run on the CU, but dug deeper. I'm more inclined to follow his last sentence in that report, rather than his first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ekdalian, you need to read more carefully, for your own benefit. In the end, the CU said that a link is unlikely. For you to come here and try to use the first half of a report to cast aspersions against another editor is unacceptable. I don't suggest you take this line of action again, or it will result in sanctions against you. Don't cherry pick parts of a report just to make someone look bad. This whole report is starting to look like an attempt by you to take out an opponent. Nabita is no saint and needs to be more careful, but your own actions are suspect enough that you would be best to listen to what is being said, and like the CU report, not just hear what you want to hear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Getting a bit more light on the subject. This wasn't helped by the exaggerations by Ekdalian, which hurts their own argument and makes it look as if you are trying to take out an opponent, something we see too often here. One person who has been around the topic area a great deal and is experienced (and who I am familiar with and trust), is Sitush. I would like to hear his perspective, if he would be so generous with his time. There are obviously problems here, that was obvious from the start, but I'm not sure how deep these problems run. It is one thing to ask the same things twice because you forgot or didn't understand, and another to do it solely to bog things down, and that is one of the things I'm trying to determine: which is it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • So much vitriol in this topic area. Looking at new evidence and digging around, I'm ok with a topic ban at this point. The sockpuppet claims are more distraction than anything, and don't matter here since there is a tenacious editing style that isn't conductive to collaboration. I can see and indef, with review after 6 months if he chooses, and see how he does in other areas for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobita456, I strongly advise you to cool it with the incremental posting here. You have 500 words, which you may need later. Don't waste them with stuff like complaining about a comment from TrangaBellam that doesn't even exist yet..! Please note that it will not be welcome if you later blank your own previous comments to make space for new, as that would wrongfoot people who have already commented on your comments. So please think before you post, and weigh your words. (I'll have more to say later, I hope.) Bishonen | tålk 12:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• I'm looking at the SPI report linked to by Ekdalian and it seems to me that there was no behavioral evaluation (except for a cursory look by Ed). Add the poss/likely and I'm willing to cut Ekdalian some slack in quoting that report. Nobita456 has edited almost exclusively in the Baidya caste sphere and appears to be a constant fixture on Talk:Baidya and that is concerning (both Bishonen and I did advise them to broaden their interests but that hasn't really happened). I think we should wait and see what other editors (@LukeEmily and TrangaBellam:) have to say before drawing any conclusions. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]