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

Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

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

1. 6 October 2022 Created a page on the ethnic group of Uyghurs in Afghanistan an article stating that most Uyghurs in Afghanistan are involved in militant extremism, which is flatly unsupported by any sources cited and smears the whole ethnic group as militant extremists.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If 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, see diff.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't really think this needs saying, but while there are indeed Uyghur militant groups, flatly smearing the majority of an ethnic group in a country as militant extremist without any reliable sources that supporting the is so flagrantly out-of-line with our content policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V that it shows, at best, a lack of competence to be editing in this general sanctions area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Just for clarity, should all of these requests for enforcement of the GS go to AN(I)? It was unilaterally moved here by an admin the last time I had put one of these on ANI, so I just want to be clear going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan: The claim that the majority of Uyghurs are involved in Afghan militant extremism is not supported by any of the cited sources. While there are indeed somewhere between 2000 and 3600 Uyghurs in Afghanistan (as of just before the Taliban takeover of the country). Can you point me to any reliable sources that you cited indicating a majority of the people in this ethnicity are militant extremists? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

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

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

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

• This is a GS area, not a DS area. (I'm aware a previous Uyghur GS case was heard here, but I think that was just a mix-up.) That said, considering their previous comment in August, indef TBANned from Uyghur topic area. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPS

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

1. [3] 4 October 2022—speaking of Anthroposophy, which he is banned from.
2. [4] 15 September 2022—editing an article about Steiner's book, which he is banned from.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [5] 18 March 2022, blocked 48 hours for breaching his topic ban.

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

• Topic banned from Steiner and Anthroposophy, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive301#Clean Copy

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6] 5 October 2022

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.

• Clean Copy, while I'll give a brief period to await a statement from you, these appear to be relatively straightforward violations of your topic ban. If you would care to provide an explanation, now would be the time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As Clean Copy has already been blocked once for violating the topic ban and these are clear and unambiguous violations, I am inclined to block for a month in this case. Unless any other uninvolved admin shortly objects, I intend to close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Motion: Abortion (September 2020)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Tamzin's analysis is correct, and it's ok with me if the decision is against doing this. But I'll suggest that the knowledge of a 1RR restriction would have the effect of making editors think twice before making reverts, and that would be a good thing in the current context. It's not just about a need to tamp down on edit warring, but also a matter of refocusing attention onto talk while the issues are still being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but to notice that things quieted down as soon as I made this request and posted at the article talk page that I had made it. I think it would be fine to have a 72-hour 1RR, but per Johnuniq, I'd recommend against having a BRD requirement. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was another revert today, and it looks like it was timed to avoid a 72-hour window: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the editor who made that edit: [9], that I had commented on it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of this filing at article talk page

[10]

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.

• There's a lot of reverting, but it moves slow. In the past month of edits, a 24-hour 1RR would have prevented Pbritti's 2nd revert of the 7th, Goodtablemanners' 2nd revert of the 29th–30th, and that's it. Neither of those made it to a third revert, I'll note. So I'm not convinced a 24-hour 1RR would have a preventative effect. If there's an appropriate rememdy, I think it would be either a 72-hour 1RR or a BRD requirement, but I'm undecided on that "if". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If a "refocus attention to discussions on the talk page" type sanction is needed, then I second Tamzin's BRD suggestion. firefly ( t · c ) 12:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 72-hour 1RR and a BRD requirement should not be overly onerous and may have a salutary effect on discussion and consensus building. The net result should be to make for a more collaborative work environment.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Been thinking about this. @Deepfriedokra: I'd rather not us have two of the most severe page sanctions we can impose, on the same page. Could we perhaps do one now, with a note that any admin should feel free to impose the other unilaterally? I'd lean toward 72h 1RR now, BRD later. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would go with the 1RR over the BRD -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a jaded view regarding topics like this. I would be happy to support a 72-hour 1RR and a BRD requirement as an experiment but essentially, like many other topics, the page will be edited by those seeking to promote opposing views regarding good and evil and for the dedicated editor, restrictions are just a nuisance to be worked around with tag teaming etc. What does "BRD" mean here? It sounds like an indefinite 1RR that applies to everyone, not just the person who did the first revert. I had to remind myself what would be involved in restrictions: see page restrictions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tamzin: Sounds good. make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that 1RR per 72 hours is a better initial sanction than BRD. Effectively, try the simpler approach first to see if that works. If it's gamed, admins can then either look to change it to BRD or individual sanctions. I'd suggest that, because of that, it would be prudent to allow any admin to modify the 1RR to BRD without requiring a consensus to do so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 11 October 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

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

• Just a quick question: Grandmaster, who is the sanctioning admin and have you informed them about this appeal? El_C 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Grandmaster, thanks. Yes, it's required. Because it wouldn't make sense to evaluate the sanction imposed by said admin in absentia. El_C 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kheo17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAA2

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

1. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
2. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
3. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
4. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
5. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
6. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
7. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
8. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
9. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
10. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable

If 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 by me before continuing to restore the edits, see the system log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 6 April 2021 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kheo17 continued to use the source Qərbi Azərbaycanın türk mənşəli toponimləri ("Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan") after being warned of it's unreliability. The "Western Azerbaijan" in the title is actually referring to Armenia, and is an Azerbaijani irredentism source that is explaining how the names of every Armenian city and town are actually of Turkic/Azerbaijani origin. The book's author, Ibrahim Bayramov, co-wrote another book about how all of Armenia is Azerbaijan's rightful territory.

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Dallavid, I'm afraid you've misread or misrepresented my interaction with Kheo17: I gave them a standard DS alert, not a sanction. If you're making a report here, you should understand the difference between those things. I don't see any record of a logged sanction against Kheo17 at WP:AELOG. I would suggest that you strike this element of your report accordingly. I have not otherwise investigated this report. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Both editors here have well illustrated the point that it takes two to make an edit war, so if either of you gets a break from the area, then you both do. However, as the edit war seems to have subsided, I would give both editors a warning that, if the reliability of a source in question, that should be resolved with a reliable sources noticeboard inquiry, not the revert button. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[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

103.244.173.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

whichever applies

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

1. 20 August 2022 Removed sourced content. In the edit summary, he said that pakdef.info is not WP:RS and the source doesn't support the victory, but he also removed more content that was in the article and was supported by WP:RS
2. 28 September 2022 Did the same here
3. 12 March 2020 Changed the result even tho the source agreed it was a Pakistani Victory.
4. 17 January 2022 Changed the claim of F-16 shot down to disputed even tho the source cited agreed it is considered false. Sock per report here.

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

[16]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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

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

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

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

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

USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA or whichever applies

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

In conclusion his behaviour seems like just lingering on the matter in an attempt to exhaust contributing editors by doing argument for the sake of argument, refusal to accept the other views and hell bent on resisting these changes and inability to understand the situation to follow policies and guidelines. USaamo ^(t@lk) 14:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Bookku, My body my choice and Mera Jism Meri Marzi was another case of WP:UNDUE from you since MJMM was an Urdu slogan with no history or usage outside Pakistan while Mbmc had a global usage where that was best suited. I explained that on talkpage before removal. And that redirect discussion was not a humorous essay but a serious discussion and there was no joke happening there. USaamo ^(t@lk) 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inline with TarangaBellam's observation about Bookku's drafts; he started Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai which was rejected at AFC and then he started RfC to determine the topic's notability against due process and as in his responses here too he stressed on RfCs to be the only way out(quite ironic of him since he's not accepting the RfC outcome in the ongoing dispute). I was not much opposed to the said draft but he wanted me to do it without discriminating between Pakistan India sources as South Asians only in discussion. In his article My body, my choice too he mentioned India Pakistan just as South Asia while mentioning all other countries with name. Well both Pakistan India comes in South Asia but they have distinct identities which comes first. Wikipedia policies and nationalities can't be simply ignored because he likes it this way.(21) USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

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

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

• @Deepfriedokra First para in my user page is already clear, I can work in whatever area of cosmos available. While I put my agencies to utilization but I am not sure the description '..seeking to right great wrongs ..' fits me well in spite of POVs, since I don't believe WP is last resort.
• I do have a long list of examples of my well sourced relevant and even very neutral content being deleted or declined and I have not made even any RfCs for most of them. This time too if it would not have been serious BLP violation (agreed of being BLP violation at least 4 users by now) I would not have taken to this length. In spite BLP rules would have allowed me to delete directly or create RfC for direct deletion I am going to great length to seek mediation and best possible accommodation.
• You are admins, your decisions I would surely respect and accept. The concern is this time itself a user selectively clubbed multiple bad faith attacks and came here asking for admonishment of mine. You admonish me next time some one like them will have more authentic admonishment to add in their list and corner me. WP political realms can do very well without my contributions. How many nonBLP consistent contributors WP has on women's rights front?
• Even if some content is believed to be WP:Undue why it can not go through content dispute resolution mechanism at respective talk pages and needs to be personalized and brought to this forum in this fashion is not entirely clear to me.
• Your admonishments are not an issue, the users keep finding it easy unquestioned route to personalise issues in stead of preferring talk page resolutions of content disputes, concerns me more.
• You all are experienced admins you must have gone through all such discussions earlier too, it is all for you to decide. I will respect and accept whatever you decide. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Deepfriedokra I read through Aman.kumar.goel. For some one like me academically sourced edits like this ( 9) giving all sides can be example of ideal neutrality. But when narrative of every side gets affected, people tend to trade some strange adverse charges. Why all those content disputes can't go through RfCs ? rather than clubbing all strange misrepresentations and corner or oust uncomfortable neutral user.
  • Why don't we have a condition every one bringing up charges over here prove neutrality of respective strangely charging users first. I know that inconvenient won't happen here.
  • Is not that usual Wiki gaming. I understand admins too have to grow and live through same environment and systems. And I would understand whatever your decision you take. As of now I bow out. Many thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C, The whole thing is simple content disputes and 'we don't like it' so 'we will take ARE shortcut' attitude of some users. If you do not agree with me I will take 72 hours break on my own. This is primarily case of a BLP policy violation in plain sight. Other 4 users seem to classify it as BLP policy violation 1a, 1b, 2 (This user says ".. still fails BLP on other grounds .."). If proper BLP protocol would have been followed, I would not have needed to write a single sentence. See time stamp @ Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard I said ".. It is close call. .. I am seeking guidance in writing briefly and systematically the way it happens in DRN ..".

Bookku (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also while I am very much following protocol mentioned WP:DDE guideline the accusing side seem to miserably fail the protocol mentioned in the guideline. Bookku (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Own sign is updated with fresh to avoid bloating

• Do you want all those paragraphs and references at this forum itself or you will sincerely address the topic looking for old references including those you don't like and discussing at appropriate talk pages first.

It is whose mistake I had to type wall of text here itself. Will you blame me for providing logical credible presentation too?

• I am not used to personalizing content disagreements in this way, though I do have more proofs against such questionable maneuvers. "I repeat, manipulation and misuse of this forum to oust unwanted content and contributors is quite frustrating. Problem is not me getting unfairly punished likelihood of other genuine users too may keep suffering concerns me much more." (Please read again 10000 times.)

Bookku (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Booku is essentially trying to right great wrongs - that is what I perceived of his rambling reply to RegentsPark's AC/DS alert, prodded by me. Such a political stance is not condemnable —much less, blockable— in itself and is the raison d'être of acclaimed Wiki-projects like Women In Red etc.

However, as the mindboggling edits on Public Space (diff-ed by Johnuniq), Drowning (link), and Tourism in Pakistan (link) show, Booku either does not understand our core content policies concerning DUEness of content or chooses to flout them intentionally. Besides, there are inane article creations like Superstitions in Sikh societies (check history) filled with dubious sources and dubious content derived from illogical synthesis. To compound things, their walls of text are mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand, makes for painful reading, and only serves to digress.

All in all, I think a good case is made for an indefinite TBan, at least from all topics connected to Pakistan, and women. Alongside a logged warning that any further shenanigan will extend the Topic Ban to include India. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, thanks for the query. I meant the latter option (union); not certain that my choice of punctuation was appropriate. The intersection won't work - see RegentsPark's evidence of strange drafts lying in his user-space.

I express my firm disagreement to Deepfriedokra's and Dennis Brown's idea of a time-limited TBan. This is not some garden-variety case of edit-warring to necessitate a cooling-off penalty! As RegentsPark — one of the few administrators who patrols S. Asian topics — notes, there is a borderline CIR issue at play and it is irrational to expect the problems to go away in a span of few months! Booku has been here for years and he has been made aware of these issue by multiple editors (see evidence by AKG). My proposed scope of topic ban is quite narrow and if Booku can edit competently in other areas, I won't oppose an appeal as and when it is filed. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Came across Booku's edits at Non-vegetarian and yet again, a fundamental disregard for NPOV, DUE etc. Much of those additions have been removed by others. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add another (the last; please bear with me) evidence and expand in some detail, which exemplifies everything that is problematic with Booku's editing. Over the course of a few many edits, Booku added the following paragraph in wikivoice to Rabindra Sarobar Stadium:

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

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

Somebody ban this editor from anything that has to with women, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark, Deepfriedokra, Johnuniq, and Dennis Brown:: This has been stale for over a week. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of the dispute over 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and of Bookku on 11 September, when Bookku posted to the DRN talk page asking for mediation; see Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mediation_help_request_@_article_talk_page. The posts of both Bookku and USaamo are too long, didn't read in detail. Bookku was saying that they would be requesting assistance at DRN and at BLPN. I advised Bookku against forum shopping and said to file in one place. Bookku replied and said they would also need help from other pages. It appears that Bookku is running around in a panic and not helping things. Both Bookku and USaamo need to be civil and concise. I haven't researched the details of the article dispute. If there is a content dispute, I am willing to try to mediate, but will impose word limits and other restrictions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Deepfriedokra and Johnuniq USaamo remains topic banned from conflicts related to India and Pakistan,[17] and has violated that topic ban as recently as May 2022.[18] USaamo treated allegations as facts on this diff and wrote it in wikivoice. That was a BLP violation. On talk page, USaamo tells Bookku to "be concise in discussions as your comments are bludgeoning the process by creating walls of text and are a cause of exhaustion for editors"[19] but USaamo himself wrote walls of texts.[20][21]

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

Bookku is not understanding about the nature of their POV pushing. He has been already warned over WP:UNDUE, NotAForum, bludgeoning in the recent months. However, the activity of Bookku on Public Space,[22] and 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault[23][24] shows he has ignored these warnings and above message confirms great chances of similar disruption.

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

Replies from both editors, Bookku and USaamo, to my above comment reinforces my view that both of them need a topic ban to cover whole WP:ARBIPA. They simply don't see what is wrong with their own editing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Awaiting statement by TG. Noted Robert's statement. Hopefully, this can be resolved without AE action.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Willing to go with a logged warning per TG, and in hopes of dispute resolution with Robert. Unless someone has a better idea. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Bookku I'm afraid it is glaringly obvious you've brought a personal point of view and possibly an 0ff-Wiki agenda into the encyclopedia. Your latest post makes me feel that while you are capable of leaving that agenda out of your editing, you have at times chosen to include it. I'm willing to "admonish only" if it is clear you will cease and desist from the POV pushing moving forward. USaamo, it looks like your edits have been unfortunate as well. I echo what Johnuniq has said below. More concise and clear information is always useful. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TrangaBellam: I thought you would be arguing for a warning. Now I must reëvaluate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Read it all, and I support Dennis Brown's short-duration (about 1 month) TBAN proposal. The intersection of Pakistan and women/feminism seems a good starting point. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TrangaBellam: Point taken. Will defer to my colleagues on indef vs time limited. The time limited seems a happy middle ground between a warning and an indef. @Bookku: If we go with short duration TBAN, please see it as a boon and an opportunity. If we must address this matter again, the result might be more than a indefinite duration TBAN, considering issues TG has raised. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I will ask my colleague El C to close this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bookku added a section on Pakistan at Public space (diff). That was totally WP:UNDUE in that article and indicative of someone seeking to right great wrongs. However, USaamo's edit at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault (diff) with claims of "alleged audiotapes" (with a handy ^dubious tag!) in the lead is worse (yes, the sources said that but don't add "dubious" material to the lead merely to repeat gossip—how likely is it that someone has an audio recording of a conversation showing criminal intent on their phone?). I would like to see if there is further commentary that might enlighten us regarding whether something stronger than a logged warning is needed. I agree that other editors need relief from walls of text. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Couple of points: Aman.kumar.goel, does raise some interesting questions, that this may be the pot calling the kettle black, but more importantly, I want to point out that writing one or two TLDR comments is not the same thing as WP:BLUDGEONing (itself a subset of WP:DE), as bludgeoning is a pattern of doing so, usually in the same thread or topic. From what I see, this looks like someone trying to Right Great Wrongs, and while a logged warning is ok, I guess, I get the feeling we will be back here soon enough. This is where I differ from my compatriots, and think timed tbans can be effective, as a month off a subject but with the promise of being able to return may provide incentive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to formally weigh in on this case based on past interactions with editors party to it, but I do have a clarifying question: TrangaBellam, is your intended suggestion for a TBAN of the topical intersection of Pakistan and women, or of separate TBANs for topics pertaining to Pakistan and topics pertaining to women? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I support some sort of topic ban. TrangaBellam brought Bookku to my attention and a look at their contributions shows a focus, not necessarily misplaced, on womens rights issues in India and Pakistan. However, the steamroller approach demonstrated in Public space, Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault, Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Sikhism, other declined drafts, and the rambling response to my templated notice are problematic and borderline WP:CIR. Perhaps a topic ban on topics related to women? A timed one like Dennis Brown is suggesting? That might give them some space to explore other topics, get comfortable with incremental editing, and then return to the gender area which appears to be of significant interest to them?--RegentsPark (comment) 23:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. On responding to an ECP edit request, I came cross this hard-to-figure-out discussion. I'm beginning to think that we may have a CIR issue.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DFO asked me to close this, but I probably owe closure to WP:AE#Jargo Nautilus before any other report on this board. But I'll make 2 notes, a general one and one specific to this complaint.

First, the general one: my view on timed TBANs is that rarely, if ever, they're useful. Could this be that one rare exception? I suppose it's possible, but there would have to be a good reason.

My 2nd note that's specific to this complaint concerns its length. Which is to say: disregard for this board's 500-word limit rule. As it stands, USaamo and TrangaBellam each exceed it by more than double, while Bookku by over 4 times. So I don't know what to do about that at this point, as it's a bit late in the day. Still, if parties and reviewers really want fresh eyes on this, then I dunno, maybe work to collapse...? Good luck! El_C 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to close this with the narrowest of sanctions (Pakistan and feminism) appealable in six months. Will leave this open for a bit in case there are other views. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hari147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions,

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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.

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

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

NotReallySoroka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

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

1. 16:34, 1 November 2022
2. 16:35, 1 November 2022
3. 20:52, 1 November 2022

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

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

I understand that Arbitration is a serious matter, and I hope I didn't err too much in my first enforcement request; I apologize for any wastage of time that this request incurs. Thank you all for your time. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable.

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

Special:Diff/1119388769

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1119551559

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.

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

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

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

The discussion at WT:IE#Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals? is not all that hard to follow - it's clear that there's significant opposition to TheCurrencyGuy's changes, which was apparent before their post-DS alert reverts. Their response here is WP:IDHT - trying to explain why they're right and everyone else in that discussion is wrong. -M.nelson (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this is a bit excessive. 1) three diffs are shown where in fact there were only two reverts: WP:EW defines a revert as "an edit or a series of consecutive edits", so the first two diffs make one revert (two is still too many, but bear with me). 2) Adding John MacBride to the List of people who were executed is a red herring, since it was not a revert. 3) The notice on TheCurrencyGuy's talk page was clearly about the articles where he was editing the infobox – a friendly warning not to revert any of those articles, which he did not. 4) Not having experience in Troubles-related articles, it would not have been obvious to him that List of people who were executed would come under the Troubles ArbCom's remit; that was not made clear in the notice, and NotReallySoroka did not take the trouble to explain that to him. I don't think any action should be taken here. Scolaire (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• I note that TheCurrencyGuy already has one topic ban in place (on currency, imposed 3 weeks ago after a number of visits to ANI) and has since moved into the topic of Ireland. Given the tone and content of their arguments in discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Were_the_Easter_Rising_leaders_criminals?, and Talk:List_of_people_who_were_executed#POV_removals_from_the_list, I would suggest that they are not a very good fit for this topic area, and should probably stick to something less contentious (or preferably, not contentious at all). I will note that (a) "arguing that they're right and everyone else is wrong" is exactly what got them topic-banned from currency, and (b) editors with existing topic bans do not usually end up topic-banned from a second area - they're usually just blocked indefinitely as a time-sink. Black Kite (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: I was half-tempted to indef based on them jumping into a new topic area and quickly running into issues -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If they're not going to answer for the edits they've been making, and are going to throw in some further inflammatory POV remarks on their way out the door, that's enough for me to think they shouldn't return to editing without first showing they can edit productively. Blocked indefinitely. Inclined to throw in an indef Troubles TBAN for their, well, troubles; but will hold off for now in case anyone else has further thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]