Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive148

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

Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ganesh J. Acharya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions (specifically, the disruption, soapbox and battleground sections of the original case):

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

1. Collapsed section, messages from 8 February onwards Despite the comments made at the immediately-preceding ANI thread here, Ganesh J. Acharya has continued tendentiously to "push" their opinion that the Vishwakarma community, of which they have said they are a member, should be accepted as being Brahmins. There is a long-standing real-life claim by the community to this status but it is not accepted by pretty much everyone else. As previously, Ganesh breaches WP:TPG and ignores the oft-raised issues of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc. This is classic soapboxing, classic WP:IDHT and has been so disruptive that I collapsed the thread and warned them here, having previously said that this would be the outcome here if they should continue their disruption in that thread (which they did, here).

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 7 February 2014 by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) suggested that I raise this issue here. It's my first request here so please excuse any errors.

I've only listed the post-warning incident above. The tendentious and near-enough WP:CIR-breaching behaviour has gone on for many months and involved many experienced contributors ... and it has achieved precisely nothing that Ganesh wishes. It can be seen, for example, in this September 2013 thread among the many that they have participated in at Talk:Vishwakarma (caste). (Another one is here in June 2013).

• @Sandstein. Sorry - I had trouble getting any of the links to work when previewing the form. Try Talk:Adi Shankara#Adi Shankara Caste, which is not a permalink but does work. The instructions said it was ok to link to archived threads. If people could just spend two minutes looking at the messags in that thread from 8 February onwards then you'll see the problems that I mention. Alternatively, I could provide a diff to each message in the thread, which will be both more time-consuming for me and for anyone who chooses to look. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The linking problem seems to be something to do with the permalinks. I'm going to have to amend the ANI one when I find it in the archives. What a mess. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad links resolved now, I think. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2014 (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.

I sincerely feel this is of no use and I have reasons to believe this is a fake Arbitration, since I have already seen the arbitration standards during this complaint that I put User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight. Not interested in this harmful (as of now) project. Everyone will have an Arbitration at a real court in front of GOD. We will for certain meetup there, everyone is answerable at that point. This lobby around wiki is continuously posting unwanted/provocative using unregistered IP Addresses and community related fake IDs (which is very apparent from the style of writing) [1]. Also, after giving substantially evident arguments here [2] User:Sitush wants to keep dragging this argument unnecessarily for the reason I have already highlighted during my complaint. Readers are requested to expand the light green colored "Adi Shankara Caste" discussion which user Sitush has collapsed. If you all notice user Sitush has pinged everyone in the group during the complaint. How ethical was the same? (please refer Thanks_for_the_ping_alert over Sitush's page.) which is very indicative of the fact that there is a lobby present. Also if you notice User:Cyphoidbomb did quote "But man, I hope there is no conspiracy because if there is I'll feel like a fool!" [3] Why did Cyphoidbomb feel this and why did he not bring this up during the earlier complaint?

Yet, may be if there is/are one/s sincere please look up at the entire matter carefully. Only for the respect of those sincere one around I am posting this here.

Also, during older discussions I was told by Sitush I should not bring up older court rulings (wrote the following over my talk page. "You've already been told that we cannot use court rulings" [4]) as he keeps warning me of a ban on highlighting older cases. But on asking people at Wiki IRC I was told by a participant the same is permissible. So, why is this difference of opinion and which precise guideline over wiki says that references of court rulings are not to be used? So, is Sitush actually sincere in with his reasons he keeps highlighting? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With one trivial exception, I have been completely uninvolved in editing these caste articles and discussion pages, though I have been monitoring the situation there for years. I fully endorse Sitush's assessment of Ganesh's behaviour and agree that standard sanctions are both appropriate and necessary to curb the disruption. In five years of editing here Ganesh has proven to be unwilling, or more likely unable, to form and apply a proper understanding of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and point of view. What is required at minimum is a ban on editing any material (including discussion pages) related to the history, religions, people, and castes of India, broadly construed. A block is probably not necessary as he has very occasionally made useful contributions to articles unrelated to India.

I note that having seen this enforcement request, Ganesh claims to have left Wikipedia. However, the last time he did this he returned almost immediately, so his current absence shouldn't be taken as obviating the need for administrative remedy. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with Ganesh J. Acharya is fairly limited, but memorable and unpleasant. I first encountered him at Talk:Vishwakarma (caste). Because the user brought me there. Acharya dropped a {{help me}} template on the page and I was patrolling CAT:HELP. My initial reply is here. User was attempting to get "moderators" to curtail the efforts of Sitush and other editors over some irrational concern that these users edits were designed to foment communal fighting in India. This ridiculous belief was never substantiated, and it was never explained how the English Wikipedia could have such a direct negative impact on Indian village life. But I digress.

User continued to bait Sitush by musing aloud and asking cynical and passive-aggressive rhetorical questions toward the heavens. "I wonder why User:Sitush who generally removes forum based discussions has allowed this one here." It became disruptive. And he still does it here (see above where he mentions me), attempting to co-opt my joke into a smoking gun statement that bolsters his paranoia. I told him numerous times to take Sitush to ANI if he had a problem, but Ganesh J. Acharya didn't like that idea and poo-pooed it by swallowing it up in his conspiratorial mindset. "Let readers know what is going on in here. Why isolate this incident? Also how do I know how big is this lobby? Is the incident going to be treated in an unbiased manner? What if all the members of this lobby start posting at WP:ANI and create a fabricated opinion?"

The user seems paranoid, inflexible, irrational, bent on passive-aggression, dogmatic about his POV, and insistent on conspiracy where there is no conspiracy. I question this user's competence and don't believe this user is capable of editing constructively in a community that doesn't necessarily share his worldview. I am in support of sanctions to prevent future disruptions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The link submitted as evidence doesn't work. Please submit individual diffs and explain how they, specifically, constitute misconduct, rather than links to whole discussions.  Sandstein  13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While the issue of who belongs to which caste is a content issue and not subject to this process, editor conduct is. The style and content of the communications by Ganesh J. Acharya indicate that they have not understood that Wikipedia is a collegial project to create a neutral reference work, and not a battleground for contesting worldviews. They seem to want to edit from a particular, religious point of view (e.g. [5], [6], and the invocation of God in their response here), rather than from a neutral point of view. This mode of conduct is detrimental to our project's goals. I'm blocking Ganesh J. Acharya indefinitely as a normal admin action. If this block is lifted for some reason, contact me and I'll impose a discretionary sanctions topic ban.  Sandstein  15:27, 12 March 2014 (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

Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions #7

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

1. Insertion of material from two physicists into a Philosophy article

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. previous AE visit, 14 Deb 2013 resulting in 1 week ban
2. AE visit before that, 18 Dec 2012 resulting in final warning
3. AE visit June 2013 resulting in a one month block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A clear repitition of the behaviour for which the previous one month block was imposed. Brews has been sailing close to the wind by using 'science' not 'physics on several articles, but this one is specific. We see this in an extended attempt to change the Free Will article which like nearly all his edits on philosophy articles has not gained support. The response to him (see final paragraph of the diff) from the ever patient Pfhorest illustrates a wider issue, similar to that which resulted in the original sanction. This time we have a single incident that he has not attempted to reinsert and I thought for a couple of days before making this request. However given the the prior history and general intransigence someone with experience needs to review this. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question. Happy to accept the advise that this is not actionable. However last time we had the insertion of references from a physicist on a philosophy article and that was considered a breech of the sanction. Is the only difference that the article in question was Philosophy of Science? The insert was on a philosophical question then not a matter of physics. Some guidance would be appreciated for the future on what is the difference this time. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

The issue is not so much the content of Brews' edits, which arguably don't run afoul of this particular sanction. It's more that he is repeating the same pattern of tendentious editing and his strategy of wearing down any and all who disagree with his opinions (be they correct or not) by endless RFCs, walls of text, wikilawyering and generally making a nuisance of himself that (eventually) landed him at ArbCom in the first place. The proper venue for those concerns, though, is a user conduct RFC which, to date, no editor has been willing to undertake likely because of the sheer volume of diffs that would be required. 198.228.200.177 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think that this is not actionable. The topic ban in the decision that is asked to be enforced applies to "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". The edit at issue is to the page Mind–body problem, which per its lead is about "the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain." That is not a topic related to physics, but to philosophy and neurobiology. Neither does the text added by Brews ohare refer to physics. The fact that it is a citation by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger and another physicist is by far not enough to make the whole article - as required by the wording of the topic ban - "about" physics.  Sandstein  07:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The topic ban imposed on Brews ohare has effect on the pages they edit, not on the nature of the sources they use. Since, as Sandstein outlined above, this article has nothing to do with either physics or physics-related mathematics, I share the thought that this is not actionable. → Call me Hahc21 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: Yes. If I understand correctly, and after taking a look at Philosophy of science, I see that that article has a clear relationship with physics or physics-related mathematics that Mind–body problem lacks. Usually, anything that is related to science has a big chance of being related to physics, unless it explores non-calculus topics like neurobiology or philosophy of logic, for example. → Call me Hahc21 17:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Closed as not actionable.  Sandstein  09:46, 15 March 2014 (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

EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:AA2

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

Removal of Armenian names/Edit-warring

• 6 March At Erzurum: Repeated removal of Armenian native names in articles even after being told to consult WP:NCGN several times and to participate in the ongoing discussion at the talk page. Edit-wars to maintain its removal ([7][8])
• 6 March At Divriği: Same as above. Edit-wars again ([9][10][11][12])
• 8 March At Diyarbakir: Same as above.
• 8 March At Şanlıurfa: Same as above.
• 10 March At Erzurum Province: Same as above.
• 10 March At Iğdır: Same as above.

Disruptive oppose votes at Armenian related WP:FP nominations

28 February Voted Oppose to my FP nomination that was related to the Adana massacre by calling it "Irrational nationalism" and claims that the source is unreliable since it is "Armenian." Maurice07 came out of no where. He is not a regular at WP:FP (see here) and has never voted or participated before. It seems this was a WP:BATTLEGROUND-like move to strike at his supposed "opponents" where it hurts them the most.

Deletion of Armenian related articles in form of a redirect

• 20 February Prunus armeniaca is not the only sub-species of the Apricot. There are many others (i.e. Prunus brigantina, Prunus mandshurica) which the user appears to be aware of.

Aggressive language and WP:BULLY

• 9 March "Next vandalistic edit, I will report to admin"
• 8 March "Next edit war, this issue, along with other Turkish cities will go to the WP:ARB!"
• 4 March "absurd and extreme nationalism"
• 28 February "Irrational nationalism"
• 27 February "I will not let in any "fait accompli" about Sabiha Gökçen like your vandalic edit"
• 27 February "I have to report this situation to the administrator."
• 25 February "Next edit war, i will report to administrator."
• 23 February "Irrational nationalism"

Repeated removal of Sabiha's Armenian ethnic background

Sabiha Gokcen's ethnicity is disputed among those who believe she is Turkish and those who believe she is Armenian. There has been a long consensus to include both claims in the Early Life section of her article.

The user initially removes an entire sourced paragraph of her being Armenian under the edit-summary "Personal effort to impose and deception". I proposed a compromise at the TP of the article by giving more WP:WEIGHT to Maurice07's claim that she is Turkish by placing it as the first paragraph of the section.

After I have warned him over this matter and repeatedly told him to go to the talk page ([13][14][15]), the user continues to edit-war by keeping any notion that she may be of Armenian origin out of the Early Life section ([16][17]).

I opened a section at the talk page to reach a compromise. Maurice07 repeatedly says that "Allegations that are of Armenian descent, too add early life section just absürd and extreme nationalism" and says "All sources one-sided and unreliable" because one is an "Armenian newspaper" and the other is by an "Armenian historian" ([18]).

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 25 February 2014 by EtienneDolet (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 15 January 2013 by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user is indefinitely sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC is continuing to conduct a similar WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern in Armenian related articles. I find that every time he edits an Armenian article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the ARBMAC ban. The user has a pretty extensive block log which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. However, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user still displays a belligerent attitude to those he comes across and is willing to edit-war to get his way. This WP:BATTLEFIELD-like demeanor has been the story for the past several years now. In the past, he deleted an entire paragraph stating that Mount Ararat was a historical part of Armenia with an edit-summary saying, "Political opinion can not be included here." His deletion of Greek and Armenian native names of appears to be an obsession stretching back several years (examples include Greek names: [19][20]; Armenian names: [21]). He's almost impossible to work with since all of his "opponents" are either extreme nationalists or deceptive individuals. I have yet to have seen him refer to the talk page to gather a consensus before making such contentious edits or reverts.

For the reasons I have aforementioned, I believe that the user should be banned from editing topics related to Armenia and Turkey.

For past inquiries, please see Maurice07's ARBMAC report: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Maurice07
Also, please see AA2 report: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Maurice07
(Note: the second AE report was unsuccessful because he was already blocked when the report was filed)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

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.

Totally unacceptable request by User:EtienneDolet. I did'nt remove Armenian names from the articles of Turkish cities. There are many examples in this regard. Trabzon, Bayburt, Gaziantep..etc. User accusing me, Armenian names impose to cities, just like example of Erzurum. In the section of Name and etymology there are many names of city (Kurdish, Ottoman Turkish, Greek, Latin) but was only interested in the Armenian name. [23]. Another disctrict in Divriği, Armenian name placed by a Armanian user [24] waithout citing any source.

In city of Iğdır, a edit war still continues by another Armenian User:MarshallBagramyan. I've added an information sourced [25] but this title and Kurdish and Azerbaijani names removed by this WP:ARBAA2 [26] user [27]

About the Sabiha Gökçen issue, another Armaniafication effort by Etienne, Bagramyan and Yerevantsi. I have moved the Armenian claims to related section "Controversies" [28]. Because, in this regard, not any certainty. I don't think that User:EtienneDolet per WP:NPOV. As part of this dispute, this user has carried out an intensive effort to intimidate.

• 22 February 2014 We have already discussed that sabiha gokcen is not Turkish...
• 22 February 2014 Mimar Kemaleddin would be a good replacement

In parallel, same terrorization effort applied by Proudbolsahye renamed (Etienne) in Wikipedia Commons Sabiha Gökçen's photos deleted and nominated for deletion See:

• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]

I think EtienneDolet should be topic banned Turkey-Armenia related articles per, WP:ARBAA2. Maurice07 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Երևանցի It's very poor argument to accuse me. This is my personal opinion, and in no time, i didn't impose this opinion to specific articles like, Armenian Genocide or Genocides in history. Inappropriate language?? Probably, this example should be included in this definition. Maurice07 (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice's comment speaks for itself. Using inappropriate language is, apparently, OK for him (e.g. "terrorization effort"). I'd like to point out a few more expressions of his attitude towards Armenians. As of January 2014, his userpage had a template saying "This user rejects the so-called Armenian Genocide"[34] The current version of his userpage declares "This user rejects the so-called Armenian claims and believes that it's a big lie concocted by Armenian diaspora!" --Երևանցի ^talk 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have informed Callanecc about a possible violation of Maurice07's ban from Greek-Turkish relations broadly construed. Maurice07 added a picture in the Eurozone crisis article showing Greece as the first domino of the crisis. I know this is unrelated to AA2 enforcement but it relates to your thoughts about Maurice07's behaviour spreading to other areas. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to me to have merit. The most actionable concerns here appear to be Maurice07's edit warring at Divriği and Erzurum, as well as his battleground behaviour, such as calling other users' edits vandalistic. As being topic banned under WP:ARBMAC doesn't seem to have gotten Maurice to edit appropriately, I would consider going straight to a lengthy topic ban.

EtienneDolet has shown some signs of edit warringat Erzurum as well, so I'm not sure his/her hands are totally clean here, either. Nonethless, as the edit warring isn't as extensive and I'm not seeing the same battleground behaviour, I would tend not to sanction. Will wait to hear what other admins think. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the diffs and the pattern of problematic edits, the complaint clearly has merit. There might be a merit in a complaint about the initiator, but I don't see them exhibiting the same sort of battleground mentality as Maurice07. Clearly Maurice07 shouldn't be anywhere near a controversial subject like Armenia/Azerbaijan, but I'm wondering if they're suited to Wikipedia at all. Given that their battleground mentality has spread from one topic to another, it might be time to consider a site ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So at minimum, we ought to indef topic ban from Armenia. At maximum, we could indef block with the first year of that block under AE. Of course, these two are not mutually exclusive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an indef topic ban under discretionary sanctions is appropriate and necessary given the disruption and misunderstanding shown, including in their statement. If we're considering an indef block or ban I'd rather submit it to the community at large (WP:AN) rather than make a decision like that on this board. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't necessarily advocating for an indefinite site ban, just raising the possibility that a block (indefinite or otherwise) could be considered. I suppose it comes down to whether we think the disruption will spread to a third topic area if Maurice07 is topic-banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sign of an AA2 warning for Maurice07. Technically, we need this in order to impose anything... I am notifying now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am informed now of a prior AA2 warning from Jan 15 2013 ( here ), which apparently DQ didn't log in the AA2 notifications page. So, apparently WAS notified, but it wasn't clear to me that it had been done.

I believe that an unlogged notification is still valid. DQ is an administrator, so the notification itself is valid. I believe that means sanctions are available now for actions from this month. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(The warning is linked in the first section). I would suggest that we indef topic ban Maurice07 from all everything related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts. I'd also suggest that we warn Maurice07 that if the disruption does spread to another topic area they will be blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action (at least three admins agreeing on that will hopefully demonstrate the seriousness). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Callanecc on all points. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Callan too. → Call me Hahc21 14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've enacted the topic ban and logged the warning re disruption at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Final warnings. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 16 March 2014 (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) 00:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Urartu TH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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. March 14, 2014
2. March 15, 2014

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on February 21, 2014 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Urartu TH is editing controversial arbitration covered article Khojaly Massacre against consensus and in unnecessarily aggressive manner. I tried to resolve a dispute with this user at WP:DRN, and there was no consensus there for the removal of the death toll provided by the Azerbaijani government (613 dead). This was confirmed by the mediator in his closing summary [35], and in a discussion with Urartu TH at mediator's talk: [36]. While Urartu TH insisted on his unilateral removal of info, the mediator mentioned that "based on the discussions at DRN such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus". [37] Despite the outcome of the discussion at WP:DRN, and the warning of the mediator, Urartu TH removed the info from the article: [38] This is not the only example of aggressive and uncompromising editing by this user. He makes controversial edits and reverts to restore them, while there clearly is no consensus for inclusion, or deletion, for instance here: [39] he restores his edit, which was rolled back by another editor: [40], yet Urartu TH restored it without any attempt at discussion or DR. I believe due to unwillingness to work for the consensus Urartu TH should be restricted from editing AA topics, before the situation around the aforementioned article escalates further. Grandmaster 00:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if the result of the discussion at DRN was no consensus for removal of the information, then removing the information in defiance of the outcome of the discussion is disruptive. Even the mediator warned that "such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus", but this did not deter Urartu TH from making a defiant revert. In my opinion, such behavior should not be acceptable, as it leads to escalation of tensions in an arbitration covered area. At the very least, this deserves a warning. Grandmaster 09:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

I have been harassed by Grandmaster ever since I joined Wikipedia roughly 1 month ago and made some neutral edits that did not satisfy his anti-Armenian POV. I find this "enforcement request" to be a shameful attempt at censorship. One need only read the DRN or the Khojaly tragedy talk page for examples.

To the edits in question:

The first edit, March 14, 2014, was simply to give context to the citation listed. This is paramount because the article in question deals with a highly controversial and divisive topic. I only include a few words which can be found in the citation itself and provide crucial facts necessary in understanding where the information comes from.

The second edit, March 15, 2014, was not even discussed in the DRN and I am truly perplexed as to how Grandmaster could attempt to "enforce" a DRN's conclusion on a topic that was not at all discussed. I merely added the words, "Battle of Khojaly" because that is the event during which the Khojaly tragedy is said to have taken place. This part of Grandmaster's complaint clearly exemplifies his animus towards me.

Grandmaster needs to learn to tolerate differing and/or dissenting opinions instead of attempting to silence them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urartu TH (talk • contribs)

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

I'm not convinced this has got to the point it's worthy of sanctions. The main argument here seems to be that a user is editing against consensus, but the result at DRN was a lack of consensus. It's true that Urartu TH has been reverting, but there aren't that many reverts, and no more, as far as I can see, than his opponent in the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not actionable based on the reported diffs. "Editing against consensus" does not violate any conduct rule and can't be grounds for sanctions. Aggressive conduct, on the other hand, can be sanctionable (in the sense of WP:BATTLE), but such conduct is not demonstrated in the two reported diffs.

However, it is demonstrated in Urartu TH's statement above, which includes, without evidence, allegations against the complainant such as "harassed by Grandmaster", "anti-Armenian POV" and "shameful attempt at censorship". This violates WP:NPA, WP:AGF and the principles outlined in the Committee's findings in WP:ASPERSIONS. To deter Urartu TH from continuing with such conduct, I am blocking them for 48 hours. Apart from that, I think this request can be closed. Should Urartu TH continue to exhibit a battleground mentality, another enforcement request can be made.  Sandstein  09:56, 15 March 2014 (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

Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

1. 17:48 March 16 First revert, removes all mention of CUPE's boycott including the link to the article entitled CUPE Ontario and disinvestment from Israel.
2. 05:49 March 17th 1RR violation, but more importantly, purposeful misrepresentation and deletion of RS due to personal dislike of source. The deleted source contained the full text of CUPE's resolution stating "...until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law..." but Hyperionsteel changed it to "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination" which is clearly not what CUPE stated or meant.
3. 04:09 February 4 mass removal of well sourced and important text claiming "POV language", an example of non careful editing.
4. 00:04 February 5 Another 1RR violation.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In light of this poor editing on an IP article I ask that Hyperionsteel be officially made aware of ARBPIA so that he will edit more carefully in the future.

I do hope admins act on Hyperionsteel's personal attacks and realize that an editor who looks at these three sources CUPE,EI,Canada.com, and still calls Canada.com more reliable than EI, shouldn't be editing IP articles. Sepsis II (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[42]

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'll respond to Sepsis II's baseless accusations one at a time:

Regarding this edit - 17:48 March 16 I removed the mention of CUPE's boycott because there was no mention of it in the source cited [43]. Sepsis II did provide a link to this article (CUPE Ontario and disinvestment from Israel) but he should have also cited a secondary source to support its inclusion.

What Sepsis II clearly didn't notice (or deliberately ignored) was that I subsequently replaced the information on CUPE with this edit [44] with more reliable sources (in my humble opinion). Rather then simply citing an extremely POV website (which is hardly a reliable source), I instead cited two mainstream sources [45] and [46]. I hardly feel this is an violation of Wikipedia rules (mainstream sources are preferred, rather than advocacy websites like the Electronic Intifada, which Sepsis II wants to cited almost everything from).

With regards to this edit, [47], it is actually the same one I cited above - yes I removed the reference to the Electronic Intifada because I felt that mainstream sources (rather than an advocacy site) were more suitable for Wikipedia. Clearly, Sepsis II is obsessed with citing EI, and can't accept that others would rather cite mainstream sources instead.

Regarding Sepsis II claim that I "purposeful misrepresentation and deletion of RS due to personal dislike of source," this is simply false. I used the quote "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination" because that was the exact wording of a quote attributed to CUPE used in this article [48] on Canada.com. For Sepsis II to claim I purposeful misrepresented this information is utter nonsense - What Sepsis II seems to be claiming is that Canada.com purposefully misrepresented CUPE (he has determined this through his original research). If Sepsis II wants to contact Canada.com and accuse them of misrepresenting CUPE, he is welcome too, but accusing me of "purposefully misrepresentation" by citing a mainstream source (as opposed to his advocacy site) is either incredibly disingenuous or the result of a lack serious lack of judgment.

On the same note, I don't see how this can be a 1RR violation: I didn't remove any information twice - Sepsis II original edit [49] didn't even include the EI source (it included no sources, except for one which doesn't mention CUPE at all). In addition, this edit did not include Sepsis II's original quote from EI - he only added it later. In my second edit (as I already stated above) [50] I removed the EI source and substituted these [51] and [52], and cited a direct quote from CUPE that was included in the Canada.com article (admittedly I did reword Sepsis II's quote, but since this quote was not included in his first edit, it is not a 1RR violation). In other words, this is not a revert, but rather an edit made in good faith by citing two mainstream sources that I felt were more reliable than an advocacy site. I did not remove any information twice.

Finally, I did do a mass removal of information hereFebruary 3 because I felt that the language used was not POV and because some of the sources cited were not RS. What Sepsis II continently forgot to mention is that during the next 36 hours, I subsequent reinserted most of this information using NPOV language (for example, see edits [53] and [54]. For Sepsis II to make this accusation without citing the fact that I almost immediately reinserted most of this information using NPOV language is once again, either very disingenuous or indicates a lack of judgment.

Finally, I am aware of ARBPIA I make every effort to follow it (although I acknowledge that there are times that I need to be more careful).

I'm not sure why Sepsis II is making this false accusations. Based on his edits in this and similar articles, he clearly likes to parrot the EI and cannot the handle the fact that others may try to suggest alternate sources that are not advocacy sites. However, I take issue with all of Sepsis II's accusations, and his own misrepresentation of my edits and my intentions - whether this is the result of bad faith, laziness or simple incompetence on his part, I can only speculate.

In any event, if I have run afoul with Wikipedia's rules, please let me know - but for Sepsis II to selectively cite my edits to support his accusations, and to accuse me of "purposefully misrepresent[ing]" this material when I simply quoted a mainstream source (which in turn, quoted the subject) is both laughable and fallacious.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• If Sepsis II actually thinks that an advocacy website like EI is more reliable and/or suitable for Wikipedia than news articles from the largest media conglomerate in Canada [55] then he is the only who clearly lacks the common sense to edit Wikipedia articles on any topic.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

DavidLeighEllis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions:

PhiChiPsiOmega has engaged in an extended, frivolous discussion in which he asserts that parapsychology is not a pseudoscience, with flimsy references in comparison to those which describe it as a pseudoscience, in violation of WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, and WP:RS:

1. 15:15, 28 February 2014 Suggests using unreliable, self-published sources
2. 15:44, 28 February 2014 Relates to self-published sources previously identified
3. 17:02, 28 February 2014 More commentary about self-published sources
4. 17:34, 28 February 2014 Yet more commentary about self-published sources
5. 17:37, 28 February 2014 Even more commentary about self-published sources
6. 18:07, 28 February 2014 Still more commentary about self-published sources
7. 18:08, 28 February 2014 And more commentary about self-published sources
8. 18:20, 28 February 2014 And still more commentary about self-published sources
9. 18:22, 28 February 2014 And even more commentary about self-published sources
10. 20:08, 28 February 2014 Introduces another self-published source
11. 20:17, 28 February 2014 Relates to self-published sources
12. 21:13, 28 February 2014 Again relates to self-published sources
13. 23:20, 28 February 2014 Unsourced POV and soapboxing
14. 12:42, 1 March 2014 More unsourced POV and soapboxing
15. 13:41, 1 March 2014 Yet more unsourced POV and soapboxing
16. 16:02, 8 March 2014 Introduces unreliable sources
17. 20:17, 8 March 2014 Still more unsourced POV and soapboxing
18. 22:58, 8 March 2014 Even more unsourced POV and soapboxing
19. 17:06, 27 February 2014 He tried to alter the parapsychology article to this effect, removing the reference from the previous version and not supplying a source, in violation of WP:VER.

Since being reverted, he has contented himself with interminable talk page posting. See also the AN/I report on this issue, which PhiChiPsiOmega has ironically managed to turn into a constant argument.

Warnings

[56] [57]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[58]

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 references are hardly flimsy, but everyone is right -- I'm just pushing everyone's buttons. Let me present my case later when I don't have so much stuff on my plate, and when I've gotten the hang of Wikipedia. OK? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, I have indicated that I will refrain from this behavior until I understand Wikipedia policies better. I'd rather look past this. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would decline this enforcement request because it does not contain, as requested in the template and instructions, dated diffs of alleged misconduct with a clear explanation of which conduct policy or guideline they allegedly violate. The issue of whether something should be described or not as a pseudoscience in an article is a content issue which the arbitration process cannot address.  Sandstein  10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some issues here of soapboxing and dominating the talk page, and of accusing others of bad faith (as evidenced in some of the diffs), but I think it might be a bot early in this editor's career to be considering sanctions just yet. They've indicated that they will be attempting to get to grips with policy, so we should assume good faith in the absence of any reason to assume anything else. Somebody can always file another request if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 18 March 2014 (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

Smsarmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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

1. 15 March 2014 Source falsification and misrepresentation.
2. 11 March 2014 Source misrepresentation/Addition of irrelevant content and then edit warring it into the article ([59], [60], [61]). Consider this diff as Diff 2a
3. 11 March 2014 POV editing
4. 15 March 2013 Source misrepresentation

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 14 February 2014 by ErikHaugen (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein I am adding the explanation for each diff below:

For Diff # 1, the sources cited for "President of Pakistan claimed that he must have been sheltered by elements in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and that the Pakistani Government had no hand in it." nowhere says that. Besides this content was added without explaining how it is relevant to the subject of the article. The same is true for "The Pakistani Government eventually, has done a deal with the Taliban to enforce the Sharia in parts of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, because they could not fight the Taliban in that region." that was added in the same set of edits and it nowhere says that the deal was done because Pakistan couldn't fight the Taliban. This diff violates WP:V by source falsification by furthering a POV.

For Diff # 2, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" was added to the article Persecution of Hindus, while through an RFC on the talk page of the same article it was very much clear that there is no consensus to add it and the source didn't described the event as persecution. In the same diff a narration of another incident (about yoga center) was also added, but the sources cited didn't call the burning of the yoga center as "Persecution of Hindus" but Khabboos tried to edit war it into the article.

For Diff # 2a, Again the same article (Persecution of Hindus), where Khabboos added an incident about a Hindu man's killing, but the source no where said that the killing is related to the subject of the article.

For Diff # 3, it is very much clear how Khabboos furthers his POV. And this was done after the discussion on the talk, where he made an appeal that "...include these in this article. Muslims do not live in fear in India and they are hardly persecuted - in fact, they are a pampered lot. Remember, this article could be used by Pakistan to brain-wash people to terrorize India...", besides making similar POV edits [62], [63].

For Diff # 4, Khaboos added "... Pakistan was the worlds 'most active' state sponsor of terrorism including aiding groups which were considered a direct threat to USA." to the article Terrorism in Pakistan, while the source cited said "Pakistan is perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups", completely ignoring that the subject of the article is not "Terrorism by Pakistan". He was reverted but he edit warred here too, reverting it into the article twice ([64], [65]). -- SMS ^Talk 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc and @Georgewilliamherbert, I would request the two of you to please take some out after closing this request and review each edit by Khabboos regularly, because almost each of his edit is problematic in some way and while we are discussing this it still continues (source falsification). And the earlier discretionary sanctions warning to Khabboos was a result of an AE request about a month ago. -- SMS ^Talk 07:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. -- SMS ^Talk 14:08, 16 March 2014 (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.

With respect to this edit [66], I copied the matter from Osama bin Laden, along with the references.
With respect to this edit [67], I have cited references, so it doesn't go against the rules.
With respect to this edit [68], I did not restore what I added when it was reverted, because other editors told me to cite references for it (which I could not because of time constraints). I have now added a sentence there, with the appropriate references/citations.
With respect to this edit [69], I copied the matter from State-sponsored terrorism#Pakistan, along with the references and it does say, "Pakistan is perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups" now.
I haven't even edit warred with Smsarmad and he has not even discussed my edits on the discussion/Talk page of the article. Aren't we supposed to discuss things on the Talk page, then post a Request for comments and then ask for the mediation committee's help before asking for arbitration (that's what an admin told me when I complained about another editor/user)?—Khabboos (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also observed that Smsarmad added complaints no.3 and 4 later. Luckily, I was online and able to reply. If he makes another complaint, please give me the opportunity to reply before blocking/banning me. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: When no admin replied to your first ANI report, it means they found it wasn't worth acting on (they did not take action when I reported to them about you either - that too I followed the right procedure also, i.e.discuss things on the Talk page, then post a Request for comments, then ask for the mediation committee's help and then ask for arbitration). I never restored the sentence, so I haven't edit warred with you on that sentence, which means I cannot be banned for it. I did not do anything, 'to get past the vote'.—Khabboos (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: I'm logging out now because of other things to do. Please give me a chance to reply to any allegation before blocking/banning me. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: AcidSnow and you were also warned, so what?—Khabboos (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Smsarmad: I did not restore the sentence, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" after the Rfc on the Talk Page - stop making false allegations.—Khabboos (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: If you say that Toddy1, you and me were just informed and not warned, it's fine with me. Please check the date for the restoration of the sentence, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" - clearly, it was not after the Rfc on the Talk Page.—Khabboos (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: I repeat, please check the date for the restoration of the sentence, "In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan" - clearly, it was not after the Rfc on the Talk Page (the Rfc was closed on 11th March, 2014).—Khabboos (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: In fact, with this edit, [70], you have indulged in socking (the spelling mistake and what you did - reverting my edit, gives you away).—Khabboos (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I only added one sentence that broke the WP:OR rule, but did not restore the sentence in the article after being told that it was against the rules. I'm a newcomer here and I request you to forgive me according to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers for that. I have not indulged in an edit war anywhere (I am aware of the 3 revert rule and I have never been blocked due to it). There's absolutely no rule breaking pattern. AcidSnow has made a false allegation that I added something to the article after the Rfc - please check the dates, the Rfc was initiated on 23 February 2014 and closed on 11th March, 2014[71] and the mob attack in Nowshera was never added into the article after that (which means I did not break any rule in that case). I did copy some paragraphs from one place to another, just to show that things are contemporary, without reading the contents (when copying and pasting, I thought that whatever there was in one section was acceptable in another section as well), but copying and pasting within wikipedia isn't against the rules. I therefore request you admins not to block/ban/topic ban me based on false allegations! Thanks.—Khabboos (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Smsarmad: Pls get your facts right, the earlier AE last month, did not yield any result and I was never sanctioned due to that - stop making false allegations.—Khabboos (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow: The Rfc and consensus that the Nowshera mob attack should not be mentioned in the Persecution of Hindus article because the word persecution is not mentioned in the references cited, does not apply to the Anti-Hinduism article. From what I understand, mob attacks and arson can be mentioned in the Anti-Hinduism article, even if the word persecution is not mentioned in the references cited (and I have cited references, so that is not OR).—Khabboos (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khabboos had it explained to him/her in February that he/she could not just paste in fake or misrepresented citations - see Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan#Hinduism in Pakistan#Persecution. You will see that he/she was warned on 14 February 2014 about discretionary sanctions at User talk:Khabboos/Archive 1#Discretionary sanctions are applied to articles related to Pakistan.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Georgewilliamherbert, @ Callanecc. What I think is going to happen is that you are going to give Khabboos another warning. Since Khabboos has more or less ignored the warning that he/she got in mid-February, I do not expect that your warning will have very much effect on his/her behaviour - it might for a week... Then you will get fed up with Khabboos' behaviour, and give him/her a permanent block. Khabboos is on a crusade against Pakistan, so he/she will come back as a series of socks, who will get blocked as they get found out, or get too annoying.

But it does not have to be that way. You could give him/her the kind of warning that he/she understands - such as a 48 hour block, with the promise that if he/she continues behaving the way he does, the blocks will escalate. My guess is that he/she will moderate his/her behaviour if you use the stick as well as the carrot. I do not think that he/she is a bad person. At the moment he/she is just pushing the boundaries.

You can see what he is up to. Let me give a current example. There is a discussion at Talk:Persecution of Hindus#Revert, why about some speculation about an arson attack on a yoga centre that Khabboos tried to add to the Persecution of Hindus article - the consensus seems to be that it does not belong in the article. On 11 March, he added it to the article on Hinduism in Pakistan‎,[72] and reverted AcidSnow's removal of it on 20 March,[73] saying "this hasn't been discussed on the Talk Pg of this article" - which is technically true - as the discussion had been at Talk:Persecution of Hindus#Revert, why. It is not helpful behavior, but he/she is pushing the boundaries.

Personally I hope that Khabboos can be encouraged to moderate his/her behaviour. I do not want to see him/her permanently blocked. I fear that if this is closed with an informal warning, then Khabboos will just ignore it, and then the admins will switch from being over-lenient, to blocking him/her forever.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabboos: This does is not seem to be true since you demanded that I go find citations for them since they are "true statements". Instead, I responded with reasons as to why there is no need for me to do it, but you never responded. AcidSnow (talk)

Edit: Khabboos, nobody said that you were edit warring; these types of edits are not allowed and can still lead you to be sanctioned. I was also merely stating how you constantly play the "novice card" when told to stop your disruptive editing and them demand another user to do the same exact action. AcidSnow (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khabboos has also engaged in forum shopping about the same issue (see here, this is my original ANI report about him were a list a few of them and other problems with this user though almost no admin responded to me). I would give you more diffs on this specific issue, but I don't have the time to do so (maybe later); though there are also other issues that are more problematic. Most of the users that did respond to his request stated that they "oppose" it. Yet, instead of respecting the outcome he went and used sock puppetry (see here for two more, I plan on making an investigation soon) so he can get past the vote. Even after being warned that he was severally risking being banned off Wikipedia he went, instead of responding to it, automatically archived it (he has responded to all other comments on his talk page, but not this?). He would later specifically remove it off his archive, but kept everything else intact. Why would he do that unless he was trying to hid it? I don't see why he is allowed to edit on Wikipedia, let alone these types of articles when he continuously doing the same thing even after being told to stop and being given numerous chances to reform himself. AcidSnow (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabboos: Yes Khabboos, Toddy and I were both informed that these types of articles are are under discretionary sanctions, but not because we were doing anything wrong. You, however were informed because you were violating Wikipedia polices. AcidSnow (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabboos: " I did not restore the sentence", that's a bold thing to say Khabboos, even after being shown that you have. AcidSnow (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabboos: "they found it wasn't worth acting", that's not true as I was told to wait by admins for assistance. But, I decided that it was best to let it get archived instead. AcidSnow (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabboos: "when I reported to them about you either", they did respond, but did nothing because I did nothing wrong. You, however are a different story. Plus, I was never informed that these articles are under discretionary sanctions until then. You did not even follow the right procedure to begin with, but simply continue to forum shop; which is also not allowed on here. AcidSnow (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabboos: "clearly, it was not after the Rfc on the Talk Page", you realize you need to wait to receive consensus when an editor disagrees with your edit, let alone when you make a RFC? But you never did receive it! That link does show it because its not the right one. Here is the link he was referring too; where it clearly shows you adding it after the second RFC regarding this (also includes other addictions that violate Wikipedia): [74]. You also continuously tried to restore it after first RFC and even before that when you still never received consensus regarding this: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], and [80]. Instead of respectively asking for for other user to comments, you choose to demanded that they (including admins) agree with you and revert me; which completely breaks the purpose of "consensuses". Not just those, but rather than respecting the outcome of both RFC, you choose to use sock puppetry instead (which you deny even though its quite obvious it was you): [81] and [82]! These came before and after your RFC, respectively, when their was still a general consensus. In fact, these ips only edited on the same articles you had and in the same exact fashion. AcidSnow (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabboos: "it does say", your edit did not reflect that what so ever, but rather states something completely different. AcidSnow (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabboos: "clearly, it was not after the Rfc on the Talk Page, did you read anything I wrote? "you realize you need to wait to receive consensus when an editor disagrees with your edit, let alone when you make a RFC", clearly you did not. You need to receive consensus before you restore an edit when you make a RFC. You, however did not but continued to restore it even though it was your second RFC: [83]. You did break a rule when you restored this edit breaking consensuses. You still do even in a more recent edit (today) which includes other violation that were just discussed: [84]. Maybe you should read what I have written so your not making the same mistake over and over. Nobody has stated "false allegation", but you when claimed that I was "socking" probably to escape a "block due to the 3 revert rule". Clearly you don't know what "socking" nor what the "3RR" mean. AcidSnow (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Clearly there is a pattern as this user continuously does the same things even after being told to stop and being given numerous chances to reform himself. He continues even after discussing the same content violations: [85]. So what good will another reminder do? AcidSnow (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

In my view, diffs 1 and 2 are not actionable because the submitter does not explain, as they are required to, how specifically the edits misrepresent or falsify sources, or constitute edit-warring. Diff 3 is more problematic, especially the parts that read "Moreover, the muslims in India do not live in fear, the way minorities in Pakistan live" and "muslims are pampered as a part of vote Bank politics in India". In addition to the grammatical deficiencies, this is not only unsourced (WP:V) but also it appears intended to make a particular political argument rather than to neutrally inform readers about the variety of opinions that may exist (WP:NPOV). Such content should not be added to articles. If Khabboos does not demonstrate their understanding of this, we should consider a topic ban.  Sandstein  16:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As Sandstein points out, we're not here to decide the reliability of sources or the truth of any given statement, but to assess whether any editor's conduct is so egregious as to merit sanctions. The initiator has sort of buried the lead but diff #3 is quite concerning, and the remainder of the diffs appear to show that it is part of a pattern and not just a mere one-off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see as clear a pattern as HJ, and it looks like Khabboos understands the reason others have a problem with diff 3. Given that I'd suggest we close this request with an informal reminder to Khabboos on WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Callanecc. I would close with an informal reminder. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection to closing it with advice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 20 March 2014 (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

Stmullin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

i/User:Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

To remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools

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

• [86]properly cited quotes are allowed in wikipedia

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

12:15, 25 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-192)‎ . . m Super-team ‎ (Reverted 2 edits by Gaijin42 (talk) to last revision by Stmullin. (TW)) 12:00, 25 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . Super-team ‎ (→‎Stages of team development) 11:58, 25 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,615)‎ . . Super-team ‎ (Undid revision 601206685 by Gaijin42 (talk))

1. Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 1 (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am being hounded by a cowboy and it needs to stop now. The article is correctly cited and his aggression is completly out of line

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12:23, 25 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+87)‎ . . User talk:Stmullin ‎ (→‎March 2014) (current)

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 section above.

Speedily closed. This is not an arbitration enforcement request, as it cites no decision to be enforced, and I don't see any arbitration decision that could apply to Super-team. See generally WP:DR for further options.  Sandstein  17:04, 25 March 2014 (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

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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

1. 24 March 2014 Not a one of the sources used support the statement "The territory became predominantly Muslim during the rule of the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire due to forced conversions." In fact, both BBC sources say the Muslim rulers were all religiously tolerant. This is blatant source misrepresentation.
2. 24 March 2014 Exactly the same as above.
3. 24 March 2014 And again, exactly the same edit, he has done this on a fair few articles.[87][88][89] And all of these edits need rolling back.
4. [90] This on his talk page is telling, he is citing from a book, he has not even read, just copied the ref from another article.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 14 February 2014 by ErikHaugen (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 20 March 2014 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Khabboos, can you please stop pinging me every time you post here, the page is on my watchlist. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ping you, but it may be happening automatically because this page is on your watchlist.—Khabboos (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to points 1 to 3: I copied the references cited at Forced conversion#Early and used them to show that Islam spread in present day Pakistan and the Punjab region by forced conversions. The references cited do show that conversions happened against the will of the people (in fact, the BBC article's title itself is, "Intolerant ruler: Aurangzeb" and it mentions the ways in which Aurangzeb was intolerant). Now wikipedia has a policy that we should paraphrase sentences and not use the original sentences, so the best way was to use the term, "forced conversions" to summarise the references. In fact you admins should ban Darkness Shines for reverting my edit [91] (I haven't reverted/edit warred with him on it)!
Answer to point 4: I never restored the edit using Khan as a reference after the discussion here:[92], so when I did not restore it, it doesn't make sense to complain about it here.—Khabboos (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: At [93], it says, "He (Aurangzeb) no longer allowed the Hindu community to live under their own laws and customs, but imposed Sharia law (Islamic law) over the whole empire. Thousands of Hindu temples and shrines were torn down and a punitive tax (jizya) on Hindu subjects was re-imposed." Imposing the Sharia and jizya on non-muslims leads to conversion to Islam. At Forced conversion#Early, we even have this sentence: "The Jizya (poll tax) was the most important factor in the mass conversion to Islam, the tax paid by all non-Muslims (Dhimmis) in Islamic empires."

At [94], it says Guru Tegh Bahadur spoke out amid this persecution of non-muslims. He (Guru Tegh Bahadur) refused to convert to Islam and in 1675, he was beheaded in Delhi (for not converting to Islam).

At [95], it says, "Those that stayed behind were asked to convert to Islam. For those that did not comply to this request, heavy taxes were levied on them and their properties were taken from them." This again leads to conversion to Islam. I haven't even reverted/edit warred with anyone.—Khabboos (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to cite these references also, before which Darkness Shines has complained here: <ref>[http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_malfuzat_frameset.htm Memoir of the Emperor Timur (Malfuzat-i Timuri)] Timur's memoirs on his invasion of India; describes in detail the massacre of Hindus, forced conversions to Islam and the plunder of the wealth of Hindustan (India). Compiled in the book: "[[The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period]]", by Sir H. M. Elliot, Edited by John Dowson; London, Trubner Company; 1867–1877</ref><ref name="Gier">Nicholas F. Gier, ''FROM MONGOLS TO MUGHALS: RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN INDIA 9TH-18TH CENTURIES'', Presented at the Pacific Northwest Regional Meeting American Academy of Religion, Gonzaga University, May 2006 [http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/mm.htm]</ref>. If you look at when I cited those references, it is just a few hours ago (the time of 13:55 can be seen here [96]). Should someone ask for AE in such a hurry without allowing me to discuss things on the Talk page of the article (which I was about to do)? EDIT: I have added the new citations for discussion on the Talk Page also now (see here:[97])!—Khabboos (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In, "Timur's memoirs on his invasion of India"[98], India or Hindustan meant the entire Indian subcontinent, including present day Pakistan (and the term, "forced conversion" is mentioned in it)! Even this online citation by Nicholas F. Gier: [99] mentions the terms, "force conversion to Islam", "forced conversions" and "forced to convert to Islam".—Khabboos (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Smsarmad: Answer to your point #1. You had complained about that in the previous AE and the admins forgave warned me for it. I have not repeated that mistake again, so you can't bring it up here again.

Answer to your point #2. A discussion on the Talk Page [100] is not an edit to an article and so, you should not be complaining about it.—Khabboos (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Please mention what objection you have to these also: [101] and [102]. Both the references mention the term, "forced conversion"! I did read and understand your objections and that's why I did not indulge in an edit war with anyone. I have also demonstrated that I understand your objections to using M.A.Khan's book as a reference here:[103].—Khabboos (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston, Callanecc: I did not revert the edit by Darkness Shines. However, I feel he should have told/discussed things with me either on my Talk page or the article's Talk page before asking for AE. In these references that I mentioned on the Talk Page[104], "Timur's memoirs on his invasion of India"[105], India or Hindustan meant the entire Indian subcontinent, including present day Pakistan (and the term, "forced conversion" is mentioned in it) and this online citation by Nicholas F. Gier: [106] mentions the terms, "force conversion to Islam", "forced conversions" and "forced to convert to Islam", so when the term, "forced conversion" is mentioned, they are good sources to cite (I have not edit warred, introduced any original research or used a source which does not support the statement, after the reversion by Darkness Shines).—Khabboos (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP, I have not repeated any mistake/s. I'm still new here and probably still need to learn a lot (I have not edit warred, introduced any original research or used a source which does not support the statement, after the reversion by Darkness Shines, who I feel should have told/discussed things with me either on my Talk page or the article's Talk page before asking for AE).—Khabboos (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: I'm logging out now, but please allow me to reply to any fresh allegation/s before acting on it. I have neither repeated any mistake after the last AE nor have I edit warred with anyone, so please think before you act! Thank you.—Khabboos (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to his source falsification that was ignored in the last AE request:

1. 19 March The sources doesn't say that HRW report mentions "rape" as one of the abuses against the minorities.
2. 23 March Quantifies a strength of 6-7 million people as "some" based on OR as he describes in his own words: "... British India had the largest muslim population in the world at that time and Pakistan would certainly not have been able to accommodate all of them"

-- SMS ^Talk 17:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is the Khabboos cannot be bothered to read the sources he/she cites. Let's take his/her last attempted addition to the article on Hinduism in Pakistan.[107] He/she is claiming that parts of Pakistan "became predominantly Muslim during the rule of Delhi Sultanate and later Mughal Empire due to forced conversions." He/she provided 4 citations.

• Khan, M.A. (2009), Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery, iUniverse, ISBN 978-1440118463. When asked what the page numbers were, he/she replied that the citation that he/she "added here is reference#30 at Forced conversion#Early". [108][109] His/her replies showed that he/she had merely copied the source from another article without reading it.
• mtholyoke.edu Muslim Invasion. This page refers to events that started in 711 AD. The Delhi Sultanate started 500 years later in 1206 AD. The Mughal Empire started in 1526 AD. The webpage says that Hindus were subject to economic discrimination if they did not convert to Islam – this is not the same thing as forced conversion.
• bbc.co.uk Aurangzeb. This citation refers to the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. It does not mention forced conversion. It says that before Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire had practiced religious tolerance, and that Aurangzeb ended that policy. It does mention persecution of Hindus, and economic discrimination against Hindus.
• bbc.co.uk Guru Tegh Bahadur This citation refers to someone who lived during the reign of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. It does not mention forced conversion. It does mention persecution of Hindus, and economic discrimination against Hindus.

Khabboos appears to obtain his/her citations by either copying them from other Wikipedia articles, or through search engines. But in general, it does not appear that he/she bothers to read them, which is why we have had so many problems over the past month with him/her posting citations that do not back the claims he makes for them. See Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan# Hinduism in Pakistan#Persecution, Talk:Persecution of Hindus#Request for comments and Talk:Persecution of Hindus#Revert, why for other similar problems.

I am sure that Khabboos is 100% well-meaning and probably has no idea why people disagree with him/her. He/she probably cannot be bothered to read and understand our objections.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Khabboos has posted further information on his talk page.[110] I had asked him/her "So you admit that you have not actually looked at this book?" He/she replied: "How can you expect me to go, buy and look at the book?" This is a book that he/she had cited, and he/she cannot understand that we expect him/her to have looked at it.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Based only on diff 1, the request has merit. The cited sources speak of intolerant Muslim rulers, but nothing about the area becoming majority Muslim, or forced conversions. This is clear source misrepresentation. I recommend a ban from the topic of Islam in India and Pakistan.  Sandstein  17:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Sandstein's conclusion about diff 1. Khaboos provides three URLs, but none of the three provides support for the claim of forced conversion which he has added to the text of the article. The claim of 'Muslim majority' is still unsupported but it may have been added before Khaboos started editing. I would support a ban from the topic of Islam in India and Pakistan. It is surprising that Khabboos believes he is entitled to support his argument using books that he does not have access to and has not read. See Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, which provides "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself." If you haven't seen it, how do you know what it says? EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this request is actionable, particularly given the very recent AE request. It shows us that Khabboos doesn't understand the problem with their edits and didn't take head of the comments in the previous AE request. As such I agree with EdJohnston that a topic ban from Islam if it's related to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. I've made the wording a tad broader (related rather than in) and included Afghanistan as I believe that the problem is a bit more endemic to Khabboos's editing around this topic. I'd also suggest a warning to Khabboos that any other edit in which they introduce original research or use a source which does not support the statement it is supposed to cite in any topic area will result in further sanctions, primarily blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The phrase "the admins forgave me for it. I have not repeated that mistake again, so you can't bring it up here again" is extremely galling - it's been brought up to show a pattern of behaviour, which is now very clear. Nobody "forgave" anyone for anything. There's an extreme level of cluelessness here that can be extremely damaging, especially in controversial topic areas. DP 09:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing with topic ban as discussed above.  Sandstein  05:40, 26 March 2014 (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

Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

AcidSnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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. Here,[111] he reverted my edit which provided proper citations about the Nowshera Mob attack and arson in Islamabad added to the Anti-Hinduism article. The references cited say the same thing as the sentence added to the wiki article.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on [112] by admin ErikHaugen (talk · contribs)}}
2. Warned on [113] by admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on [114]
4. Warned on [115]
5. Warned on [116] by Smsarmad (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some editors wrote that the Nowshera Mob attack and arson in Islamabad cannot be added to the Persecution of Hindus article because the word, "persecution" was not mentioned in the references cited at the Talk:Persecution of Hindus page[117] (when actually one editor, Kanga Roo in the Zoo writes that the word, "persecution" is mentioned in one of the citations), but for the Anti-Hinduism article, the term, "persecution" need not be mentioned - mob attacks and arson directed against Hindus are enough to include citations in the (Anti-Hinduism) article. AcidSnow has also been stalking and reverting my edits:[118]

@Darkness Shines: I have not edited anything that I have been topic banned from after the AE against me.—Khabboos (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I have not edited anything that I have been topic banned from after the AE against me. AcidSnow has also been stalking and reverting my edits:[119]. If one sees the contributions by me, one can see that AcidSnow has also done something to that particular edit, but because they are too numerous, I'm only pointing to what was said on his talk page.—Khabboos (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of AcidSnow stalking me: [120], [121], [122]

Darkness Shines, that edit at [123] is not an edit related to Islam!—Khabboos (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2014 (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.

How is this not a violation of the TBAN just imposed on Khabboos? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit also appears to be a TBAN violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This enforcement request seems to violate the topic ban, that applies to Khabboos, because it concerns a complaint about the removal of content about violence between the Hindu and Muslim communities in Pakistan. On the merits, the evidence submitted here is not enough to establish actionable misconduct. I see one diff of what seems to be a content dispute, and vague allegations of stalking with no evidence. That's not enough to act on.  Sandstein  10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there is no to not enough actionable evidence here. Khabboos's behaviour is being examined in the request below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 27 March 2014 (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

Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log �� block user · block log) 10:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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. Here [124] and here [125] Removed sentence which had properly referenced citation.
2. [126] Talking of reverting and therefore edit warring if a sentence which had properly referenced citations is added to the article Hinduism_in_Pakistan.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on [127] by admin Frank (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on [128] by Amadscientist
3. Warned on [129]
4. Warned on [130] by admin MarcusMaximus0 (talk · contribs)
5. Warned on [131]
6. Warned on [132] by admin Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite having unclean hands, he has complained for AE against newcomers like ZORDANLIGHTER and me (Khabboos) here.

Darkness Shines, if a book states history accurately, it should be reliable, even if it was published in the 1800s'.—Khabboos (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2014 (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.

Just pointing out, MarcusMaximus0 is not an admin, and is in fact a blocked sock of Nangparbat. Regarding the diffs given, 1- I restored academically cited content which had been removed, ans removed an edit by Khabboos which he had added to the lede in violation of UNDUE. Which I explained on the talk page. 2- is the same as the first? 3- I said I would revert as the sources are junk. A book from the 1800`s are not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, another violation of TBAN by Khabboos (The article is about an Islamic spiritual song with Indian origin), despite the discussion in the result section moving closer to some kind of a sanction. I was tempted to open a new request but now that Khabboos's conduct is discussed here, so better avoid redundant case threads. -- SMS ^Talk 15:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The complaint does not include actionable evidence of misconduct. We have one article diff, which seems to reflect a content dispute, and unclear references to some talk page discussions. The conduct of Khabboos in filing this request, and the one above, appears vexatious and disruptive, including by engaging in personal attacks ("What a crook!"). I recommend extending their topic ban to everything related to religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, because it is clear that they lack the clue needed to edit productively in this topic area.  Sandstein  10:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to concur with Sandstein - obviously vexatious, and the violation of NPA in this filing is inexcusable. I'd go so far as to implement a one-way interaction ban. Otherwise, let's just indef and be done with this unacceptable behaviour. DP 10:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For those not following along at home, the editor decided to remove the violation of WP:NPA in this edit. That does not remove the fact that they felt it to be a good idea at the time, nor that it should have been struck, rather than removed as it had already been commented upon. ES&L 15:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I'd suggest an AE month long block for violating the IBAN and personal attacks rather than changing the topic ban or indef blocking in this case. If there is anything more after the block then I imagine it'll be pretty quickly followed by a wide TBAN or a long/indef block, but as this is the first block and not long after the IBAN was imposed I'd rather not block indef this time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly concerning is that this enforcement request seems to be retaliation for a similar one closed yesterday. AGK [•] 12:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a topic ban is issued (rather than a block) the assumption is that the person can do useful work in other areas and is willing to observe the terms of the ban. If somebody returns to the offensive against the other party so quickly, and files an AE which is technically off limits due to his ban, I think the only reasonable step is some kind of a block. I'd support User:Callanecc's proposal of a one-month block for Khabboos, as well as Sandstein's idea to widen the ban to cover religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'd widen the ban further to say he can't edit any *articles* which contain mention of such ethnic conflicts. It is a concern that in Khabboos's AE against AcidSnow he seems to misunderstand what his ban covers. He seems to think that this edit is not related to Islam, even though the Sectarianism in Pakistan article is mainly about attacks said to have been committed by Sunni militant groups (see the second paragraph of the article). Attacks by Sunni militant groups are clearly related to Islam. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the continued topic ban violations by Khabboos, one mentioned above and one here (referring to the implementation of the Sharia in Pakistan), I am closing this request with the sanction proposed by EdJohnston above.  Sandstein  16:27, 29 March 2014 (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

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ZORDANLIGHTER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block 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. 26 March 2014 Files a spurious SPI against myself, pure battleground mentality.
2. 26 March 2014 Calls me "useless" and an "ISI agent" These are obvious personal attacks.
3. 26 March 2014 Insertion of a blatant BLP violation, this unsourced "and cooking up lies and rumors" and the cited part "herself is found to be biased" is not even in the source used, the source actually says "Setalvad is alleged to have included charges that were retracted later by the witnesses." And that is all it says regarding this BLP. This is source misrepresentation to smear a BLP.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 26 March 2014 by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The fact that these edits came just after having being notified of discretionary sanctions shows, to me at least, a battlefield approach to editing in what is a highly contentious topic, notably the events which occurred in Gujarat in 02. Most telling were the edits which gave me cause to issue the notification. Restoration, twice, of the main article on the incidents to a version from over a year ago, which also contained BLPPRIMARY violations, and in doing so removed up to a hundred (wild guess there, I am not about to count them) academic sources which discuss the issue. This removal was a terrible breach of NPOV.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Biased_article_2

The entire article is biased inspite of open truth.Some unknown journalists are given more importance than well established news agencies.

Zordanlighter has not been warned by an admin earlier and may not yet understand the rules here. I think he must first be warned not to indulge in Original Research and that he should cite references that contain the same words as the sentence he uses on wikipedia.—Khabboos (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This SPI case results might be of interest to admins reviewing this request. -- SMS ^Talk 21:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Calling someone an intelligence agent in an attempt to discredit them is either simple trolling or an indication of a clear disregard for wikipdia's standards for behaviour. ZORDANLIGHTER is a relatively new account that has already been blocked for disruptive editing (only in the last week) and whose conduct has degenerated since being notified of discretionary sanctions.
  Opening an SPI by linking 12 completely unrelated accounts without evidence and with the comment "Just 5% chance. 95% chance of myself being wrong" indicates that this person is either naive or trolling - but this is not within the remit of AE.
  In terms of the RFAR this edit[133] gives me reason to consider that ZORDANLIGHTER is indeed just being disruptive because they've added[134] and removed this material within 1 minute. What worries me most is that this issue seems to be an escalation of issues on Total Siyapaa and rather than heeding the AC/DS warning ZORDANLIGHTER's behaviour has gotten worse.
  I'd be inclined to issue a final warning in this case regarding edits to pages relating to the area conflict covered by this RFAR and separately issue a standard sysop warning regarding conduct toward other users. However, I am open-minded if other sysops see ZORDANLIGHTER's actions as warranting harsher sanction--Cailil ^talk 22:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy with that, but I'd be fairly likely to have a pretty low standard if there is further misconduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The situation that led to the block of ZORDANLIGHTER on 17 March (for removing others' comments) is explained in more detail on this version of his talk page. Since the DS warning was only just given on 26 March there has not been enough time for Z. to do much that is worthy of sanction. ZORDANLIGHTER's comments which can be seen on Talk:Total Siyapaa do not inspire confidence, but all but one of these comments were *before* the DS warning. Unless Z. decides to completely change his approach in the near future those who are expecting the worst probably won't need to wait long. In other words, closing this with just a warning should be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the results of the SPI linked to by SMS above - I'm asking Salvio for input here--Cailil ^talk 16:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really know what you'd like to know, Cailil; so, please do feel free to ask if you'd like to know more. In short, I ran a check on IMRANABBASCHAMPION and technical evidence showed me that there were strong links among said account, BLACKIEHINDU, Whistlingwoods and ZORDANLIGHTER. I found edits made by different accounts from the same IP address within a short time frame of one another and with the same UA – and, more than that, in general, all their edits came from the same /25 range with the same UA. For Whistlingwood, I also took into account the fact that his edits always supported Zordanlighter, which reinforced my original conclusion. In the end, however, I considered the technical evidence I gathered strong enough to call the whole bunch  Confirmed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Salvio - I missed the bit where ZORDANLIGHTER was blocked for 2 weeks. But fundamentally what I'm wondering is, if given this abuse we should move to a higher level sanction or just close with the warning? Personally I'd lean towards a topic ban at this point--Cailil ^talk 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that the SPI result indicates that ZORDANLIGHTER engaged in disruptive topic-related sockpuppetry after being warned about discretionary sanctions, including with edits as BLACKIEHINDU (talk · contribs) such as "[living person] is an Dark and ugly South Indian Hindu" ([135]), I recommend an indefinite topic ban from everything related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Sandstein  19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Since ZORDANLIGHTER's abuse of multiple accounts is now confirmed and he has no record of any helpful encyclopedic editing I'd support a one-year block under discretionary sanctions. The above diff by User:BLACKIEHINDU is to be credited to ZORDANLIGHTER per the sock case results, and it certainly shows improper ethnic motivation for his Wikipedia edits. Z's other confirmed socks should be indeffed as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy leaving it as a two week block (as opposed to extending it to a year as Ed suggested) but placing the indef topic ban per Sandstein. I think a two week block is an appropriate sanction for the sockpuppetry and that the topic ban is necessary to prevent further disruptive edits to the topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have no qualms about a year-long block, but I can certainly live with an indefinite topic ban. It's minimal effort to re-block if that proves necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Callanecc and HJ Mitchell regarding the block.  Sandstein  16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandstein and HJ and Callanecc - if there are no objections and nothing new comes up I'll close this in 24 hours with an imposition of an indefinite topic ban on ZORDANLIGHTER from the India, Pakistan and Afghanistan topic area(s)--Cailil ^talk 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, straightforwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So closed, ZORDANLIGHTER is topic banned from topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan--Cailil ^talk 19:35, 1 April 2014 (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

Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

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

There is a recurring WP:Battleground and WP:CIVIL issue with 76.107.171.90 (talk) using vulgarity, personal attacks and inappropriate behavior against the editors they disagree with.

My first encounter with 76 was on my Talk Page, when they jumped in on a conversation I was having with another editor. 76 suddenly posted a long rant in which they warned me never to edit the Rupert Sheldrake page again unless I was "absolutely determined to martyr yourself" and then posted an insulting rhyme (apparently inspired by my interest in the Golden Age of Piracy) that starts with "Well tickle me dick-hole and shit on a stick! I know of a troll who’s one hell of a dick!"

This exchange continued despite my attempts to reason with 76 until I finally gave up and decided to stop engaging. 76 continued to make abusive remarks and thinly veiled threats after that point. I had been willing to let the matter go, but the fact that 76 is still speaking to other editors about gathering "evidence" against me indicates that 76 has an axe to grind and won't stop their harassment until I'm blocked.

• Incidents of personal attacks against me: 1, 2, 3, 4
• Examples of issues: 1 (referring to a person as a "diehard retard"), 2 (referring to Liz's as a bullying troll for questioning 76's personal attacks), 3 (WP:Battleground tactics like writing up an AE arguing for an editor to be indefinitely blocked because they were "pro-fringe") 4, 5 & 6 (canvassing/soliciting other editors to assist in combating editors 76 dislikes)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on Feb 25, 2014 by The Cap'n that his behavior was uncivil and unacceptable.
2. Warned on Feb 27, 2014 by Liz about making personal attacks.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Highlights (excerpted from Incidents above):

• When I pointed out I hadn’t made any pro-fringe comments, 76 replied "Predictably, you’re feeling desperate to convince yourself that you’re “the victim” of a coordinated effort to silence “intellectual dissents” or “free thinkers” or “non-conformists” or whatever the fuck you call yourself. Or perhaps you have chosen to cower behind WP:BLP?"
• When I stated that I had no desire for WP:BATTLEGROUND, 76 said "WP:battle suggests that one should not approach editing as a battle, but once a battle has erupted we are not required to deny that it has occurred or that there are opposing sides.", also reminding me "I’m also making it clear that people hold grudges."
• When I pointed out that threats of blocking were not appropriate, 76 replied there was no threat, but rather "I am simply telling you that you’ve come to a point where you need to decide if you really want to commit “Wikipedia suicide”. If you persist in your fringe-pushing behavior then the decision to ban or block you was your own. Is getting yourself blocked really going to make you feel better Askahrc? Is it something that you feel you need to do to gratify your delusions of victimization?"
• 76 first claimed they were simply trying to help me "rejoin the mainstream", saying "And so I came here to talk to you in the hope that you might stop your disruption and become a productive editor once again." When I pointed out their behavior was far from helpful, they reiterated their threats, "I’m not “offering helpful advice”. I’m telling you to stop being a fringe pusher." and "But if everyone thinks that you had it coming then you’ll receive no sympathy at all if you get yourself blocked."
• Here is an accumulation of the variety of ways that 76 brought up my blocking in our exchange (not including those mentioned above), insisting there was no threat implied: "The benefit of the doubt is for people who haven’t dispelled all doubt.", "Would you really like to get your name on Tom Butler’s list of shame?", "Seriously though, you should leave the Sheldrake page alone.", "I don’t have a reason to do so as there are others who will more than happily take you to WP:AE or WP:ANI.", " If you get yourself blocked for fringe pushing when you really were fringe pushing then it will mean nothing."

To this day I don't know what "pro-fringe, disruptive" edits I made that so upset 76, but this conduct seems unreasonable and inappropriate in any case, and violates every concept of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. In addition to insulting me in a threatening and vulgar manner, I find 76's use of the word "retard" to be repugnant. That is one of the most offensive terms in the English language and is especially unacceptable when used as an ad-hominem attack. This kind of conduct is not appropriate on WP.

@76; first off, I respect the decision of the admins in that SPI case, and would point out that the conclusion of the SPI was not that I had been engaging in a false flag abuse, but rather a warning to only use this account to edit. The case did not declare me a "known liar" nor that I committed any abuses on WP.

As far as procedures go, I'm a little confused by 76 declaring that this case is invalid because the multiple warnings they got about their conduct were not in the typical template, but then considers it acceptable to try to edit my own statements in an AE case against them. In any case, I am not surprised by 76's claim that this very AE is a reason to block me, considering everything outlined above. This strange vindictiveness is the reason for this AE; I had let the whole thing go until I discovered 76 was still contacting other editors to try to get me blocked even after I'd stopped arguing with 76 in Feb, stopped editing Sheldrake and did not provoke 76 in any way. The Cap'n (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Barney; here is my response to your points:

• We've all made made procedural mistakes here and there. That is not an excuse to harass someone.
• I've never received a community or topic ban, for Rupert Sheldrake or anything else. An admin unofficially advised me that I would be wise to lay off Rupert Sheldrake for awhile, which I have. I contacted them before considering this AE and confirmed that my actions were appropriate. In any case, none of my issues are related to Rupert Sheldrake except for the fact that's where 76 apparently noticed me. Finally, it's ridiculous to claim an editor cannot complain about personal attacks if the personal attacks are related to a banned topic.
• I have no idea about what "revenge" I'm supposedly extracting. 76 was not the author of any actions against me (yet). 76 behaved badly, and I'm bringing that up in the proper arena.
• These condemnations of Liz strike me as odd, since the behavior Barney is castigating her for is effectively promoting WP:CIVIL, decrying POV and encouraging editors that WP is inherently fair. Truly, good job Lizzy.
• Barney agrees that 76 violated WP:CIVIL, but claims that their vulgarity, battleground mentality and personal attacks are really the fault of whoever made them mad in the first place. As for my outrageously disruptive edits that supposedly justify such behavior? I'd love to see some diffs of my disruptive, abusive behavior referenced.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.107.171.90&diff=602455670&oldid=597888651

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.

Askahrc is a known liar who was previously found guilty of engaging in a false flag technique to attempt to get Vzaak and Barney the barney barney banned from editing Rupert Sheldrake. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive.

Given Askahrc’s history of lying, I am asking for special permission to edit within Askahrc’s statement so as that I will be better able to refute his allegations on a point by point basis. I will do so in a different color so as to prevent confusion.

I would also like to point out that I think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order, and that the “warnings” that Askahrc has provided evidence of are not the typical template-style warnings that are normally used in these types of proceedings. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I am not asking permission to alter what Askahrc has actually said. I am asking for permission to interject my (differently colored) comments into his own so as that I can better refute his claims on a point by point basis. I don’t think that this is an unreasonable request to make given the fact that Askahrc is a known liar. I should not be at a disadvantage because of the severe WP:TLDR that would result from an attempt to rebut all of Askahrc’s claims in paragraph form. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the following section my text will be in red, while text that Askahrc wrote will be in black.

A central element in this conflict is a “rant” that Askahrc posted on the personal website of a blocked user known as “Tumbleman”. In anticipation of these proceedings I took steps to defend myself. Two days ago I asked Dougweller to preserve Askahrc’s off-wiki rant so that I can use it as evidence in these proceedings should Askahrc attempt to have the original version modified or deleted. [Here] is Dougweller’s copy. I will also reproduce the text in full:

As you can see Askahrc refers to his enemies as “bullies” multiple times. He also refers to them as “unethical”, “arrogant”, “antagonistic”, “scoundrels”, “knaves”, “pisspoor bastards”, and “scurvy dogs”. So, I think it is pretty clear that Askahrc started this altercation. Having read Askahrc’s ranting attack on the “skeptical” editors of Wikipedia I was not in the least bit hesitant to treat Askahrc as he had treated others when I first encountered him on his talk page.

With that being said, what follows is Askahrc’s request with my comments interjected into it.

My first encounter with 76 was on my Talk Page, when they jumped in on a conversation I was having with another editor. I came to Barney’s aid after Askahrc had attempted to get Barney banned from the Sheldrake page. 76 suddenly posted a long rant in which they warned me never to edit the Rupert Sheldrake page again unless I was "absolutely determined to martyr yourself" and then posted an insulting rhyme (apparently inspired by Askahrc’s off-wiki rant in which he talks like a pirate my interest in the Golden Age of Piracy) that starts with "Well tickle me dick-hole and shit on a stick! I know of a troll who’s one hell of a dick!" It should be noted that the “troll who’s one hell of a dick” is User:Tumbleman. Tumbleman is a notorious internet troll who Askahrc is madly in love with. Askahrc’s off-wiki relationship with Tumbleman was a central element of my discussion with Askahrc. I made mention of it several times.

This exchange continued despite my attempts to reason at no point did Askahrc attempt to engage in any reasoned conversation whatsoever with 76 until I finally gave up and called me a troll decided to stop engaging. 76 continued to make abusive remarks and thinly veiled threats after that point. Actually, I made one additional brief remark which can be viewed [here]. I’m not sure what Askahrc considers to be “abusive” about it. I had been willing to let the matter go Actually, he could NOT let the matter go AT ALL. What he actually did was complain about me in his sock puppet investigation [[136]]. Then he followed me over to Barney’s talk page and made [this] comment. Then he consulted Callanecc about furthering his vendetta against me [[137]]. Then he tried to talk to me on Talk:Vlad the Impaler [[138]]. Then he drew up a rough draft of the request that we are involved in right now [[139]]. , but the fact that 76 is still speaking to other editors about defending myself gathering "evidence" against me indicates that 76 has an axe to grind it’s very much the other way around and won't stop their harassment What harassment? I haven’t interacted with Askahrc since our conversation on his talk page. I didn’t even reply to his post on Talk:Vlad the Impaler even though it was addressed to me until I'm blocked. If I was determined to get Askahrc blocked then why didn’t I comment in his sock puppet investigation or Vzaak’s request for enforcement?

• Incidents of personal attacks against me: Administrators, please read both halves of the conversation.

1, 2, 3, 4

• Examples of issues: 1 (referring to a person as a "diehard retard"), The “diehard retard” in question is Rupert Sheldrake. I’m not a big fan of Sheldrake since, in addition to being a pseudoscientist, he also sent his thugs to screw with his Wikipedia article. It should also be noted that that conversation took place on User:74.192.84.101‘s talk page. 2 (referring to Liz's as a bullying troll for questioning 76's personal attacks Retaliation isn’t actually a personal attack ), 3 (WP:Battleground tactics like writing up an AE arguing for an editor to be indefinitely blocked because they were "pro-fringe") Actually I wrote up the request because of Tom’s chronic fringe pushing. Tom was topic banned from Rupert Sheldrake. 4, I do not honestly know what Askahrc thinks is wrong with this diff. He seems to be under the impression that I’m not allowed to ask another editor to proofread something for me. 5 Not sure what’s supposed to be wrong with this one either. Askahrc seems to think that only fringe-pushers are allowed to collaborate with each other. & 6 (canvassing/soliciting other editors to assist in combating editors 76 dislikes) I have responded to this allegation previously. Please see this diff [[140]].

Highlights (excerpted from Incidents above):

• When I pointed out I hadn’t made any pro-fringe comments see “Askahrc’s rant” posted above , 76 replied "Predictably, you’re feeling desperate to convince yourself that you’re “the victim” of a coordinated effort to silence “intellectual dissents” or “free thinkers” or “non-conformists” or whatever the fuck you call yourself. Or perhaps you have chosen to cower behind WP:BLP?"
• When I stated that I had no desire for WP:BATTLEGROUND actually, here I’m responding to Askahrc’s comment about my “side” winning , 76 said "WP:battle suggests that one should not approach editing as a battle, but once a battle has erupted we are not required to deny that it has occurred or that there are opposing sides.", also reminding me "I’m also making it clear that people hold grudges. Me explaining Barney’s behavior and why it was justified "
• When I pointed out that threats of blocking were not appropriate Threats of blocks? I can’t block anyone. I told him that his actions could lead to a block; I certainly didn’t threaten him with one. , 76 replied there was no threat, but rather "I am simply telling you that you’ve come to a point where you need to decide if you really want to commit “Wikipedia suicide”. If you persist in your fringe-pushing behavior then the decision to ban or block you was your own. Is getting yourself blocked really going to make you feel better Askahrc? Is it something that you feel you need to do to gratify your delusions of victimization?" Askahrc apparently felt the desire to post a rant on Tumbleman’s website where he complained about bullying on Wikipedia so “delusions of victimization” was an accurate description.
• 76 first claimed they were simply trying to help me I never offered to “help” him do anything "rejoin the mainstream", saying "And so I came here to talk to you in the hope that you might stop your disruption and become a productive editor once again." That was a bluff. I really think that Askahrc is beyond redemption. However when I asked David and 74 to “switch sides” I was sincere about that. David and 74 both have a talent for making friends that I thought would make them useful allies. When I pointed out their behavior was far from helpful, they reiterated their threats, "I’m not “offering helpful advice Yep, I definitely never offered to “help” ”. I’m telling you to stop being a fringe pusher." and "But if everyone thinks that you had it coming then you’ll receive no sympathy at all if you get yourself blocked Notice how I said “get yourself blocked”. I’m still not sure how Askahrc considers this a threat ."
• Here is an accumulation of the variety of ways that 76 brought up my blocking in our exchange (not including those mentioned above), insisting there was no threat implied The fact that I took no action against Askahrc should indicate that there really was no threat implied : "The benefit of the doubt is for people who haven’t dispelled all doubt.", This was said in reference to Askahrc’s interaction with Barney. I was explaining to Askahrc that he shouldn’t expect an “assumption of good faith” since he posted an anti-Wikipedia rant off-wiki. "Would you really like to get your name on Tom Butler’s list of shame?", User:Tom Butler has an actual list of people who have been sanctioned for pushing fringe on the Sheldrake article. You can view it [here]. "Seriously though, you should leave the Sheldrake page alone.", It was sound advice "I don’t have a reason to do so as there are others who will more than happily take you to WP:AE or WP:ANI.", That was a very true statement. Vzaak took Askahrc to WP:AE four days later [[141]]. " If you get yourself blocked for fringe pushing when you really were fringe pushing then it will mean nothing." This is said in reference to Askahrc’s apparent desire to get himself blocked to prove to himself that he is being victimized. It is also referring to the bizarre polemic on his talk page where he says “I set out seven shots on my desk, one to go in my belly and six to go in my revolver. It was likely to get unpleasant and while I didn’t intend on firing the first shot, I’d be damned if I'd go down without getting in a retort” [[142]]

To this day I don't know what "pro-fringe, disruptive" edits In our conversation I actually provided a link to his off-wiki rant twice. I made it quite clear that I was referring to that rant as an example of his poor behavior. I was attempting to tell him that calling Barney a “bully” off-wiki was bound to have a negative impact on how Barney treated him on Wikipedia. I made that so upset 76, but this conduct seems unreasonable and inappropriate in any case, and violates every concept of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. In addition to insulting me in a threatening and vulgar manner, I find 76's use of the word "retard" to be repugnant I find Askahrc’s false flagging to be repugnant . That is one of the most offensive terms in the English language Actually, I’m pretty sure that attempting to get Barney topic banned by fabricating evidence through the use of a sock puppet is just about the most offensive thing one can do on Wikipedia that isn’t actually a crime in the state of Florida and is especially unacceptable when used as an ad-hominem attack. This kind of conduct is not appropriate on WP.

As you can see, despite Asakahrc’s attempts to spin it otherwise, this is a very obvious case of a malicious editor making offensive comments off-wiki, and then getting cussed out on-wiki for having done so. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think editors should be allowed to edit another editor's comments, inserting statements that cast the remarks in a different light or reinterpret the comments and interrupt the argument the OP is making. Better to copy the relevant parts into a separate statement and make a response to them there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Askahrc (talk · contribs) has a track record of poor understanding of policy related to WP:FRINGE, and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLICY. 76's assessment of him as being anti-Fringe, anti-Wikipedia and not exactly fond of the truth, is I believe born out by facts.
2. Unless I am mistaken, I also believe this is in violation of Askahrc (talk · contribs)'s community ban from editing pages related to Rupert Sheldrake, broadly construed.
3. This does appear to be an extremely WP:PETTY attempt to get some WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:REVENGE for the above, which is never a good idea.
4. (Redacted)
5. 76 might have been incivil, but the trigger here is Ashrac (talk · contribs)'s disruptive behaviour. Remove the trigger, and 76 can be civil. It can be very frustrating dealing with people who demonstrate profound misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia should seek to support WP:FRINGE editors.

In conclusion, an interaction ban for both of them would be useful, as would a reminder to Askahrc (talk · contribs) of his own topic ban from Rupert Sheldrake. I would also like this topic ban to be extended to "fringe theories, broadly construed", but realise that he might not have done enough yet to warrant this in the eyes of the moderators. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Barney: What does "Wikipedia should seek to support WP:FRINGE editors." mean? If it means that Wikipedia ought to encourage editors to edit fringe topics using the best available mainstream scientific information and strictly following our policies about dealing with these difficult subjects, then I agree. If, however, it means that Wikipedia ought to give POV-pushing fringe adherents more leeway to warp our articles with original research, speculation, and not-widely-accepted theories, then of course not -- exactly the opposite, in fact. Fringe POV-pushers need to be as strictly monitored as ethnic POV-pushers, because their purpose is antithetical to our own. BMK (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @76.107.171.90: please edit only in your own section, it prevents confusion as to who said what and arguments which sometimes develop during threaded discussion on this noticeboard.

@Barney the barney barney: You must present evidence when you make accusations of others, to do otherwise is casting aspersions and if definitely not permitted on this noticeboard. Also some of your comments are particularly incivil (for example "Liz should be ignored completely") and I have redacted the paragraph. Also I can't find a mention of a community topic ban on either WP:EDR or User talk:Askahrc, please provide a link to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WTF? We have proper methods of page usage. 76 isn't even willing to do that correctly? Doesn't bode well. If your intent is to respond to someone directly, you post (in your own section) starting with ::@Username: ... not rocket science DP 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The request has merit. The evidence submitted proves that the person using the IP address 76.107.171.90 has violated WP:NPA, among other conduct policies. I stopped reading their statement after its first words, which are "Askahrc is a known liar", yet another personal attack. However, there's no record of the warning required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings. I am issuing this warning now and am also blocking 76.107.171.90 under normal admin authority for 48 hours.

  As to Barney the barney barney, they have also engaged in personal attacks on this page ([143]), as noted by Callanecc above. I'd have imposed an immediate block, but considering that Callanecc chose to issue and log another warning instead, I leave it at that.  Sandstein  11:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]