Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:41, 26 March 2014

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Khabboos

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

Request concerning Khabboos

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)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages: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. And all of these edits need rolling back.
4. 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

Discussion concerning Khabboos

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)

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)

Statement by Khabboos

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 (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:, 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)

@Sandstein: At , 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 , 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 , 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)

I was about to cite these references also, before which Darkness Shines has complained here: <ref> 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: "]", 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 </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 ). 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:)!—Khabboos (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In, "Timur's memoirs on his invasion of India", 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: mentions the terms, "force conversion to Islam", "forced conversions" and "forced to convert to Islam".—Khabboos (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@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 is not an edit to an article and so, you should not be complaining about it.—Khabboos (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Please mention what objection you have to these also: and . 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:.—Khabboos (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@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, "Timur's memoirs on his invasion of India", 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: 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)

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)

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)

Statement by Smsarmad

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 17:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Toddy1

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. 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". 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Update. Khabboos has posted further information on his talk page. 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)

Result concerning Khabboos

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

Gaijin42