Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:41, 18 April 2015 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Parishan

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

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

Appealing user

Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Parishan (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Ban from the article Caucasian Albania and its Talk page for one week, imposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ninetoyadome

Administrator imposing the sanction

Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Parishan

The sanction was applied for "(1) edit warring, (2) baiting, and (3) failing to cite reliable sources".

1. I do not believe that three reverts in a three-week period really qualify as "edit-warring".
2. I had made a sincere effort to warn the other user (Ninetoyadome) to make better use of talkpages on Armenia-Azerbaijan-related articles instead of reverting them blindly. I certainly did not wait around for the 1RR restriction (in place for the article Caucasian Albania for all users) period to expire to make that edit; if one looks in my history, that was my first edit on that day (not counting a small edit I made just a minute prior). If I had had an interest in baiting Ninetoyadome, there were multiple opportunities for that weeks earlier because he had reverted that article more than once (and not only that one, cf. his block for a month for edit-warring and violating his 1RR restriction on many AA2 articles) and had been ignoring the discussion page for two weeks, leaving questions addressed to him with regard to his recent addition to the article unanswered. I referred the user to the talkpage one last time in my edit made to remove the controversial addition (it also seemed the only way to direct his attention to the article in question). He chose to revert me, again without replying. Logically it does not make much sense for someone who is out to bait a user to give so much chance to the 'baited' user to redeem themselves, therefore I question the accuracy of this observation by Zad68.
3. I do not see how I was expected to focus more on reliable sourcing than I had already done. I was one of the few users who actually did refer to reliable sources and suggest that others had not done so. It was not me who added new information to the article, to begin with. Hence it was not up to me to provide sources to substantiate it. I do not believe "failing to provide sources" is accurate criticism in my case.

Statement by Zad68

I have already given my reasons for the (very mild) sanction I applied, both here and at my User Talk. I don't really have anything to add, but would be happy to answer any (new) questions. I would genuinely welcome input from other uninvolved admins about whether my actions were appropriate and furthering the goal of reducing disruptive editing in this contentious topic area. Zad68 00:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (Cale Davinci)

My comment does not concern the merits of the sanction, but my frustration in regards to the editing of the article Caucasian Albania mentioned here (which caused the said sanction). My position is made clear in the talk page. I offered an alternative that neither of the two editors involved here replied to. I don't know if Parishan even agree with that alternative. The only reply I received which directly had anything to do with my proposition was from Hayordi, who mainly made clear that he was absolutely not open for any sort of concession. Personally, I believe that the box removed by Parishan had little place there, and I am completely neutral when I write that. On the other hand, it is hard to not add anything as alternative, given that the only material scholars have of that country from that country was written in Armenian (from what one can gather from some basic search in the relevant databases without using any filters). What I proposed was to drop Armenia and replace it with a more appropriate box (I have given two alternatives).

The problem is that editors are free to edit, but everyone has his own standards which is dependant to their inherent à priori biases. If I ask Parishan what standards he uses to include and exclude material, those standards will be different than his opponents. So what I basically proposed was a standardized structure everyone could agree with and how to achieve that. But after much writings and being unheard, I decided it was better for me to just quit before I regret having been here. Cale Davinci (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Parishan

Result of the appeal by Parishan

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

• A one-week topic ban from Caucasian Albania is a very mild sanction. Parishan did not make any posts at all at Talk:Caucasian Albania during April, even though that is the period he was making these reverts. Yet he was claiming the absence of any posts by the other guy on the same page justified his reverts. I see both sides making unconvincing arguments for the inclusion of their respective history templates. Caucasian Albania is an unusual case. The land it occupied is part of the current territory of Azerbaijan. But in historic terms it is not really part of Armenia nor of Azerbaijan. The most practical solution may be to omit both the {{History of Armenia}} and {{History of Azerbaijan}} templates. This is up to the consensus of editors. But if User:Ninetoyadome and User:Parishan plan to continue editing Caucasian Albania I hope their talk page contributions will show good understanding of the material in the references and will reassure us of their intention to edit neutrally. I would decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood

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 Xtremedood

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA.

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

• Edit warring across multiple namespaces.

Battle of Lohgarh.

Battle of Muktsar.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

• Apparent eagerness to make many reverts.

• Using an outdated source without consensus and endlessly arguing over it, while misrepresenting an official source as primary source, even though figure is supported by independent sources such as this. Furthermore he questioned these unchallenged figures without showing any evidence and right after claiming that "Misplaced Pages is not the place for this type of original research that you may be proposing." Next sentence reads "These figures (8,000 for India and 3,000 for Pakistan) should therefore remain. It is certainly better than the Government of India source (which is definitely not neutral)."
• Content blanking. Edit summary reads "Do not revert, if you have issues take it to talk page." Although it is him who had to describe these controversial changes first, and discussed upon using the article talk page.
• Attempted to nominate a highly notable subject for deletion. This comment, no matter how meaningless it is, but clear attempt to WP:SOAPBOX. Other attempt to soapbox include, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965("re-quoted from Indian Express Group, not neutral".) Here he found a WP:RS to be non neutral for no special reason.

• Referring non-vandalism edits as 'vandalism', which is generally considered as a personal attack by many. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:32, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

since 1 April 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Yamaguchi先生 is not pushing your POV in this edit that you have added as support towards your edit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Xtremedood

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.

Statement by Xtremedood

Hello,

• All of those reverts stated were based on reasonable and sound justifications. Feel free to ask me about any of them.
• The source is a legitimate source. It was published approximately 11 years from the actual incident and is being utilized by academic sources that are more recent. It was published by a well respected and reputable publisher, Sage publications. The source by the Indian Government belongs in the Indian Claims section. Since the section exists (which it did prior to my making these edits), then it certainly belongs in that section. A review of the history details this. If you have any other neutral sources feel free to include them, however as it stands with the figure by the Government of India verses the figures by Small and Singer, the only neutral source that is justified to be in the main section (non-Indian claims) is this. Calling a source outdated just because it may not adhere to a nationalistic understanding of historical events is not justified in my opinion. It is certainly the closest to neutral source available for kill counts on the page so far.
• The Battle of Lohgarh and Battle of Muktsar issues follows some extreme vandalism of these pages and also some other pages of the category involving the Mughal-Sikh wars. also left a comment regarded the extreme vandalisms of users like AK107839 and Aradhyasharma who also left nasty comments on my talk page. Their extreme vandalism (operating under a multitude of different aliases) prompted swift reactions from users like Kansas Bear and other concerned wikipedia users. As we can see, there is continued vandalism with 223.225.234.94, 223.225.241.71, 223.225.247.171, etc. refusing requests of Kansas Bear and others to stop vandalizing the Mughal-Sikh Wars section. As we can see in this link, the vandalism is extreme. Vandals continually refused Kansas Bear's requests to discuss the situation. It was not only Kansas Bear and I that are trying to revert the vandalism on the Battle of Lohgarh and Battle of Muktsar pages. Other well-respected users are also trying to remove the vandalism on Mughal-Sikh War pages. For example, users Yamaguchi先生 and Richard Harvey have tried to stop the vandalism issues as well..

My comments are therefore justified. I request OccultZone to stop acting upon nationalistic tendencies and rather to focus on impartial and sound sources, which are neutral and correct. Hindu and Sikh nationalism is not an excuse to promote biased and incorrection statements. It is also not a justification to attack those who want sound and correct information on Misplaced Pages. Xtremedood (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis: As of yet, the Small and Singer source for the 1971 source is legitimate and a well-respected publication. It is not outdated as it is being used by more recent publications. I was working to counter the vandalism on the Mughal-Sikh Wars section that continues on. I am doing something similar to what Kansas Bear,Yamaguchi先生 and Richard Harvey are doing by countering the vandalism. I am requesting to not revert, as long as you do not have a credible source to back up your claim (which those who are doing the vandalism have not shown). Nationalistic tendencies is not a justification for vandalism. Nationalistic tendencies is not a justification to call the Small and Singer source as outdated). Xtremedood (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Some more points (I will include, to counter OccultZone's fallacious claims):

• Second Battle of Anandpur was a Mughal victory, as shown in that source. All reputable sources that I have come across say this. This is just the way it is. The series of reverts was to oppose the extreme vandalism that was going on at the time. Mis-attributing sources to a false-claim is the issue here (done by those who were doing vandalism). I was trying to oppose that.
• Battle of Lohgarh was also a Mughal victory. This is clear. Check any source.
• Battle of Muktsar was extremely vandalized and the right and balanced conclusion should remain.
• Vandalism fits the appropriate description for those changes. I was trying to bring it back to its original. Ghatus was banned for a period of time for edit-warring. I reported him. Xtremedood (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to Kansas Bear by Xtremedood

I did talk with the users, I requested them to provide a source for their claims. Is there a single source that the Mughals lost the Battle of Lohgarh, Second Battle of Anandpur, and Battle of Chamkaur? The users under a variety of different aliases were making the same edit time after time that the Mughals lost and the Sikhs won. This however is not provided in any source that I have come across. I therefore referred to it as vandalism since the same edit was being made time after time with no source to back it up. Let us not forget that you, and other users did the same thing. Perhaps you may not like my style of writing, but I have been a victim of a systemic campaign to have my articles attacked and to have many of my legitimate (and cited with legitimate sources) removed by the same group of people. I therefore believe that my claims that they were would constitute vandalism is sound.

As far as your claim that I did not use the talk page is concerned, if we look at the Battle of Lohgarh talk page, we see that it is you who defended the claim that it was a Mughal victory. You stated exactly: Taking the fortress = Mughal victory. Anything else is your opinion. Please refrain from posting primary sources, since they are biased and one sided accounts. I was simply trying to implement that which seemed objectively clear. In the Second Battle of Anandpur it was you who stated exactly: According to Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A-E, ed. Tony Jaques, page 49, "Imperial troops were repulsed in northern Punjab at Basoli and Anandpur, and Emperor Aurangzeb sent Generals Wazir Khan and Zaberdast Khan to besiege Sikh Guru Gobind Singh in his stronghold at Anandpur, northeast of Ludhiana. Facing starvation, the Guru capitulated in return for safe passage, but the Sikhs were treacherously attacked at the Sarsa(20 May - 20 December 1704)". Seeing how the Sikhs capitulated, then the Mughals won this siege. I would suggest Aradhyasharma stop edit warring and bring his concerns here. you made the decision and I was simply enforcing what was clear. In the Battle of Chamkaur I only made 3 reverts, and 2 of them was against a banned user who warned me about on my page . This user was Aradhyasharma. I was once again enforcing PREVIOUSLY DECIDED decisions, this one by Richard Harvey who warned me on my page about Aradhyasharma's edits.

For all three cases I was not acting upon my own opinions or whims. I was either enforcing what you (Kansas Bear) had made clear or what Richard Harvey had made clear. To make the same revert again and again without provided any new sources constitutes vandalism.

All of the reverts that you stated pertaining to the Battle of Lohgarh and Second Battle of Anandpur go along with the conclusions of talk-page discussions, which were concluded by your above statements. It would have been redundant for me to state the same thing you already previously did. The few reverts that were on the Battle of Chamkaur article go along with the statement Richard left on my page regarding the blocked user.

As for my language here, it is generally impartial. I try to maintain an academic tone. Maybe I went a little overboard in my above statements, but there has been a collective effort to defame me and attack me and I was feeling quite upset. I do make mistakes and I am not perfect. There also has been a collective attempt to censor legitimate claims (from legitimate sources) pertaining to South Asian history. I apologize if I made any incorrect statements. I, however, believe that the concerns behind them are based on sound reasoning and experience.

As for the Bbb23's warning, I only made 2 official reverts. He implicitly acknowledged this. He explained that there is subjectivity pertaining to what constitutes a revert. His definition was different from mine and that of many others. The other user in question,Ghatus, got banned for a period. I was simply warned. What he stated may be seen here . Xtremedood (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the following statements by Kansas Bear are defamatory and I wholeheartedly condemn them (especially the last one):

• Xtremedood appears too eager to hit the revert button <--- This is unwarranted as I have explained above.
• rarely engages on the talk page <--- This is also unwarranted as specified above.
• has serious issues dealing with other editors based on his opinion of their ethnicity <--- I do not have such issues with anybody regarding their ethnicity. Opposing nationalistic tendencies amongst a select group of people within an ethnicity does not make me biased against the whole ethnicity. None of my statements state that all Indians are like that. This is an immense accusation. While I was speaking about a select group within a community, you are accusing me of being against all of them. This is totally unwarranted and I believe a sincere apology should follow. Also, how do you know about my opinion about their ethnicity? I never made any claims about all Indians. Xtremedood (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to Ghatus by Xtremedood

Can you please indicate why it is outdated and bogus? I am open to reasonable and rational discourse into the matter, however the figure of 3,843 is from the Indian Government. I am fine with including this in the article, but it should be under the Indian Claims section. If you want to include on the first line that may be fine as well, we may write 3,843-8,000 killed or something like that. The source for the 8,000 killed for India is legitimate as it belongs in a well-reputable book that was published by a well-reputable publisher, Sage publications. If you do not wish to utilize the scanned pages, we may attribute the source to the following page . This is fine with me. However the source is legitimate and has been used for more recent publications. Academic sources have used this and I would like proof that it is outdated or bogus as some other users claim. Xtremedood (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kansas Bear

Since, I have been mentioned I will highlight a few points. I have encountered numerous issues in the area of Mughal/Maratha/Sikh wars, battles, etc. However, I checked Battle of Lohgarh, Battle of Chamkaur, and Second Battle of Anandpur, Xtremedood has not used the talk pages for any of these articles. Yet Xtremedood has a combined 34 edits/reverts on these articles.

Also, the latest statements by Xtremedood show his battleground attitude towards other editors that hold a different perspective than his.

• "I request OccultZone to stop acting upon nationalistic tendencies..."
• "Hindu and Sikh nationalism is not an excuse to promote biased and incorrection statements."
• "It is sad that many users who have a long history of Misplaced Pages but are of Indian origin will resort to such dirty tactics."
  

Calling other users edits "vandalism":

Edit warred 26 March - 1 April on Mughal–Maratha Wars without any dialogue on the talk page until 8 April. This instance, which had gotten out of control, was when I notified Favonian.

Warned by Bbb23 for edit warring.

Xtremedood appears too eager to hit the revert button, rarely engages on the talk page, and has serious issues dealing with other editors based on his opinion of their ethnicity. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground! I would suggest to the Admins a permanent 1RR/article with mandatory talk page discussion for every revert. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ghatus

1)I say again that the data "Xtremehood" has used in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 regarding the number of deaths ( India 8000 vs Pakistan 3000) is from bogus and outdated sources. It was a war where Pakistan was cut to two pieces and Pak Army surrendered. Indian casualty can not be greater than Pakistan's -the country that was thoroughly defeated. He did not give any primary source. On the contrary he presented some scanned papers. Modern sources like this as given by another user(@OccultZone:) clearly indicate that Indian casualty was around 3800. I would wait for some time for this problem to solve, otherwise I will have to take other remedies in Misplaced Pages. This reverting war can not go on. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

2)The source is "bogus" and "outdated" as it provides NOT A SINGLE primary source or anything in order to justify the number it claimed. Sources have to follow WP:RS. It does not even say where from it got it numbers. Xtremedood is not only doing Edit Wars, but is involved in pushing his PoV also.Ghatus (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Xtremedood

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

• Whatever sources are available online generally appear to support Xtremedood's conclusions about the 18th-century battles involving the Sikhs. I'm more concerned about Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which ought to have widely-available sources about casualties, including some by reputable historians. The sketchy quote from the Small/Singer book of 1982 giving 8,000 deaths on the Indian side (with no details) does not seem weighty. Unless Xtremedood can somehow assure us that he will wait for consensus on that article, I'm thinking that an article ban should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)