Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Willard84 (talk | contribs) at 04:22, 4 March 2018 (→Response to Lorstaking by Willard84: added sentence). 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.

Hyper9

Al-Andalusi

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 Al-Andalusi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Al-Andalusi (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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

1. Revision as of 07:43, 25 February 2018 revert 1 in Middle East Monitor. Much of the revert is of this Revision as of 12:56, 30 January 2018 edit by an extended confirm user.
2. Latest revision as of 08:07, 25 February 2018 revert 2 in Middle East Monitor of content added by an extended confirmed user .
3. Revision as of 16:14, 23 February 2018 Addition of category "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" to Middle East Monitor, indicating ARBPIA awareness.
4. Revision as of 07:51, 25 February 2018 revert1 of Middle East Eye - removal of some 45% of the article's contents. Much of this content by reverted back into the article in Revision as of 11:59, 23 January 2018 by an extended confirmed user (and then some).
5. Latest revision as of 08:06, 25 February 2018 revert2 of Middle East Eye, of content added in Revision as of 08:03, 25 February 2018.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2017 6 Month Topic Ban for personal attacks and 1RR.
2. Revision as of 09:57, 9 June 2017 1 week block for not following topic ban

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2017 6 month topic ban by GoldenRing following AE. Revision as of 09:57, 9 June 2017 1 week block by Sandstein for violating topic ban.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Revision as of 03:24, 9 June 2017 and appeal (copy-pasted over to AE) Revision as of 14:46, 9 June 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As may be seen here Al-Andalusi talk page I requested Al-Andalusi self revert . This was replied to with a Nope, I did not. . user:EdJohnston also said this appeared to be a 1RR violation, and urged Al-Andalusi to self-revert. Following a discussion on why this was or was not a revert Al-Andalusi concluded by Like I said, any change to an article can be framed as a "revert" if one wants to push a certain narrative. Here, you are referencing an edit made a month ago, which tells me how ridiculous this revert claim is. I can go back to some of your edits and demonstrate the same, and claim you've been reverting and violating 1RR on articles. As an editor, it's not expected of me to review an article's history and check each and every edit made to an article, before I can make a change to it, and hope that I'm not "reverting" and violating 1RR.. Some 10 hours later - we're here.

While it may be possible to cast a wider net here, the unwillingness to self-revert on a 1RR warning appears to be straightforward, and Al-Andalusi's final talk-page comment is troubling.

• Willingness to self-revert - I filed this report after my reading of a long user talk page discussion ended with a stmt indicating clear unwillingness, in my eyes, to self revert or account for edits being reverts - and a day after the inital talk page exchange.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• ARBPIA relevance: revert2 in Middle East Monitor and Middle East Eye are clearly both ARBPIA releated as it is directly involves Hamas. Revert1 to Middle East Monitor also involves Hamas, and the organization itself covers Israel-Palestine as its main focus arguably making any edit to it ARBPIA related. It could perhaps be argued that revert1 in Middle East Eye is not ARBPIA (there are merits either way), however as revert2 is clearly ARBPIA and the limitation is per page per ARBCOM decision - Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. and not on a per edit basis - this would appear to be a violation regardless due to ARBPIAness of revert2.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding the attack on Capitals00 below - I did not canvass or contact him. He had however filed the previous AE report against Al-Andalusi on Acid throwing (a non-ARBPIA article in general, but ARBPIA related in the Gaza/West Bank section covering usage of this by Islamists against so called collaboraters) which led to the previous topic ban. I would assume he has AE watched.Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Kingsindian: - most of the content in the 3 successive edits by Al-Andalusi between 05:04 and 07:43 - combined diff are reverts of 12:56, 30 January 2018 by User:Zakawer who is in good standing. The grandson bit has been there for a while - however most of the other content removed is quite recent (not that technically this should be an issue - WP:3RR (modified by WP:1RR from 3 to 1, but retaining the definition of revert) does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.). In any event - this is for the most part quite recent material - and as this is not an often edited article - Zakawer was the last major edit prior to Al-Andalusi editing the page - making this very close in terms of diffs.Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Kingsindian: @NeilN: - I had not intended to bring this up vis-a-vis previous requests, however I shall since it has been brought up here. @Shrike: asked them to self-revert , as did I this revert violated the original author clause in regards to edits 30 minutes previously - which was not done. I also asked TP request self-revert on original authorship and revert which was not done - they cited BLPCRIME - however this is a PUBLICFIGURE, and this is not relevant (besides other problems here). Excluding the 1RR vios in this report - there were 4 previous requests (1 Shrike, 3 myself), of which 2 were not done (both involved the "original author provision", however they were clear violations of it). I did not report these at the time due to a combination of WP:AGF (e.g. on the first example he wasn't editing for 3 days - so I AGFed he may have been away) and since I do not report everything. What made me report this one - was the talk page reply to the request which treated "reverts" as "narrative", and labelled the request as "ridiculous".Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• @NeilN: The proposed remedy would not resolve the "original author" clause addition to ARBPIA (it would be good on straight 1rr) - a problem above as well as in requests by Al-Andalusi, e.g. this mistaken request (as I was not the original author) for a self revert on my TP Revision as of 04:24, 28 February 2018 - half of which was a category written in Farsi (which Al-Andalusi reverted back in, and requested a self revert on).Icewhiz (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Latest revision as of 07:36, 26 February 2018

Discussion concerning Al-Andalusi

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 Al-Andalusi

There is an ongoing discussion regarding this on my talk page involving Icewhiz and 2 admins (EdJohnston and Dennis Brown) here. I have pinged EdJohnston and have not heard back either from him or Dennis Brown, so I assumed this is a non-issue. Had EdJohnston or Dennis Brown replied back and confirmed the alleged violation, I would have gladly self-reverted, as I did in the past.

Meanwhile, I continue to disagree with Icewhiz's description of events where he digs up edits that are at least one-month old (Jan 30, Jan 23) and I'm not even aware of, and then conveniently re-interprets some of my changes as being "reverts" of them. What he refers to as "revert 1" would not be called "reverts" on a normal day. Also, notice the use of dramatic sentences like "removal of some 45% of the article's contents". If the content is bad, then it should be removed, doesn't matter how large it is. I think everyone will agree with me on this. In this edit, user Zero0000 (talk · contribs) removed the same exact content from Middle East Monitor on Feb 11 on the same grounds as my removal of it from Middle East Eye. Someone had copy pasted the content to the 2 articles. Icewhiz, who clearly spent considerable time studying the editing history of both articles to construct his narrative, would not have missed this change.

One important point: The history of editing on both articles shows that none of the editors treated the article as falling under 1RR. Icewhiz is misleading when he counts edits related to the Muslim Brotherhood as being ARBPIA-related. The Muslim Brotherhood does not even have a 1RR tag. Icewhiz does not explain why he treats Middle East Eye as a 1RR article in his report, and further, why he lists my edits at Middle East Eye before his arrival to the article as being ARBPIA related (point #4 on his list). I fail to see the connection. In the same list, for the other article, he counts my edit here as ARBPIA-related, even though the mention of Hamas is tangential and clearly not the intent of my edit.

I ask that the admins not look at this case literally, as this is the angle that Icewhiz wants to focus on. Instead, ask if it is appropriate for a news organizations to be labelled as the "Muslim Brotherhood" based on sources critical of the news organization? Icewhiz restored the problematic Category:Muslim Brotherhood, knowing fully the problems that comes with it (he recently removed Category:Propaganda in Israel from Public diplomacy of Israel arguing that it is "POVish..."). Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: Originally posted in Capitals00's section; moved by User:Black Kite. I don't know you, and I don't know who you think you are to demand a topic ban or a block. Admins: it should be noted that the above user was never involved in the Arab-Israeli space, so for him to show up here uninvited is a sign of either Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry or WP:Canvassing. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Added - Feb 28:

• Per Misplaced Pages:Reverting (emphasis in the original):

Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

1. I was not involved in the article around the time the first edit was made by Zakawer, a month ago.
2. I was not aware that I was actually undoing someone else's edits as part of my changes. As far I was concerned at the time of my editing, I was doing routing editing. So far, NO evidence has been presented that shows that I was aware of this fact at the time (directly or indirectly).
3. The fact that the admins are split on this indicates that (a) there is no clear definition of reverting, and what properly distinguishes reversions from edits in general, and (2) there is no clear definition of "recent" here. A month old, 6-months old? a year old? I think any admin worth a damn knows what a revert is, and "revert 1" is not one of them.
4. That said, this is gaming the system of the worst degree. In fact, the originator of the report spells it out here for you guys: the definition of revert does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions. I have no doubt in my mind, and this is already made clear from the report, that Icewhiz would not have found it an issue to cite a year old edit (if it was available) to support his claims that I partially reverted it.
5. I've had a look around at a few pages, and if that's the rule, then almost every editor is violating the rule many times. I don't really understand the thinking behind this at all. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:, you claim that my intent was clear. What was my intent? Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Sir, your ignorance is showing. You use the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas interchangeably and I think it's time to clarify a few things. (1) Hamas no longer claims that it is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and made that official in their new charter declared in May 2017. (2) the main Muslim Brotherhood is not even a 1RR article to begin with. Of the troubling edit that you are using against me, 95% of it revolved around the Brotherhood, not Hamas. The mention of "Hamas" in the "See also" section is quite tangential and I think you will agree with it. I kindly ask that you re-consider your position in light of the above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: That's not a response. Sorry. Your claim that my intent was to "remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas" is demonstrably false. Look at the Middle East Monitor#Criticism section, and you'll find that I left sourced "pro-Hamas" accusations there. Not to mention, Muslim Brotherhood != Hamas. The diffs speak for themselves indeed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:. I don't have a problem with self-reverting in this case. This is the very first thing I stated in my statement. I was just waiting for a clear confirmation that my first edit indeed counts as a revert. That said, it is clear that NeilN and GR have made up their minds from day 1, and further discussion would be futile. Their one-sidedness is glaringly apparent. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00

I had resumed watching editing of Al-Andalusi since he came off from a topic ban in December. I could see continued POV editing that led the topic ban before, but this time I had decided not to report Al-Andalusi myself. Unfortunately, it didn't helped Al-Andalusi.

I must say that Icewhiz has made best efforts to mentor Al-Andalusi about his violations, however Al-Andalusi is not willing to improve. Continued POV editing is concerning. Either a topic ban or a block is warranted. Capitals00 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It is deceptive of Al-Andalusi to claim that he doesn't know me because he can't really forget these two ARE complaints: that I had filed, yet he claims that this is a "sign of either Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry or WP:Canvassing", this alone shows that Al-Andalusi treats Misplaced Pages to be his WP:BATTLEGROUND. Capitals00 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I have his talk page on watchlist as well, I did interacted him before filing a complaint here, obviously when I said you have "made best efforts to mentor" to mentor him, I was referring to your discussions made on his talk page that I read since last December. Capitals00 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

In the light of above WP:IDHT from Al-Andalusi I believe that indef topic ban is the solution. He already had a 6 month topic ban back in June 2017, which he had violated and was blocked for a week. Even after all that there has been a lack of improvement. Capitals00 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I interjected into the discussion only to explain how contacting an admin wasn't "canvassing", and never reviewed the merits of the claim in depth. A cursory glance did show the claims were not so cut and dry; They need to be looked at closer than just the diffs provided. This is the busy time of year for me, so I didn't have time to look further, so I will just stay on this side of the admin line, this time. EdJohnston probably has more information on the merits, and I would welcome his input down below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I don't know if this is 1RR or not, but my general view is that in this area, the rules are so convoluted that nobody knows how they work (including the people who write them). My own practice is to self-revert when asked, whether or not I think the request is right.

This practice saves time and tedious wikilawyering in which one may or may not prevail. You can always make the edit a day later. Why take the risk?

Let's put aside the wording and look at the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy. Let's forget the edit made a month earlier. Only look at edits diff1 (by Al-Andalusi), diff2 (by Icewhiz) and diff3 (again by Al-Andalusi). All of them happened within 24 hours.

Diff1 removed the association of MEMO with the Muslim Brotherhood, diff2 restored it (using a bit different wording), and diff3 removed it again. The "spirit" of the remedy is to ensure that between diff3 and diff1 (made by the same person), there should be a bit of time, and ideally some discussion on the talkpage (which is happening on the MEMO talk page).

I would therefore, ask Al-Andalusi to self-revert voluntarily (they can make the edit a day later if they still think it's justified) and this request be closed as no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the "revert 1" cited by NeilN a revert of? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: May I suggest another approach? If you look at Al-Andalusi's talkpage, you'll see a couple more instances where Icewhiz asked them to self-revert due to 1RR and they (eventually) did. That suggests that they genuinely thought that this case was not a case of 1RR. The main point is that the first "revert" was of an edit more than a month ago (actually it has been fought over for years).

In political areas, it is not unusual for things to be litigated over and over by newer people. One can't immediately consider every deletion a "revert" (by the way, by the same logic, any addition could also be considered a "revert" of some removal in the past).

To my mind, the main issue is that Al-Andalusi doesn't understand the "spirit" of the 1RR remedy in this area: one shouldn't make the same edit (perhaps paraphrased) twice in 24 hours. This approach doesn't require refererence to a month-old diff unrelated to the main dispute. I suggest that Al-Andalusi be informed of the "spirit" of the remedy, and only warned for now. To Al-Andalusi, I suggest that they follow the practice I mention above: they self-revert when asked, regardless of whether they think it's right or wrong. This approach would require some WP:AGF which the admins may or may not be willing to extend to Al-Andalusi (considering their past record). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The case you refer to is almost a year old. If you say that "Al-Andalusi doesn't understand 1RR, period", how do you explain the self-revert here (after this discussion) or here (after this discussion)?

Instead, consider my hypothesis: they don't (fully) understand the "tweaked 1RR" remedy in this area. According to the tweaked 1RR remedy, a person who makes an edit cannot make the same (or similar) edit within 24 hours. In the previous two cases, Al-Andalusi self-reverted after this remedy was pointed out to them. If the same remedy had been pointed to by Icewhiz here, I'd suggest that there would have been less resistance. Instead, a diff from a month ago (which Al-Andalusi claims that they weren't even aware of) was pointed out as the original content which was reverted. In this area, I'm sure you know, people are suspicious of bad faith and wikilawyering.

This is why I say above: let's not refer to a diff from a month ago at all. Let's just work with the "tweaked 1RR rule" which already exists, which only looks at diffs within a 24-hour period. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A more general comment: during the last ARCA request, I raised this point (of an edit potentially being the revert of an edit indefinitely long in the past) multiple times. My warnings were pooh-poohed by the Arbs who said the scenarios that I was painting were all implausible and the admins at AE will apply common sense anyway, etc. Now, amirite or amirite? I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) in that section that we block a random ArbCom member when my warnings come true. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes, that's what used to be a safe practice to deal with the tweaked 1RR in this area. Unfortunately, with the recent ARCA request, that no longer suffices, because you have to wait 24 hours after the the other person's revert to be completely safe, and what counts as a revert isn't clear. Yeah, it's stupid, but I warned against it repeatedly and ArbCom passed it anyway.

However, your suggestion would work in 95% of the cases, and Al-Andalusi could be asked (or instructed, whatever) that if somebody asks them to self-revert, they do it regardless of whether they think it's right or wrong. This has been my practice for many years, and I have had zero problems. I will also talk to Al-Andalusi on their talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Al-Andalusi

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

• This does not appear actionable to me. To begin with, no specific remedy that is to be enforced is cited, but only a whole case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which comprises several remedies. Assuming that the 1RR restriction is to be enforced, the cited diffs don't establish, in my view, clear-cut 1RR violations, but rather situations that can come about in the course of ordinary editing (putting aside the merits of these edits by either side). Because 1RR is a very problematic restriction that is easily violated in the course of even constructive back-and-forth editing, I'm very reluctant to act on it except in the clearest of cases, i.e. repeated direct reverts. Sandstein 10:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Revert 1, Revert 2. I'd say that was a 1RR violation. --NeilN 15:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, this addition. --NeilN 13:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Al-Andalusi You are citing an essay. Policy says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Admins look at the intent of the edits and your intent here was clear. There is also no admin "split" here. Four admins (including EdJohnston) agree you violated WP:1RR. A three to six month topic ban seems appropriate. --NeilN 14:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Al-Andalusi To remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas. I'm not saying the removals were not justified (or were justified). I'm saying the intent of your edits is clear. --NeilN 14:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• This response from an editor coming off a six month topic ban in December is not encouraging at all. The diffs speak for themselves. --NeilN 15:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Kingsindian: Looking at this, I would say that Al-Andalusi doesn't understand WP:1RR, period. And looking at the subsequent block, it was again involving Hamas. Is there anything Al-Andalusi brings to the table that would justify always having an extra warning step before reporting? And bear in mind it's pretty easy to duck these self-revert requests by laying low until someone else uses their WP:1RR opportunity and reverts. --NeilN 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Kingsindian: 1) If Al-Andalusi understood WP:1RR there wouldn't be editors constantly reminding them to follow it. 2) We're not applying WP:1RR to only content changed within the last 24 hours. That's a non-starter. 3) A month is hardly "indefinitely long" - please don't resort to hyperbole. Bottom line: If you remove some content and another editor adds similar content then don't remove it within 24 hours of your first removal to be safe. Sandstein, do you have any further comments here? --NeilN 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Al-Andalusi: I'm trying to come up with a solution that would eliminate the need for other editors to constantly ask you to self revert. "Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article" would probably work. What do you think? --NeilN 19:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• If no admin objects I will be implementing a restriction as follows: "In addition to the standard WP:ARBPIA restrictions, Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article for six months." --NeilN 00:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• I don't have scads of time to look into this. I don't think we should be insisting that editors bringing complaints here must fill out the form exactly correctly in every respect or we will simply dismiss the complaint; this is not a judicial proceeding and it seems clear enough to me what the complaint is getting at. I agree with NeilN that the diffs he links seem a clear 1RR violation (not to mention that this also appears to be a revert of a recent edit in the same 24-hour window). And Al-Andalusi's response here is not encouraging. My gut feeling is that spending three to six months away from ARBPIA would be a good thing. GoldenRing (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN: actually I think your first diff is a revert of this - the original page creation back in 2015. While this perhaps makes that revert a bit more muddy, I still think it's clearly a revert and part of an effort to remove Islamist associations. And even without it, I still count two reverts in 24 hours. GoldenRing (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: Can you please recheck? I don't see where you're getting that from. --NeilN 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Er, yeah, don't mind me. GoldenRing (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that the edits cited by NeilN were indeed reverts. I think a few months away from the topic might be a good idea as well. Seraphimblade 02:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

MapSGV

Andrew Davidson

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 Andrew Davidson

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Andrew Davidson (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 :

What appears to be a long-term fundamental inability to understand the complexities of the Indian caste system leads to often lengthy and wikilawyered discussions such as here, here and here. There is no easy way to explain the complexities in 500 words, sorry, but, for example, in the last diff AD argues use of sources that simply do not refer in any meaningful way to the subject, in the linked Samra discussion he argued at length to use unreliable sources, causing Drmies to issue a sanctions alert, and in the first of these diffs he argued using both unreliable sources and with a clear lack of understanding of how the caste system functions. As some of those diffs infer, they are not the only examples but I'm struggling with the interaction tools at the moment - they keep timing out or simply not returning a result.

We've currently got this, where AD is perpetuating his previous stances, again without any apparent understanding of the caste system. In that discussion, he seems even to think that we should keep an invalid statement rather than remove it and so cause an article to be blank. He has also been arguing at length about the validity of the most recent sanctions alerts here, indulging in yet more time-consuming litigation of dubious merit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None known

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here, soon after expiry of one issued issue a sanctions here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have filed this under the username Andrew Davidson but some past discussions were under another username, Colonel Warden, which he allegedly agreed with ArbCom to stop using but actually has not. The AD account is more active of late.

It is ok to have an opinion but to tendentiously pursue it can be problematic, as can misrepresenting what sources say even if it is due to a lack of understanding. I'd like to see a topic ban from caste-related matters, broadly construed, because I and probably others feel like we're banging our heads against a brick wall.

• Replying to AD's edits here. It is nothing specifically to do with one AfD. It is a general pattern of lack of comprehension that, in fact, you are even demonstrating in your comments here. The problem is, you mention expanding your interests into editing caste-related articles but you cannot even demonstrate understanding in the AfDs, throwing in irrelevant sources (the Oxford book being one), unreliable ones and arguments that are non-starters because the caste system does not operate in the manner that you seem to believe. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: then you are unwittingly part of the problem. I know that CIR is not a policy but when someone like Andrew Davidson gets involved it just creates a shedload of issues that need to be addressed. Just one example: this not only fails WP:V on the relevant point but makes a grossly incorrect assumption that "important" = something special in terms of Reservation in India. It doesn't. There are plenty of "important" communities - politically, economically etc - that do not conform to the original research which AD insists makes this impossible list meet LISTN. Yes, AD is a quite extreme inclusionist and, yes, way back he gave me my first barnstar for rescuing an article at AfD, but if people cannot understand that caste-related issues need understanding then there is no hope, sorry. And when the same easily verifiable point is made again and again but AD refuses to accept it, well ... It is just a timesink and it is a timesink that can have quite peculiar consequence because these articles are not particularly well watched (Catch 22?). In this instance, I strongly suspect that AD's fake references in the first AfD caused it to be determined as not suitable for deletion, yet he protests when the thing is blanked because there is nothing verifiable. Then comes back umpteen years later and says he can make it verifiable but in fact he cannot, as anyone familiar with the topic would know. The same applies to his insistence that unreliable sources are in fact ok to use.

I admit that I am struggling to explain here. I know for sure that there are people who think AD is being absurd but this is a topic area where scrutiny is poor and one of the consequences of that is examples such as the current AfD, which comes out of a previous AfD that had no merit other than the fake refs, a complete lack of comprehension, and an admin who presumably saw some mention of sources and thought "that's ok". But, as I said at the outset, this is not a one-off issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: I acknowledge your comment about a lack of diffs. I was utterly bemused regarding how I could possibly give specific diffs in such a complex matter but if you can suggest a way to disentangle then that would be great. As it is, I am sort of hoping that common sense could prevail here: if people really cannot see the problem just reading a few example threads then, frankly, I despair and may as well give up. We have two sets of sanctions regims for the topic area for a reason.

@D4iNa4: I have had little involvement in this process and couldn't possibly comment except to say that I used the word unwittingly on purpose. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Andrew Davidson

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 Andrew Davidson

What we have here is an AfD – note that I have not edited the article in question at any time. I'd be quite happy to stop arguing about the matter and just let the AfD process take its usual course but it's Sitush that keeps coming to my talk page to belabour the matter (8 times already today). There are some content issues and I understand them just fine. What Sitush doesn't seem to understand is our policies and guidelines such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:BLANK and he states openly in the discussion that he's not heard of them before. My position is that there's some scope for improvement here and so our policy WP:PRESERVE would have us prefer this alternative to deletion. In the course of discussion, I have produced good sources such The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies – a respectable and recent work from a university press. I have also pointed to other related pages such as List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism which no-one else seemed to have noticed. I'd be quite content to have both these pages merged to Sikhism#Sikh_castes which contains a similar list of Sikh castes and so am quite flexible about the outcome. All that needs to happen now is a period of quiet so that other editors can contribute to the AfD and then the closer can settle the matter in the usual way. Compare, for example, Manchu studies, which is about a similar weak page but for which I have found a good source. I have no strong feelings about these topics but am entitled to my views on them, as is common at AfD, and I contribute usefully to the discussions, arguing from sources and policy, as we're supposed to. Note that the previous AfD referred to (Samra) was over two years ago and so these issues don't arise often enough to warrant special measures. What might require attention is Sitush's insulting incivility, for example, "how dense can you be ... your incompetence". In that previous AfD, I noted that Sitush seemed to be violating WP:OWN, WP:PA and WP:BLUDGEON and we have the same pattern again here. Andrew D. (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: should please move their contribution from the section reserved for "uninvolved admins" because, as they recently discussed the specific topic in question, they seem involved. Note that, when they stated their opinion of the topic, they did not provide any evidence, whereas I provide and cite examples, sources and policy. Note that I don't just google in a crude way, as RP supposes. I have an extensive personal library, including multiple, respectable books on the specific subject of caste. I have good access to research libraries in London which I regularly visit, such as the BL, the Senate House Library, the Wellcome Library and more. Through these and other resources such as the Misplaced Pages Library, I have good access to online resources such as JSTOR. I am therefore able to read and quote sources when needed to develop or support a position, as in this case. I fully appreciate the ramifications of this topic area but my general position is that we should explore alternatives to deletion so that topics can make progress, rather than being stuck in an unproductive cycle of creation, blanking, reversion and deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Andrew Davidson

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

• I don't see how this is actionable. To begin with, the request contains no diffs of edits by Andrew Davidson. As to the caste-related discussions linked to in the request, I don't see anything substantial, at first glance, that might amount to sanctionable misconduct by Andrew Davidson. Even if one assumes with Sitush that Andrew Davidson is mistaken or ill-informed with respect to the questions at issue, that is not a violation of Misplaced Pages conduct policy. I don't see how this is more than a content dispute coupled with strong disagreement on the inclusionism / deletionism axis. Such disputes should be resolved through normal dispute resolution rather than through arbitration. Sandstein 22:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Sitush, AE is a bit strict on policy, evidence, etc for pretty good reasons. To act, we need clear cut diffs that show obvious misconduct. Nebulous patterns of behavior don't fit into WP:AE very well. Keep in mind. AE isn't a consensus board, when an admin acts, they act unilaterally, and they have the authority to ignore everyone else, or take those opinions to heart. We usually work together and often a majority agrees with the outcome, but whichever admin closes and acts, s/he owns those actions, and must be able to articulate the issue via WP:adminaccct. Looking briefly at your case, I don't see a solid case being presented, even while admitting one might exist. My advice is to have actual diffs along with SHORT explanations for each, and take it to ANI, which is better suited for long drawn out ordeals, and allows input from everyone. ARBPIA restrictions can still be issued from there, but if this situation is as you describe, it transcends ARB and would be getting into general policy, which is easier to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• While I don't see anything actionable here, I do see some cause for concern. Looking through the edits, it appears that Andrew Davidson, though editing in good faith, doesn't understand the domain. Caste in India is a complex subject, continuously confounded by interest groups, government action, and poor quality judgements made during the Raj era. It is because of this complexity that we have imposed community discretionary sanctions on this area and most uninvolved admins, like myself, issue warnings and blocks solely based on sourcing, i.e., whether edits are sourced or not and, if sourced, whether there is consensus on the reliability of those sources. Editing by googling the way Andrew Davidson is doing is not going to work very well in this area because it invariably pulls up unreliable sources. Insisting on Raj era sources when consensus is against using them is not going to work very well either. But, like I said, there is probably nothing actionable here right now because Andrew Davidson appears to be editing in good faith. However, if this continues, a topic ban from caste related articles is likely in the future. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  AndrewDavidson, I don't consider myself involved because I have no opinion on caste matters and an occasional drive by comment doesn't change that. Also, like I state above, I don't think you're editing in bad faith here. Rather, regardless of the quality of access you may or may not have to sources, you seem to be editing with a shallow understanding of the complexity of the topic area, particularly with your "if we build it the sources and content will come" approach which is practically an invitation to the POV editors out there. Also, if I may point out, the three sources you include here are all google books sources which, unfortunately, do give the impression of being found through a google search rather than through visits to the various libraries you list above. That you are editing against consensus is fairly well borne out by comments from other editors such as in this edit summary and this one. Regardless, all I am saying is that when you have a shallow understanding of a topic area, it is generally better to edit with a light touch than with an aggressive one.--regentspark (comment) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, since you asked for diffs I looked a little deeper. The AfD in question is a second nomination. In the first nomination, you !voted keep with the same three sources that you've listed in the 2nd nomination and with the same "if we build it the sources will come" rationale but, in the three plus intervening years, you have neither edited the article nor done anything with those sources (nor has anyone else). That, it seems to me, pretty much backs up my "shallow editor" hypothesis. A shallow understanding of the content and an aggressive editing style are not a good combination. --regentspark (comment) 19:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Willard84

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 Willard84

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Excelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Willard84 (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

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

Warned by EdJohnston in July 2017 that: "If you continue to edit war on any topics related to India or Pakistan you are risking a topic ban."

Template:History of Pakistan:

• Back in September 2017 when he was edit warring on Template:History of Pakistan: by Wikihounding other editor to the template.

Template ended up getting fully protected due to this edit warring.

• There was a huge discussion regarding his disruption on this template and other namespaces on EdJohnston's talk page. But nothing has improved.

• Once this protection was removed, he resumed edit warring against consensus.

• Claiming there is "no consensus" regardless of the majority agreement of 8 editors against the non-consensus version of an editor who was topic banned from the subject and remains blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.

• Template ended up getting protected again due to his edit warring.

• Misleading an admin that "consensus was actually not reached", and continued deception on talk page where he claimed that there was no consensus because, "Pakistani editors seems to be in unison that these changes were not warranted, though despite this being a template on Pakistani history, Pakistani editors’ opinions are actually in the minority here." This argument about ethnicity of involved editors is an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND.

• The template editor rejected the request and said, "I see a consensus above which contradicts your request".

Nanga Parbat:

• Removes long term sourced content by falsely asserting that there "This has been discussed", regardless of any discussion.

Removes it again in middle of new-born discussion.

• Added an image without explaining the "puffery" he added.

Edit warring to restore the puffery:

Bludgeoning on talk page for adding the puffery against policies.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

From block log:

23:48, 6 July 2017 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 4 days (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: at Godhra train burning per a complaint at WP:AN3)

07:31, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Violation of the three-revert rule)

02:29, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These are the two most recent incidents that I can name. The long term edit warring, stonewalling, civil POV pushing, misrepresentation of consensus, and demonstration of WP:INCOMPETENCE shows that Willard84 is truly careless about how much disruption he is causing. I believe that a topic ban is clearly warranted now. Excelse (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Willard84

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 Willard84

I’m confident the arbitrators will find this complaint to be unwarranted and not done in good faith. This is an editor who engaged me in a heated discussion months ago who now appears to be seeking some sort of discretionary sanctions based upon sour feelings. He’s making accusations essentially on behalf of others who didn’t find my behavior so disturbing that they themselves would file a request. Instead we have an editor with whom I haven’t interacted for many months randomly appearing out of the blue and stalking my edits to build a frivolous case against me. Out of many months of edits, and literally hundreds, if not thousands, of edits, he pulls out a few cherry picked examples to build a case. I think this violates the spirit of collaboration and I find this sort of stalking to be very objectionable - even worthy of sanctioning to be frank. If the arbitrators seriously feel these accusations warrant actual disciplinary measure against me, please ping me back to this page and I can dedicate more time to a rebuttal. So much of what he said is an inaccurate depiction that completely neglects so much, but just as a quick illustration of the sort of details that he neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page that he complained about was resolved cordially via discussion with that other editor.Willard84 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And as for the issue of consensus on the Pakistani history template page, once the third party declared they had seen consensus, I dropped the issue without further debate. This complainant neglects to mention that fact.Willard84 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Raymond3023

Willard84's on-going attempts to deceive others are concerning. He is still misrepresenting incidents and trying to throw mud on OP's report by falsely claiming the existence of the incidents that didn't even occurred when the report was filed. See WP:GAMING.

The report was filed at 05:43 (UTC). At 08:37 (UTC) Willard84 changed timestamp of his 1 hour older response and makes a misleading claim that OP "neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page that he complained about was resolved", after leaving a message on talk page at 08:32 (UTC), despite the report was filed almost 3 hours ago. Willard84 is now attempting to get away from the article by claiming that he "resolved cordially" when he is clearly giving up on the article and he failed to remove the sourced content and failed to get his puffery accepted because his disruption has been highlighted in this report. But I am sure he will resume his disruption on that article for his WP:OR.

Furthermore, edit warring of Willard84 didn't even stopped with this one edit and one revert, because after he failed to remove the content from lead, he still removed it from lead by creating a new section called "Etymology" and moving material there and he provided no reason for his edit. Since his aim was to get rid of the meaning of the word from the lead, I would count it as 2 reverts for removing the meaning of the name, and 2 additional reverts for adding puffery. In total, he made 4 reverts.

Seeing he is clearly working on deceiving others not only on articles but also here now, he is leaving me with no choice other than to support topic ban which would be still lenient because editors also get indeffed for such shenanigans. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by D4iNa4

Willard84 you can't ignore your long term pattern of your nationalistic editing by making false accusations against others. Even if you had never edited the the main Template:History of Pakistan, your behavior on it's talk page has been purely disruptive, though you edit warred enough to get the template protected twice by restoring to a pseudohistorical nationalist version written by an editor who used a sock to notify you recently. The template should be totally unprotected the way Template:History of India is, even though it is much more edited and visited than Template:History of Pakistan. But due to your disruption I think we will never reach there unless you are topic banned. I am really seeing no justification for your actions. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to D4Nai by Willard84

Nationalistic editing? The Template discussion revolved around whether consensus had been reached - don’t misconstrue this into a question of competing nationalism. I think the arbitrators here are well aware of how to spot arrogant nationalism - and it isn’t coming from me. The debate has been ongoing since October, yet you made a change in late February after months of stalemate and resurrected a version which was objectionable for its inclusion of minor empires like the Marathas who ruled for not even 2 years and left essentially no trace of their presence,while you suggested that the Indus Valley Civilization (with its major sites in modern Pakistan) be removed from a template about Pakistan. In fact, the changes you made aren’t the changes you put forward for discussion - you made a set of changes that hasn’t been discussed in their entirety. I was pushing for a reversion to status quo - I think you’ll need to do a better job of demonstrating how this was pushing a nationalist viewpoint. Even the comment about Pakistani viewpoints was explained in the debate as a point brought up simply because this fell under wiki project Pakistan. And anyway, once the third party had stated they thought consensus had been reached, I dropped the issue even though I think that third party did not consider the context behind it.

D4iNa4 has had his own history of belligerent POV editing against me. Here another reviewer had to explain to D4iNai and another user that Washington Post is a reliable source when D4 had sided with another user to ensure the page only reflected claims that the train was burned as a result of a pre meditated “conspiracy” by Muslim passengers, by ensuring that any mention of events prior to the burning which cast other non-Muslim passengers as rowdy were not included.

Willard84 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3

I would acknowledge that Willard84 is a bit quick to hit the revert button, but he is a good productive editor otherwise. Perhaps a warning should suffice for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lorstaking

I agree with the filer, Raymond3023 and D4iNa4 but I disagree with Kautilya3. Another warning would be a waste of time since he has been already warned and blocked enough times for what he has been doing and he is not still not understanding the serious problems with his editing. According to his own statements here, he still believes that even if none of his edits were accepted they were still correct and also that others are engaging in misconduct by not accepting them. He still believes his edits are correct where he is treating princely states and their subdomains (Phulra, Khanate of Kalat, Dir, etc.) during British Raj as the main power as per his own edits to paint a wrong picture that Pakistan was never really colonized by British and was mainly ruled by these vassals. Willard84 also wants to mention initial and outdated rumors about Godhra train burning as facts even after being told otherwise by Edjohnston and not just the involved editors. You just can't expect him to collaborate without creating enough problems.

His input on talk pages can be also described as mass bludgeoning just like his statements here, some of them have been already removed by Sandstein.

I am also noting that his accusations against others of misconduct without giving any evidence constitute personal attacks.

He is saying in one of his statements here that everyone is allowed to revert but he is now gaming 3RR by not reverting 3 times in 24 hours. Clearly that is how he managed to revert 4 times on Nanga_Parbat In short words this is a clear case of disruptive nationalist POV pushing and WP:CIR. Lorstaking (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to Lorstaking by Willard84

I don’t have time to rebuke rehashed accusations that were already brought up above, but it’s clear what Salem 1620 must have felt like.

Anyway, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this user, Lorstaking, has been spending an unusual amount of effort to defend User:MapSGV, whose account has been blocked above, by petitioning arbitrator User:Sandstein above to rescind his decision. The accusation that I tried to downplay British rule is exceedingly ridiculous- as a review of the edits would make very clear.

Lorstaking and MapSGV have an unusually deep relationship that appears to have only developed in the end of February 2018 when MapSGV started making a significant number of edits. He randomly jumped back into editing after a 2 year hiatus on 19 February 2017, and seems to have somehow rapidly developed a deep relationship with Lorstaking, who took the unusual step of writing a lengthy character defense of MapSGV. Lorstaking even opened a case to challenge sanctions against MapSGV, although this was quickly shut down.

Yet now, Lorstaking finds his way on here to join a witch hunt. Perhaps in retaliation, because MapSGV somehow randomly appeared on the Template:History of Pakistan that Lorstaking had commented on just an hour earlier, and reverted my edit before threatening me with blocks on the talk page. He also seems to be unusually well-versed in Misplaced Pages lingo for someone who apparently just parachuted back in after a making a few dozen edits.Willard84 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Willard84

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

Mar4d

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 Mar4d

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mar4d (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

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

• 20 February 2018 Falsely accusing other editors of POV pushing "in complete mockery of WP:ARBIPA" instead of rebutting their arguments. This is the first of the many ad hominem comments made by this user on the article's talk page.
• 20 February 2018 Another ad hominem attack directed against the other editor, and this was after he was told to focus on the content.
• 21 February 2018 Again launches ad hominem personal attacks on MapSVG with unfounded accusations in place of rebutting his arguments.
• 21 February 2018 Doubles down on the personal attacks, calling MapSVG, among other things, a sock without evidence.
• 22 February 2018 Deliberately falsified the numbers with a misleading edit summary that he was fixing "per ref" and the "numbers are unsourced", when in actual fact the sources (both in the infobox and in the India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)#2018 section) clearly supported the numbers.

• And, the explanation that he gave on the talk page — that there were no figures available for 2016 — gave the impression that he didn't even read the refs because the figures from 2016 were already sourced in the infobox (see refs –), and this was discussed already a couple of months ago. He never replied when I quizzed him asking if he had even read the sources.

• Added objectionable material on Rape in India by adding his opinion, "However, in reality", "further exacerbated the crisis", and using unreliable sources. One editor reverted him for using unreliable sources and he reverted that editor saying that his sources are "RS" and made another controversial edit, another editor reverted him pointing out the use of unreliable sources, he again restored the reverted content and left a firovolous warning on the talk page of the editor that he didn't provided any reason to revert him, after that the discussion on talk page was held, where everyone opposed his edits, and in middle of the discussion he again removed the content that was being supported by the involved editors though required a little bit of improvement that took no time, but unnecessary edit warring from Mar4d clearly making 3 reverts in such sensitive article is concerning.
• On Kashmir conflict:

• Reverted King Zebu because he made his edits "without consensus"
• Reverted Kautilya3 because he made his edits without adhering to "WP:NOCON and WP:BRD"
• RegentsPark criticized Mar4d that his "reversion does not make sense"
• Reverted Kautilya3 by disregarding WP:NOCON and WP:BRD himself, the content was being discussed and had no consensus. And, it took him ony two minutes to post a request at WP:RFPP for full page protection of his preferred version, despite that version had no consensus.
• Quickly reverted the IP's revert of non-consenus controversial content by disregarding the sanctions placed on this page. The first point of the sanctions clearly reads "A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block."
• What's even more concerning is that the content dispute was raised on WP:DRN on 14 February but Mar4d never commented on it, despite being a party of the dispute.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. See Mar4d's block log

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mar4d was adamant in his personal opinion that the Siachen conflict is an "ongoing conflict" and adding a result "is like adding a conclusion on Kashmir conflict", despite multiple reliable sources saying to the contrary that the conflict ended with the ceasefire in 2003. One just has to take a glance at the talk page to notice the outright personal attacks he made on others (including false accusations of socking, SPA, etc), not to mention that he kept engaging in stonewalling, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, repeating the same personal opinion over and over again, and resorting to ad hominem strategies in place of refuting the arguments of others.

As per discussion with Sandstein on MapSVG's talk page, Sandstein told that he "will take a look" if a separate report is filed against those who also engaged in misconduct. The report against MapSVG was filed by a user who was already under a SPI investigation and the report resulted in sanctions on MapSGV despite much of the diffs were showing his responses to ad hominem personal attacks and false accusations made by Mar4d, despite objections by multiple editors, and Mar4d's misconduct is much more than just incivility because it also concerns edit warring, treatment of Misplaced Pages as battleground, use of unreliable sources, misrepresentation of sources and lack of collaborative approach to resolve content dispute. For all these factors Mar4d should be sanctioned. —MBL 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified here

Discussion concerning Mar4d

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 Mar4d

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mar4d

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