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

muffizainu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Muffizainu (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Sanction appealed. sanction case

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

diff

Statement by muffizainu

The topic ban was initiated after I created the article “Khafd”, which is the Arabic term for the term for female circumcision. Wikipedia has similar pages defining Arabic terms, for example, the male equivalent practice, which is called “Khitan”. The Khafd page was created after a lengthy discussion on the FGM page, here and here. Following that talk, I reverted to doing doing research on the term Khafd, and drafted the page accordingly. In this page, I added multiple credible dictionary references (including Britanica) to define the Arabic term.

I am also aware on the difference of opinion on the debate around FGM vs Female Circumcision vs Cosmetic Genital Surgeries; it is for this reason, and to be neutral, the “Khafd” directed the link to the original FGM page for more information.

I have also pointed out many inaccuracies in the FGM articles in the past, which have all been ignored. The topic around FGM is an extremely sensitive topic in which there are many different opinions. Wikipedia must be a platform where multiple sides of the story are shared with good references, and that is what I proposed to do. However it seemed that only one side was heard. In the past few years, more and more academics are having reasoned dialogue around biases surrounding FGM, and I’d be happy to continue that dialogue on Wikipedia.

Going forward in good faith. I propose a lifting of the ban on the following conditions:

1. I will no longer directly make contributions to articles or edit war. I will also not make excessively long debates over any part of content and instead I will use consensus from RFCs where there's a very controversial issue.
3. There was some confusion ie. when I created the new article, the editor did not object to its deletion via proper articles for deletion venue so I had concerns about a single editor redirecting it to another article calling it POV fork where as it was thought to have its own references. In the least it was supposed to be AFD'd. I feel it was unfair to request a ban based on that. I will ofcourse accept any consensus in all regards. I'm not going to enforce my views, this, I can of course agree to.
5. Editors decide content where as admins enforce behaviour as far as I understand. I will definitely be happy and agree to abide by all rules including avoiding any kind of POV pushing which was perceived of me. However, I simply want a say in consensus.
7. I agree to go for new controversial articles via articles for creation process if that is necessary ie. if the admins think it will help as a good faith gesture from me to lift the ban. I can voluntarily do this.
9. I have not violated the ban through the ban period as of yet and want to support Wikipedia with constructive edits.

Statement by AGK

Thanks to GoldenRing for notifying me.

Reading the appeal, I suspect muffizainu still does not grasp why I topic-banned them to begin with. Muffizainu would need to display a radical change of attitude in order to convince that the problems exhibited in 2018 had been addressed. Consequently, I cannot recommend lifting or amending this sanction.

AGK ■ 21:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by muffizainu

Result of the appeal by muffizainu

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

• This will be closed shortly if the required notification of the enforcing administrator is not made. Sandstein 07:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified AGK on behalf of muffizainu. Yes, they should have done it themselves, but repeated refiling of requests due to process defects gets tiring. GoldenRing (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• And this is the sanction being appealed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose lifting this restriction. The topic around FGM is an extremely sensitive topic in which there are many different opinions. Wikipedia must be a platform where multiple sides of the story are shared with good references, and that is what I proposed to do. This is pretty much a textbook case of not understanding what led to the restriction. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upon re-reading the original discussion which led to Muffizainu's topic ban, I'm convinced the ban should not be lifted. Also, it seems reasonable to ping User:SlimVirgin for information. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• I would decline this appeal based on AGK's arguments. Sandstein 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also decline. As there appears to be a consensus early on, I am closing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Karumari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Karumari (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of India-Pakistan, imposed at [[1]]

I was informed about it here: that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/882241628

Statement by Karumari

I have avoided editing articles where other editors raised objections to some of my edits. Subsequently, I have asked on the talk pages of articles if a particular reference could be used as a source before editing any other article. I want my topic ban to be lifted completely as I believe I am refraining from editing articles where there are objections, voluntarily. I have not indulged in any edit war. I am not sure if my links are as they should be-someone please correct them if they are not. Thanks!

Statement by JamesBWatson

Karumari has certainly made a good-faith attempt to keep out of topics where his or her editing has been considered problematic, and I acknowledged that on his/her talk page when I imposed the topic ban. However, as I also said then, the effect has not been to end the problems, but merely to move them to another topic. More than one section of Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment shows Karumari unable to understand what he or she is told. To give just one example, he/she seems to be sincerely unable to understand that women entering the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala because they think excluding women is wrong does not mean that they are doing so to express "anti-Hindu sentiments". Indeed, many of them are Hindus themselves. It may be, in fact, that Karumari's difficulty in understanding the problems with his/her editing will be there no matter on what topic he/she may edit, so that they will not be able to edit successfully anywhere. However, I have gone for a topic ban rather than a block in order to give Karumari a chance to learn, away from issues to do with Pakistan and India, where there are issues on which he/she clearly has strong feelings which may make it more difficult to stand back and see things in perspective than for other topics. I really think that accepting this topic ban, and editing for six months on other topics, will give Karumari the best chance of eventually settling in as a Wikipedia editor, and being able to continue to edit, without either getting blocked from editing altogether or else leaving in frustration because of continually finding that every attempt to be helpful is rebuffed by other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

The problem here is not that Karumari has edit-warred, but that they have demonstrated a persistent inability to understand our policies on verifiability and WP:NOR, as is seen here, here, here, and here. As such, I recommend that this appeal be denied; I think Karumari needs to learn how to edit in compliance with these policies in a less contentious area. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Karumari

Result of the appeal by Karumari

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

• Decline. I think the topic ban is the right thing for this editor at this stage. Go and learn the ropes in less-controversial areas. GoldenRing (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Willwill0415

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Willwill0415 (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

AP2 topic ban

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

1. 7 February 2019 Copyediting a politician's article
2. 7 February 2019 Editor should probably not edit in the incel topic

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 27 November 2018 AP2 ban for 6 months

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm unsure if the gender ban was appealed. If no, the edit #2 above is a violation of it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Discussion concerning Willwill0415

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 Willwill0415

All I did was put a comma in the Mosler article lol, how is that bad? I wrote maybe a third of the article, and people liked it, so I think Ive been useful to that article. I already submitted an arbcom request and an ANI about the incel article months ago the only people who care about the article basically bullied me and everyone else who wrote neutrally about incels on that article (last year). I got sent from Arbcom to ANI last year, where a group of ideologues and people who admit on wikipedia about a political agenda against incels topic banned me to get me to stop challenging them on the talk page. To repeat myself, Involuntary celibacy as a sociological concept was purged from Wikipedia as a political goal by veteran Wikipedia and ideological feminists that dominate the incel talk page. Its a 30 or so person "consensus" that roams Wikipedia engaging in political fights under the pretense of preserving Wikipedia. Involuntary celibacy as a sociological phenomena isnt dependent on the misogyny of the incel boards. But people claim that is so, and thats utterly ridiculous, and the lack of professionalism of the Wikipedia community continues to astound me. Also, note that love-shy redirects to that incel page full of yellow journalism in a negative-feedback-loop from Wikipedia too. This article reads like an encyclopedia dramatica article. If someone complains about the incel article, theyll probably get topic banned, even though involuntary celibacy (or incels) isnt fundamentally a gender issue. Its a mental and societal health issue as defined by academic sources. Also, my recent contributions to the incel article today were kinda sloppy, but my contributions last year were better.

Statement by Jorm

Willwill0415 is not here to edit the encyclopedia in good faith. A simple glance at their history will tell you all you need to know about them - including their stated intent to immediately violate their topic ban from American Politics and to the surprise of no one, they've done it.

This will continue ad nauseum.--Jorm (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Willwill0415

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

• Note As Willwill0415 has continued to violate their topic ban since this AE report was opened, has removed large amounts of content from Incel (twice), and given their previous history, I have blocked them indefinitely. Note that this was not an admin action taken in response to this AE request; I saw the problem as I have Incel watchlisted and have come here after looking at Willwill0415's previous edits. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• User has been indefinitely blocked by Black Kite. User still has an active TBAN from gender issues listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#GamerGate 2, and the edits at Incel are a clear violation. The politician edit is a minor violation of the other TBAN, but I would consider that to be intentional boundary pushing. I would favor reindeffing the user as an AE sanction, over Black Kite's discretionary block. Is that something we can do here, or nah? Maybe it's not necessary, IDK. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bureaucratically speaking we can't do that, Swarm, as discretionary sanctions blocks can only be up to one year long.[3] That may be the reason why the shrewd Black Kite chose a common or garden block. Though I have seen an arrangement whereby a user is blocked for a year per DS, with a regular block waiting in the wings to take over when the year is up. To my mind, there is something displeasing about that.. sort of lawyerly. Anyway, I think Black Kite's indef will do the job, and I support it. Bishonen | talk 03:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Closing accordingly. Sandstein 08:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

• Koertefa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Fakirbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions
• any other sanction regarding tag-teaming or forming a "cabal" on Wikipedia

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editors have formed a practical "cabal", with the purpose of fixing what they call "ethnic bias" on Hungarian, Slovakian, Romanian history articles and they have been doing this for a long time (translation sometimes required, google translate should be enough to get the general picture):

Assistance/Collaboration/Consensus building

• Norden asks for support on Battle of Hermannstadt (was Sibiu at the time)1. The same plea is made to Koertefa and Fakirbakir. Borsoka, Fakirbakir, and Koertefa support it 2. None of the editors had previous input into this.

• Fakirbakir asks for help, emphasizing that it's about a Serb editor and Slovak editor, and asks to make the article "free" again3. Koertefa obliged4.

• KIENGIR asks for help with an editor "disrupting" the Austrian Empire (and bring reinforcements) 5. And Fakirbakir helps6.

• Norden1990 asks for opinions7. And is swiftly supported by Borsoka, Fakirbakir and Koertefa 8.

• KIENGIR again asks for help (some weird things going on, read it) 9 and both Fakirbakir and Borsoka support him 10. The supporting editor had no previous input on that page before.

• Norden1990 Asked for support here 11, and Koertefa obliges 12.

One Team, One Mission

• How communicating in Hungarian on the talk pages presents certain advantages 13.

• Stubes99 (a sock of his) makes and angry jab at Borsoka. At one point Stubes99 makes a personal attack (several actually) on Borsoka, but the one answering is Norden1990 - who by the way reminds Stubes99 how little he had to add to the "project", and that he's more of a liability than an asset. Stubes99 fights back against Norden1990, angrily juxtaposing himself to the new "star" of the year - Borsoka. Stubes99 fights back and... whatever. Please notice though the "ethnic cleansing on sensitive topics" 14.

• How 15 the team consensus is used to push the PoV they want.

• A rally call, fight the good fight, for the credible PoV.16.

• And how a discussion about a map exemplifies what PoV the team is working on 17. Fakirbakir calls things as they are (which is not a NPOV...). But they go further... and decide to call that a NPOV basically. And you can read about the team's map-creating business here 18.

• Norden1990's temporary departure, and his goodbye to Fakirbakir, Borsoka, Koertefa (which all respond in kind - Koertefa just above the section, Fakirbakir and Borsoka in the section). Some of the administrators here may also notice a pattern - how the block was "unfair" in the PoV of the "team" 19.

• A lengthy conversation on how they must fight against Slovakian and Romanian editors, on how KIENGIR is admiring Borsoka, Koertefa, Norden and Fakirbakir for doing the "right" thing, about how the administrators cannot understand their fight, about how the Balkan and Eastern European mentality needs to grow up and lots of other exciting stuff. About the mission, in general. Very nice read until Borsoka reminds KIENGIR that maybe this is not the right place for such a conversation (obviously).19.

• And last, but not least, a combined activity 20 of the users, that needs no comments, as the list of topics combined with their own admission on what their "mission" is on Wikipedia is more than enough to give the full picture.

Other users whom may give more insight

• Ditinili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• PsichoPuzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Rgvis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Koertefa
• Norden1990
• Borsoka
• KIENGIR
• Fakirbakir

Discussion concerning Koertefa, Norden1990, Borsoka, KIENGIR, Fakirbakir

• Statement by Koertefa

• Statement by Norden1990

• Statement by Borsoka

• Statement by KIENGIR

• Statement by Fakirbakir

Statements by other editors with insight in this case

Result concerning Koertefa, Norden1990, Borsoka, KIENGIR, Fakirbakir

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 VwM.Mwv

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

VwM.Mwv (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:A/I/PIA :General prohibition, 1RR, disruptive editing

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

1. 13:14, 13 February 2019 re-addition of reverted material to an article in the topic area
2. 16:20, 12 February 2019 Disruptive editing - using Talk page as a forum
3. 04:12, 13 February 2019 Disruptive editing - reversion of collapse of off-topic Talk page comments
4. 04:40, 13 February 2019 Edit-warring - second re-addition of collapsed section, following reversion of first reversion by a third editor
5. 05:32, 13 February 2019 Edit-warring - third re-addition of collapsed material (subsequently self-reverted)
6. 10:12, 21 January 2019 Editing in topic area, following notification of General Prohibition
7. 21:02, 22 January 2019 Another example
8. 17:00, 30 January 2019 And another

1. 17:57, 9 February 2019 One more
2. 20:14, 30 January 2019 And yet another

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)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

VwM.Mwv is a very new editor (account created on 6 January 2019). Almost all of their 200 edits have been to articles in the Palestine/Israel conflict area, and they were notified of the arbitration ruling and general prohibition on 9 January. Despite this, they have continued to edit extensively in the topic area - a sample of such edits is listed above.

The editor has also been using Talk pages as a forum, polemicising about the subject rather than discussing improvement of the articles. See for instance this edit at Talk:Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne, and several edits [4][5] at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. In the course of thewse edits, the editor explicitly states that another editor is "anti-Semitic".

After I collapsed (without deleting) some of the editor's off-topic comments and the replies, and left them an explanation on their Talk page, they started to edit-war to reverse the collapse, as detailed above.

The editor has already been warned about edit-warring on another article in the topic area, but continued to edit the Talk page disruptively. Under the Genetral prohibition, "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". This editor's comments have become disruptive. Combined with the personal attack and edit warring, they cross the threshold for a sanction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning VwM.Mwv

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 VwM.Mwv

Statement by Shrike

• Some of his edits for example in Resilience party has nothing to do with the conflict and the article is not marked as belonging to the area the same applies to other articles.
• user:RolandR Did you ask the articles to be ECP protected if you really thing that they belong to the conflict? --Shrike (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning VwM.Mwv

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

• Clear violations of the general prohibition despite it being explained to them, plus personal attacks. Blocked for one week. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]