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 USaamo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

USaamo (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:ARBIPA :

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

1. 7 June - Violates WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS by incorrectly accusing established editors of being sock/meat of each other: "I see the finding was WP:DUCK. I started an RfC there to get views over the matter from uninvolved and neutral editors but I see it was also flooded with comments opposing it by the same involved editors who actually indulged in this edit dispute with me except one or two. Same like that case WP:DUCK#Usage WP:MEATPUPPET."
2. 9 June - "don't like it owing to their ultra-nationalist sentiments. Consensus is also not canvassing or meatpuppetry"
3. 2 July - Violates WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS again: "meat puppetry was done to influence the RfC in democratic style which is against Wikipedia policies. Anyhow RfC is not a binding thing, I seek other way of dispute resolution in this regard."
4. 2 June - Misrepresents sources by claiming that the subject "became the face of Kashmir independence movement and was widely compared with Bhagat Singh" and used the sources,[1][2][3] when none of them talks about any "independence" or a "movement".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked on 9 June 2020 for edit warring on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, where he was just edit warring to enforce his own WP:OR as his one of the edit undoubtedly indicates.[4]

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

[5]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning USaamo

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 USaamo

The whole point of conflict is the edit dispute on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 which the editor called original research. Why ain’t it be determined, I’ve presented sources [7], he's refuting them [8], why not someone decide on that and end this dispute once and for all. As to my conduct, I’m being dragged into all this. I didn’t mean it and is unintentional out of frustration since I’m not much experienced editor knowing just some necessary editing policies only.

• The 1st and 3rd point where I alleged them to be meatpuppets, if you see the full comment [9], I said canvassing in either way meatpuppetry. My point on both the instances was not specifically directed but in general sense as I observed them all editing on pages concerning India Pakistan Military history pushing Indian POV. The same I saw on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 page that they came one after one reverting my edit [10] most lately User:Trojanishere and when I started RfC [11], they came one after one commenting against it even being involved previously in the dispute and then pushing it as consensus to not include that. This was the point for which I alleged them for canvassing and meatpuppetry in some way. I don’t think it is that much personal attack since editors here even open investigations against other editors for sockpuppetry where they don’t come out to be a sock.
• As to the 2nd point it’s subsequent to the 1st and 3rd points which I answered above that one after one they were appearing and reverting my edit while discussion was ongoing and trying to push the consensus formed by their own votes, so I said that generally in edit summary.
• The 4th point is just the choice of words, the sources are mentioning it as Kashmir unrest, Kashmir militancy, Kashmir agitation, Kashmir problem which is part of Kashmir conflict to which the Kashmir independence movement is a redirect [12]. It’s the choice of a neutral words since it’s obvious that Indian media will mention it as militancy as per their government narrative while for Kashmiris and Pakistanis it is freedom struggle, any other neutral word if there can also be used but Burhan Wani definitely took up arms for Kashmir independence movement as per the article.

I was blocked for this edit dispute over edit warring for reason that they were stonewalling my edits, my changes were being reverted one after one by four of the editors involved in edit dispute and I was reverting their reverts, so the editor went on to get me blocked even though the edit reversion was started by them and I reverted them as many times they reverted me or even less but I came into admin’s radar somehow and got blocked. Now the said editor came here with some loopholes in my conduct but in all this edit dispute why only my conduct is being scrutinized, why not theirs, WP:Stonewalling, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CANVAS, and may be WP:MEATPUPPET as well. USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) Requesting administrator to allow this update, it may exceeds word limit of statement. (Continues from 1st and 2nd points of my statement...) User:Aman.kumar.goel himself falsely accused other editors of sockpuppetry at many instances. [13] [14] [15] [16] while a filing is also there against him where clerk endorsed him for sockpuppetry as well as off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry.[17] So he should also be tried for WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS for falsely accusing other editors of sockpuppetry and also for WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:DUCK#Usage, WP:CANVAS as well as WP:EDITWAR, WP:DISRUPT, WP:Stonewalling. USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Since the case has been unarchived and admin Guerillero is accusing me of edit warring which is not true. That RfC was closed by Legobot on 10 June [18] to which the said admin just recently concluded. The RfC was about adding Pakistan's edge and victory as per sources [19] which I alleged was canvassed and meat puppetry was done to stonewall proposed changes. After my edit yesterday[20] on the basis of new and verified sources provided in a new discussion on talk[21] which was added to article following a discussion to which no further reply came from them for a week. It was reverted by User:Kautilya3 for RfC being not ended.[22] While just after that the said admin came in to conclude the RfC that the whole material be not added which is strange. It's oky to not add victory till dispute is settled but how come verified sources be stopped from adding to the article... I see the element of biasness here from him and seems to me motivated moves. Moreover an indefinitely blocked sock' s comment is still there in that RfC while it's closed and now concluded as well. [23] So I request admins here before passing any judgement do look into that edit dispute and also scrutinize the conduct of persons involved. USaamo ^(t@lk) 10:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with it getting unarchived, rather I was surprised over it getting archived without result. As to that RfC, it is canvassed and there are comments by meatpuppetry and sockery, the one of User:Trojanishere is example which is still there and one comment has been previously removed as well for sockery. The manner of comments done there is also doubtful. Moreover your conclusion of RfC is ambigous, you have written it as that the whole material be not added which seems like that those sources should also not be added along with edge and victory while the question in RfC was only about adding edge and victory, other than that verified independent sources cannot be stopped from inclusion when the article has accounts from primary sources even. USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Since AE ain't a place for content dispute, rather conduct which is knowingly or unknowingly because of this dispute may be going wrong, so I be allowed the pursuit to settle this dispute as I'm thinking of taking it to DRN and until then I will not change the result from infobox but I believe the RfC close of the above admin isn't just and independent sources cannot be stopped because of a consensus pushed through a flawed RfC. He needs to consider the points I raised about RfC and reconsider his close since the RfC was only about inclusion of edge and victory, there's nothing I think that stops inclusion of those sources in body without changing the result in lead. I agree to not change result in infobox until dispute gets settled but the sources merits inclusion in the body. Rest you people are admins, as you wish! USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't claim it without evidence, a comment in this RfC previously has been removed for a sock and the other of Trojanishere who is banned for sockery is still there. Moreover four of the editors who commented in this RfC were party to this dispute and I'm afraid that they too are counted as votes, as per it I should also have a comment in there as I saw a similar situation on another RfC recently. Also the last two comments in that RfC were done one after one in hours time. So such a flawed RfC can't be taken into account. The comments were asked from neutral and uninvolved editors(neither Indians nor Pakistanis) after failing consensus in previous discussion but the same involved editors came there to comment as well. The only such comment was of User:Cthomas3 who voted for no in lead but yes to include in body below. And as to WP:VNOTSUFF you're refferring for your close, it's strange that sourced information can be stopped from inclusion because most of editors don't want it to be included, it's against the very essence of an encyclopedia. Tomorrow I come up with a dozen of editors to vote for removing some information from an article even though it is sourced, so will that be removed because it was consensus, I believe no. As per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY voting is not a mode of decisions making and I'm not sure whether RfC too is a binding thing and that too a flawed one. The said article has accounts from primary Indian military sources, this is surprising that independent, third party sources cannot be included to that article because most of Indian editors don't agree. And you're accusing me of WP:BATTLE, why don't the same parameters be used for other editors in this dispute who are stonewalling these changes because it's going against their country narrative. USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

I am surprised that the editor pinged me while I gave this report a pass. Now that I am here, suffice to say that the editor's disruptive behaviour continues, with comments like, "You're presenting an Indian author's view for your claim against my third party sources and calling them hardly neutral, the same way bharat-rakshak.com an Indian military site can be a source for article but the credible third party sources can't be.., irony died a hundred times here." The "Indian author" in question is this one:

• Kainikara, Sanu (2018), "Indian Air Power", in John Andreas Olsen (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Air Power, Taylor & Francis, pp. 327–, ISBN 978-1-351-80273-4

Clearly, the editor refuses to obtain any understanding of WP:RS and is only prepared to argue on nationalistic lines.

The editor also showed up at an RfC on Dhola Post with an entirely superficial comment, which can't count as anything but WP:Vote stacking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Erik-the-red, my apologies if it appeared as if I suggested he had done something here. But, a lot of behind-the-scenes canvassing happens in this space of which the regular editors are aware. There is nothing in USaamo's contributions history to suggest that he is even remotely interested in the subject covered in the RfC. His appearance there is entirely inexplicable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response by USaamo

• User:Kautilya3 during the whole dispute was hell bent on calling the sources I presented rhetoric, impressionistic statements based on the cooked-up facts presented by Pakistanis themselves.[24] and hardly neutral, so called neutral, verifiable, bad mouth like words and also that I copied it from a fashion designer write up on Pakistani military mouth piece even though none of the source I presented there was from that article they referred as I mentioned them from original sources and none of them was Pakistani either.[25] So it was already on nationalistic lines by User:Kautilya3 and User:Aman.kumar.goel. In response to those sources he presented the above source which is the book of a retired Indian Air Force officer which obviously is Indian author and was ironic of him to quote since he's not ready to accept independent sources I presented about the article but citing an Indian author in response.
• As to the comment on Dhola Post RfC, he's wrongfully alleging me and the other editor involved. I commented in that RfC with having a background over McMahon Line since the history of India Pakistan before of 1947 was common history under British India and the said discussion is of a 1914 event which is taught to us in history. I came across this discussion while looking through different RfCs and here I commented on another I found during that.[26] I came across this as well and as I have read the case involving User:Erik-the-red below so having a background on it I went on to comment in that RfC. And my comment there is backed by sources and is not merely a comment. He is just showing up the same attitude he is showing on other side and tending to stonewall sourced content which has clear sources just on nationalistic lines since it might be coming against his country narrative. USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Erik-the-red

I'd like to reply to this because I opened the RfC in question. On the allegation of WP:VOTESTACK, the definition is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. However, Kautilya3 provided no evidence that USaamo was notified about the RfC, and therefore I do not see how Kautilya3's allegation of WP:VOTESTACK has any merit.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that Kautilya3 responded to the supposedly "entirely superficial" comment on the talk page without any accusation or allegation of WP:VOTESTACK. That Kautilya3 disagrees with USaamo's response doesn't make the response "entirely superficial" and certainly, a simple disagreement does not warrant an unfounded accusation of WP:VOTESTACK. Erik-the-red (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning USaamo

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

• Seems actionable. Yes, USaamo needs to take it down a notch. They cannot be interacting with other editors in this manner. That is not conducive to a collegial, collaborative volunteer project. At the very least, there will be a logged warning. And otherwise, sanctions are on the table pending further investigation. El_C 08:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess this report slipped through the cracks. It deserves being closed properly. El_C 15:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The rather minimal sanction advanced by Ed works for me. El_C 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with El C. The comments above are needlessly incendiary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The edit warring has continued. I close the disputed RfC on the talk page, but I don't think that it is going to solve the problem. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @USaamo: Histrionics are unhelpful. I have no position in this dispute. I was alerted that this AE thread was archived before being closed. When I was reviewing the article and talk page I came across the RfC and closed it. (Legobot does not close RfCs, uninvolved editors do.) The close was fairly simple; the RfC was near unanimous. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @USaamo: Per WP:VNOTSUFF "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." An RfC to not include some information that is verifiable or to not include information in Wikipedia's voice is valid.

  The consensus of the RfC was not to include content about "Pakistan's edge and victory in the aerial warfare." The consensus was clear after I discounted the input from Trojanishere. I stand by my close.

  The more you claim that people who disagree with you are meatpuppets or canvased without evidence, the more apparent it becomes that you need to be topic banned. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with El C in about the sanctions that Ed proposed below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, here is the AN3 case, closed by me on 9 June with a 48 hour block of USaamo. The page in dispute was Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. USaamo is very determined that Pakistan should be recorded in the infobox as the winner of this air war. This is the first of two reverts that USaamo made in the month of July since the AN3 was closed. He changed the result of the war in the infobox from 'stalemate' to 'Pakistani victory'. It looks to me that he isn't going to put down the stick. I recommend that he be topic banned from the domain of WP:ARBIPA for three months. Perhaps during this AE he will make some other assurance about his future behavior that could make us confident that warring in this area won't continue. If he is willing to do that, the AE might be closed without action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as stale and without an action --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 YuukiHirohiko User who is submitting this request for enforcement Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested YuukiHirohiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBIPA. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Violates WP:1RR on 1 July: 1) makes a few edits failing WP:OR, WP:RS,[27] 2) then reinstates the problematic edit without edit summary,[28] 3) then doubles down with the problematic edits once again.[29] Claims he will use "scholarly sources",[30] and resorts to using same unreliable sources again while claiming on edit summary that "Scholarly sources added, new details on strength and units." 4 July Falsely alleges editor of being biased: "Please do not carry your own bias into this." 5 July: Gaming WP:1RR by reinstating his edits,[31] then restoring them after being reverted.[32] 5 July: Alleges me of vandalism contrary to WP:NOTVAND.[33] 5 July: Refuses to self-revert and falsely claims that "Indian government sources" are being used on article.[34] Upon seeing rejection of such problematic view, still doubles down with his use of Chinese mouthpieces.[35] He is aware of what constitutes "vandalism" per this message written by him so I am confident that his reference to my edits as vandalism was deliberate. A report on WP:ANEW against this user with regards to edit warring on 2020 China–India skirmishes is still located on the noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:YuukiHirohiko reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ))Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) [36] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [37] Discussion concerning YuukiHirohiko 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 YuukiHirohiko Logically speaking a page would use as many sources as possible. I have read the Japanese, Chinese wiki pages of the same incident. Both voices are heard, Indian figures and Chinese sources are given on all other language pages respectively. Attempts to do the same on the English site were either reverted without reasoning or deleted on the claim of "using communist mouthpiece". I have not removed the Indian scholarly sources stated in the talk section nor have I moved it. It remains in its original section and I just added my sources. It's more than unusual to use Indian government sources as an official casualty figure of the standing article, more unusual that the objection that I face of doing the same thing for the Chinese side. Indian government statements are well known to be inaccurate and sometimes self contradictory.[1][2][3] So proclaimed "scholarly sources" in the article, backing up Indian government claims, are all written by one person, a professor at an Indian university, which according to the talk section sourced his death figures from "Bidanda Chengappa, working for an Indian think tank". I'd like to question the NPOV of this scholarly source. And "On Wikipedia, vandalism is editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or otherwise degrading." I see you removing my edits as vandalism as I was given 0 prior warning, 0 indication. You didn't show positive willingness to discuss this, I laid out my logic in my talk page regarding how China still has Cho La in its LAC despite the article stating the opposite, you didn't reply or rebut with solid evidence. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] References ^ https://time.com/5564980/india-never-shot-pakistani-plane-kashmir/ ^ https://thewire.in/security/modis-no-intrusion-by-china-claim-contradicts-indias-stand-raises-multiple-questions ^ https://scroll.in/article/960403/why-is-modi-government-contradicting-itself-on-whether-the-covid-19-lockdown-has-been-a-success Statement by (username) Result concerning YuukiHirohiko This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I cannot tell if YuukiHirohiko's sources are reliable and if they cite government sources. The status of this or that source which is not in English should have been discussed, and resolution arrived in that respect, on the article talk page first — before making key changes to the article based on these. YuukiHirohiko seems to be a new user who is currently SPAing. I'd be willing to go with, say, a week partial block from the article, or even just a warning, if they commit to the needed correction, which includes reading what vandalism is not. Very important. El_C 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please try Dispute Resolution such as an RfC to solve this dispute --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Erik-the-red User who is submitting this request for enforcement Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Erik-the-red (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 ARBIPA : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Personal attacks 17–19 June 20:27, 17 June 2020 Says: "it is quite hypocritical for you to posture about consensus" 23:19, 17 June 2020 Says: 'You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings,"' 00:25, 18 June 2020 Says: "Or, you could keep being a hypocrite" 15:28, 18 June 2020 Says: "Regardless of your blatant hypocrisy, you are muddying the waters on what the dispute is." 00:21, 19 June 2020 Says: "You have once again demonstrated that you are discussing in very bad faith, with your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting." Personal attacks 7–9 July 13:44, 7 July 2020 In response to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and work to resolve disputes, they say: "I repeat what I wrote to you on 19 June 2020: pointing out your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting does not get us any further to a resolution.". 15:45, 7 July 2020 When warned of WP:NPA, they say: "Pointing out that you have repeatedly been dishonest, that you have repeatedly been hypocritical, and that you have repeatedly gaslighted me is not an attack on you" 19:56, 7 July 2020‎ Reinstates a contested edit; "it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV" 20:15, 7 July 2020‎ Opens a talk page section titled "Hypocrisy". 20:40, 7 July 2020 Says: "Ah, so at long last, your true colo(u)rs are shown" (in response to stating that there are contending interpretations). WP:CIR 15:18, 8 July 2020‎ No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV: "If you want to argue that... is not in Raghavan or Hoffmann or any other reliable source of your choosing, then that's just another example of your many instances of dishonesty and gaslighting.". Talk:Dhola Post#Map violates WP:NOR: They hold that reproducing a sourced map via OSM Location map constitutes WP:OR. ‎15:52, 7 July 2020 Says "why not use that map?" for a ma published in a book. When it is pointed out that it would be WP:COPYVIO, "Would you care to cite the portion of WP:COPYVIO that you believe is violated..." Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#OSM_Location_maps: Filibusters WP:NORN, including input from Diannaa. WP:Edit warring ANEW report, 17–18 June: 6 reverts in 24 hours 19:56, 7 July 2020: Reinstates contested edit. Edit summary: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV" 15:48, 8 July 2020‎: Reinstates contested edit. Edit summary: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR" Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None 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, on 18:37, 17 June 2020 Additional comments by editor filing complaint (350 words) In February this year, I got interested in writing a page on the Dhola Post, an Indian Army post set up in 1962 near the China border, which turns out to be an important topic in the Sino-Indian border dispute. Having found a two-line stub called Dhola, Tibet, which was apparently a reference to this very post, I retitled it to Dhola Post and started expanding it. On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example. When I pointed out that expanding stubs is normal day-to-day activity, his reponse was "don't gaslight me". After seeing that there was no way to reach agreement, I set the page back to what it was earlier and started a new page on Dhola Post. The user immediately came over to the new page and started modifying it too. Between the two pages, they made 6 reverts in 24 hours, as documented in this ANEW report. The admins did not sanction the editor. So I set it aside for a while to let things cool. During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" [38]. The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference. Returning to the page now, after a month's gap, I find the same WP:BATTLEGROUND editing from the user. No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV, not even WP:COPYVIO, but plenty of pomposity, snide remarks, and blatant personal attacks. Sino-Indian border disputes are filled with plenty of subtleties and complications. Without a good faith effort to resolve the disputes, it is practically impossible to get anywhere. I have twice proposed taking it to WP:DRN, 21:27, 18 June 2020, 11:41, 7 July 2020, to which I received no response. Erik-the-red's strategy is to reinstate a contested edit, argue for a day or two and, without resolving anything, and make more contestable edits, thereby presenting a series of fait accomplis. I don't believe they will seriously seek CONSENSUS unless forced to do so. Just like we saw yesterday as to whether something is a "personal attack" or not, the arguments can essentially go on forever, unless somebody with power and authority is able to put a stop to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Erik-the-red 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 Erik-the-red I would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments. Because of the 500 word limit, I cannot respond to all the claims, so I will show that Kautilya3's first and last claims do not accurately describe the events and use quotes taken out-of-context. Kautilya3 claim: On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example. My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following: @Kautilya3: You wrote that "there is no evidence that it has been incorporated in Tibet." However, paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line." Paragraph 29(f) on page 53: "This, in effect, meant that the post was actually NORTH of the McMAHON Line as then marked on the map." Paragraph 35 on page 54: "DHOLA Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line as shown on maps prior to October/November 1962 edition." Therefore, by India's own claim, the assertion that "there is no evidence that [Dhola] has been incorporated in Tibet" is false. Erik-the-red (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I do not see how any reasonable person could construe the above statements to be "bitterly complaining that [Kautilya3] had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3. Kautilya3 claim: During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" [39]. The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference. My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The context of my words were: You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India. That is, in context, I did not mention Tibet at all. Kautilya3 has thus taken two of my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I am motivated by nationalistic bias. I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3 accuses me of "bitterly complaining" when I merely quoted a source and stated one conclusion. takes my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I have a nationalistic bias. and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Posted for Erik-the-red who is currently blocked. El_C 12:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) Result concerning Erik-the-red This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Note that have blocked Erik-the-red for 72 hours for personal attacks as a normal admin action. A topic ban or other AE sanctions may still be considered, however. El_C 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure there's IPA concerns beyond this one article. Why don't both of you turn to a dispute resolution request, like an RfC, and let others weigh in on the dispute? Limit interaction to the utmost in the interim. El_C 14:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Kautilya3, I wouldn't rely on DRN too much as it involves rather intensive interaction. A more standard dispute resolution request, like WP:3O or WP:RFC, are probably more suited for this dispute. El_C 15:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Agree with El C. While Erik-the-red needs to be warned that their tone is not constructive, and sanctions may become necessary if they continue in the same vein, the rest of their editing does not appear to require sanctions. Dispute resolution is the best way to go on this. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Please try to resolve this through an RfC --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italawar indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) by Bishonen.--regentspark (comment) 19:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Italawar User who is submitting this request for enforcement Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Italawar (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/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1 July 2020 Egregious violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. 2 July 2020 Reinstates essentially the same edit with the same issues. 11 July 2020 Creates this nonsense, which I don't think requires any explanation. 22 June 2020 Creates this draft, which violates, among other things, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV (sorry, admins only). Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any No previous sanctions, but a lengthy list of warnings on their talk page. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted in March by Doug Weller. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I have only linked the most egregious examples; their recent editing history with respect to political articles has nothing positive in it. My attempt to discuss some of these edits ([40]) did not go well. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] @El C: apologies, link fixed; I was trying to link to a preview, which isn't possible. Incidentally, Italawar has been blocked for three days by JBW. I'm not withdrawing this report, because I think a 3-day block isn't sufficient (in JBW's defense, I suspect they only looked at the deleted creations). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified. Discussion concerning Italawar 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 Italawar Statement by (username) Result concerning Italawar This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Vanamonde93, you mislinked the draft. I tried to find it and encountered multiple deleted articles and drafts, which is not a good sign. El_C 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Recommend indefinite IPA topic ban for egregious misconduct. El_C 16:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] A topic ban seems warranted here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] As has been mentioned above, I have blocked the account for three days. When I did that I did not know of this discussion. I regarded 3 days as a fairly minimal block in view of the editor's intransigent attitude and grossly unacceptable editing, and I do not in any way regard that block as a final statement; some kind of longer-term restriction would make sense. If a consensus emerges here for some other outcome, I shall be perfectly happy for my block to be removed and replaced by something else, without being consulted further. JBW (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] I have blocked the user indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia, as a regular admin action (i. e. not per DS). Bishonen | tålk 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Indefinitely blocked by Guerillero, with the first year as an arbitration enforcement action and the remainder as a standard administrative action. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Nocturnalnow User who is submitting this request for enforcement Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Nocturnalnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Nocturnalnow is topic banned from American Politics after 1932 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 15 July 2020 Discussing Tucker Carlson 11 July 2020 Discussing Trump 10 July 2020 Discussing Trump (and Trump's niece) 29 May 2020 Section "Will Trump's executive order impact Wikipedia?" Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 14 January 2020 Nocturnalnow was routinely violating his topic ban, was reminded of this, and excaped being blocked by acknowledging this and promising a change] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Since the January ANI discussion, Nocturnalnow has made no edits to any namespace but user talk, almost all of them to User talk:Jimbo Wales, and almost all of them to discuss current events in the USA (BLM protests and the like). Many of these edits clearly skirt or breach the topic ban. And these are not occasional outbursts, but the only edits they make to enwiki anymore... Fram (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notification Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow 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 Nocturnalnow Statement by (username) Result concerning Nocturnalnow This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I indefed them as a mixed AE block and standard admin block. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:04, 17 July 2020 (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 DrL

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

DrL (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/ScienceApologist#Remedies (DrL):

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

1. 2020-07-16 Aggressive demand for separate article on CTMU
2. 2020-07-16 More of same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

From remedies:

1. Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive.
2. All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

DrL is the wife of Christopher Langan, inventor and sole proponent of the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe", a fringe theory. DrL is a single-purpose account who has no significant history on Wikipedia other htan promoting Christopher Langan.

DrL was blocked indefinitely on 2020-03-03 due to personal attacks and unblocked on 2020-07-01 on the understanding that these would not resume.

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect following an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which was heavily canvassed. Offsite canvassing continues, according to the evidence of thee Talk page, with vociferous support for restoring a standalone article from DrL and some other WP:SPAs. The redirect target is a short section of just over 100 words. The sources are either by or about Langan, not CTMU. There is one source which meets RS and has some discussion of CTMU on its own merits (there are also a few mere namechecks). Most sources proposed are unreliable.

DrL's most recent statements at Talk are:

• This solution is woefully inadequate. Not only does your redirect point to an insignificant mention of what has become an increasingly important theory, but the section is conflated with violations of WP:BPL - using remarks allegedly made by Langan on social media to denigrate him and the CTMU. This discussion is by no means over. The extensive mention by this Oxford publication (as cited by Langan above), in addition to other mentions in RS (both popular and academic) is more than enough to justify a separate entry for the CTMU. (emphasis added)
• There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique. Let's open this up to have a real discussion and wait for some less involved admins and editors to weigh in.

This assumption of bad faith and promise to continue demanding until she gets the answer she wants is disruptive, and violates the ban. Further, since mid 2007, DrL has done nothing here other than promote Chris Langan and attack those who do not accept CTMU. Indeed, for most of that time she has been inactive (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/DrL).

I advocate a full topic ban form articles connected to Langan and CTMU, broadly construed. There is enough off-wiki coordinated nonsense with this topic already. Notably, Christopher Langan himself has been able to resist any such aggression. His argumentation is prolix, but calm and polite.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrL&type=revision&diff=968162087&oldid=965447026

Discussion concerning DrL

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 DrL

I was very surprised to receive this notice. I'm merely weighing in on a talk page as I'm allowed to do (at least to the best of my understanding). When the CTMU article was deleted in 2006, there were several administrators who seemed very invested in getting it removed. When I stumbled upon this debate about the redirect and saw what I thought might have been one or two of those admins, I became concerned lest the topic of the article again be unfairly criticized as it was in 2006, when it was misclassified as "intelligent design creationism". But of course, you're right - I should assume good faith no matter how bad it might look. Your advice is appreciated. DrL (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DrL

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 we can do anything here with that case. I guess we could use NEWBLPBAN or the Pseudoscience DS, but they have not been notified. I suggest you bring this to ArbCom. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Guerillero, I doubt they'd be interested: one COI user who's already banned from the article and under a non-disruption restriction at the talk page seems like the kind of thing we ought to be able to fix ourselves. Guy (help!) 18:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @JzG: I don't know what hook we have at this time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The most recent block of User:DrL was an indef on 3 March by User:Bradv who is an arbitrator but I don't think he was invoking any Arbcom sanctions. He stated that his block of DrL was for personal attacks and outing. Per the thread at User talk:DrL#UTRS 31095, after a UTRS appeal, User:Johnuniq lifted the indef block. I think this was a 'community' unblock, not an Arbcom unblock, so to speak. So if there is new evidence since Johnuniq's unblock which suggests the unblock should be reversed, an administrator could reapply the conventional indef block. Neither an AE report nor a return visit to Arbcom seems to be required, in my opinion. Any administrator who is considering a new block should weigh DrL's behavior since 1 July and ask if they are living up to the promises in their last unblock request. Their only edits since 1 July are a series of posts at Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. A typical comment:

Yes. There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique bent on minimizing the reality of the situation by redirecting to a defamatory section of Langan's bio.

I can see this might set off the personal-attack alarm ('coordinated clique', and so forth). But a longer discussion here before a reblock might be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I blocked DrL twice, both times for repeatedly outing other editors despite numerous warnings. Both blocks were regular administrator blocks, and the latter was lifted once DrL was able to assure the unblocking administrator that they wouldn't do it again.

Regarding the matter at hand, I don't see how this violates the 2006 restriction, but recent events might suggest that the current restriction isn't strong enough. – bradv🍁 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, also: what the actual fuck is this? Guy (help!) 18:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the above from Guy: I realize it isn't recent, but I still revdeleted that copyvio. El_C 22:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This report does not appear to be actionable. Recommend WP:DR. Will close soon. accordingly El_C 23:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know the status of that text but have no objection to the removal, particularly since it was not an appropriate use of a talk page. However, for the record, it started with "I am studying the Tractatus and decided to leave a copy here ... It is in the public domain." If that last bit is correct, the post was not a copyvio. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus#External links links to several versions of the text, including Gutenberg with the claim "Public domain in the USA." Re the issue: I haven't yet examined the matter but agree that SPAs promoting fringe topics are very undesirable. There is an RfC which is susceptible to Wikipedia's open process. I see that User:Chris Langan had an impersonation block a couple of days ago with a notice that shows what has to happen for the block to be removed. There might need to be a community discussion on how to handle the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected. Undeleted. El_C 23:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You are fast! I just visited that talk page to remove an inappropriate question from an IP and was really confused by seeing that text after my ponderous earlier comment. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, yeah, swift should be my middle name! El_C 00:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG has self-reverted. Report withdrawn by filer. El_C 22:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 JzG User who is submitting this request for enforcement RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested JzG (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:ARBEE : War in Donbass consensus-required restriction Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 17 July I revert the addition of content added by Heptor 17 July JzG reinstates the content without gaining consensus If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) JzG himself is the person who requested that this page restriction be imposed on 8 July. Additional comments by editor filing complaint There must be some irony here. JzG himself requested this restriction be imposed on the article, and then violates it...perhaps this proves that such restrictions do not work. The administrator who imposed it refuses to have anything to do with it. Are we going to actually enforce this, or just forget about it? RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] "It is customary", I am told, but where exactly is this custom documented? Very funny, indeed. Thank you though, JzG, for having the kindness to self-revert. I withdraw the request. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] I was making a comment to the effect that I think it is Kafkaesque to expect people to know what is 'customary' about specific kinds of obscure DS sanctions when no such information is provided anywhere in an easily accessible and digestible format. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Bradv: That somewhat negates the purpose of the restriction all-together, does it not? I can't be expected to understand the ways of the Arbitration Committee, but all this restriction seems to do is make a mess. 1RR is much easier to enforce, and indeed, understand... RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] I agree with everything Aquillion said...and would support replacing the current restriction with something along those lines. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notice Discussion concerning JzG 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 JzG It was nice of RGloucester to raise this through a polite note on my talk page reminding me of the restriction, since Twinkle doesn't show the edit notice. Oh, wait, he didn't do that. I self-reverted. I suggest a trout for RGloucester for needless escalation. Guy (help!) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Levivich WP:Dispute resolution's section WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. It might be worth repeating at WP:AC/DS, or the instructions at the top of this page, or both. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Statement by PackMecEng Seems like a weird bastard of a restriction. Most concensus required restrictions that I remember go like You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article per WP:CRP. Anyhow at this point with the self revert I do not see any issue for AE at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Aquillion I was under the impression that the Consensus Required restriction was being phased out due to the way it leads to stonewalling. On Donald Trump, for instance (probably the highest-profile and most controversial article where it was used) it was replaced with a 24-hour BRD cycle restriction stating If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. This encourages everyone to try and find a solution, whereas restrictions like this one place such a hefty burden on anyone who wants to make a change that it encourages anyone who prefers the article's current state to just drag their heels and make only token efforts to engage beyond the bare minimum necessary to block a consensus. Obviously it's not ideal for disputes to be resolved by exhaustion or filibuster, and consensus ultimately has to be reached in order to include contested material, but making the "default outcome" too one-sided actually discourages discussion - WP:BRD forces everyone to stay at the table and continue workshopping ideas, whereas consensus-required rewards one side in a dispute for just rejecting every proposal out of hand. Guiding people to reach a consensus is a balancing act - we get there by encouraging discussion (which requires that both sides have an incentive to participate properly or establish clear consensus for their preferred version), rather than supercharging WP:ONUS to the point where only one side in a dispute has any incentive to seriously engage in discussions at all. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) Result concerning JzG This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Not actionable. JzG has self-reverted. Indeed, it is customary that a request on the user's talk page to self-revert precede filings here. El_C 17:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Very funny, indeed — huh? I have no idea where this custom is documented, or if it is documented at all. El_C 17:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I see. I do not disagree. But now you know, so no harm done. El_C 17:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] I try not to comment here unless I'm pinged, but I have spent a bit of time lately thinking about the wording of various page-level restrictions, and it's worth pointing out that restoring someone else's edits is not technically a violation of the restriction posted at Talk:War in Donbass. – bradv🍁 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Aquillion, this isn't the consensus required sanction as usually worded, and it's also usually accompanied by 1RR which helps to resolve some of these issues. But if you want to know why I've been thinking about this lately, there is a very lengthy discussion about it on my talk page if you're interested. – bradv🍁 19:11, 17 July 2020 (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 Kautilya3

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Erik-the-red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kautilya3 (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

ARBIPA :

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

WP:3RR

1. 19:47, 7 July 2020 1
2. 15:40, 8 July 2020 +3=4 reverts of the same article in less than 24 hours after being warned on 20:01, 7 July 2020.

WP:BULLY

1. In an AE report, Kautilya3 accused the reported user of WP:VOTESTACK without evidence, which is WP:BULLY#False accusations.
2. In a follow-up to the same AE report, Kautilya3 again provided no evidence of WP:VOTESTACK and instead claimed that a lot of behind-the-scenes canvassing happens in this space of which the regular editors are aware, which is WP:ASPERSIONS.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• 11:57, 29 July 2016 "Placed on a 'casting aspersions' restriction...to all articles in the India-Pakistan area, broadly construed."

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

The user has placed a

template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe the WP:BULLY diffs above best demonstrates the problems with engaging in WP:DR (such as RfC) with Kautilya3, and why I am requesting WP:ACDS. At 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC following the suggestion from a closed AE report which Kautilya3 filed against me. Subsequently,

• At 12:52, 20 July 2020, USaamo provided a survey response to the RfC.

• At 17:48, 20 July 2020, Kautilya3 commented on an AE report filed against USaamo and alleged that USaamo

  showed up at an RfC on Dhola Post with an entirely superficial comment, which can't count as anything but WP:Vote stacking.

• However, Kautilya3 provided no evidence to substantiate the allegation of WP:VOTESTACK, and a few hours earlier at 13:32, 20 July 2020, Kautilya3 even responded to USaamo's comment at the RfC by politely asking for clarification.

• At 20:08, 20 July 2020, Kautilya3 clarified that they were not suggesting that I had done something, but they continued to speculate that behind-the-scenes canvassing had taken place and maintained that USaamo's appearance there is entirely inexplicable.

How can RfC work with an editor who doesn't accept other survey responses as valid?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff Erik-the-red (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Kautilya3

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 Kautilya3

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kautilya3

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

• Comment As a starting point, it doesn't look like Kautilya3 broke 3RR on this article. Their reverts were 10:47, 7 July 2020, 20:47, 7 July 2020‎, 16:40, 8 July 2020‎ and 12:23, 9 July 2020‎. Only three are within 24 hours of each other. Number 57 20:49, 20 July 2020 (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 Siddsg

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Siddsg (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/Pseudoscience #Discretionary sanctions

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

20 July 2020 Siddsg commented on another user's RfC !vote by stating

1st link does not describe Ayurveda, 2nd link does not refer Ayurveda as "pseudoscience"

However the first link, the Oxford University Press, states "These pseudoscientific theories may ... confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine)"

The second link states "Ayurveda, a traditional Indian medicine, is the subject of more than a dozen, with some of the "scholarly" journals devoted to Ayurveda alone ... others to Ayurveda and some other pseudoscience"

It is clear from the contents of the links that Siddsg has deliberately made patently untrue statements in an effort to discredit the support !vote.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is a contentious RfC taking place at Talk:Ayurveda #RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence and it is now generating increasingly strong argument. Ayurveda has been marked as a page subject to discretionary sanctions and there is a requirement that all editors strictly adhere to the highest standards of behaviour: WP:ACDS #guide.expect. It is a sanctionable offence for an editor to "severely .. disrupt debate". I have drawn Siddsg's attention to their behaviour in stating a clear untruth and have given them the opportunity to strike it. They have edited since my request and failed to withdraw their comment. I believe that Siddsg's behaviour has crossed the line into a severe violation of the expected standards of civilised debate in an area subject to discretionary sanctions, and that we should not fail to address that so that we ensure the RfC is able to function properly.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Siddsg

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 Siddsg

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Siddsg

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