A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126

Motions

Shortcuts

This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

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 information

Shortcuts

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Abhishek0831996

Consensus is that this is essentially a content dispute with some conduct issues which do not rise to the level of requiring administrative action. All parties are reminded to follow editorial and behavioral best practice if they wish to avoid sanctions in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (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 Abhishek0831996

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abhishek0831996 (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

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

27 March 2024 15:36 at Article 370 (film), strange edit summary "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact...", placed on a wrong revert. The actual revert came later (17 March 2024 16:07), which removed a tag of "unreliable source?" on a historical claim, without any improvement in the sourcing.
27 March 2024 16:03, at its talk page. Rude & bombastic comment: "That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why that is so hard for you to understand?"
27 March 2024, 15:41 at Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), meaningless edit summary, given the weighty deletion of "Aksai Chin". Tag-teaming with Capitals00?
31 March 2024, 14:27 at its talk page. Trying to bully a newbie editor citing WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you read through the discussion, you see Abhishek majorly gaslighting and stone-walling, claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state", which is ridiculously false.
1 April 2024 12:46 at Aksai Chin. More biting of the newbie editor: "Revert half baked edits of Haani". This is Abhishek's very first edit on this page.
1 April 2024 13:03 at its talk page. "One is a 2022 article and another one is a geography dictionary. None of them are reliable enough." Not any reasonable grounds for claiming unreliability. The so-called "geography dictionary" is published by Columbia University Press.
26 March 2024, 09:45 at Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film). Similar bombastic edit summary "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history". Reinstating content previously added by Capitals00
21 January 2024 10:53 at Babri Masjid. An older example of a bombastic deletion of content without evidence. Here Capitals00 reinstated the edits after having been reverted once by Vanamonde93
16 March 2024 16:49 at Indian independence movement. similar deletion of a well-known fact. Subhas Chandra Bose's name is mentioned in the body, including even a photograph.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

24 April 2017. A 72-hour block for disruptive editing.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 31 August 2021, 9 June 2022 and 27 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 24 July 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have seen Abhishek0831996 occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an {{unreliable source?}} tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, Haani40. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless.

Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent.

Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)

Interesting that Capitals00 finds fault with me placing a POV template on a faulty section. Surely they know that WP:NPOV is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996's responses to the issues raised here continue to make red herring arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible.

For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in The Hindu and a news article in the The Guardian. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of justifying the improper deletion of an {{unreliable source?}} tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. Neither of these has been done.

As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves.

On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1 April 2024 17:49

Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996

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 Abhishek0831996

1st edit: I described that "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact. The Hindu has also dismissed this episode of the movie, not just Deccan Herald." Kautilya3 has cropped my edit summary and cherrypicked just to suit his report. This movie has been criticised as a propaganda movie[1] and its episode on Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru has been dismissed by The Hindu [2] and The Deccan Herald [3] but Kautilya3 is opposing this all based on his personal views, not backed by any sources, contrary to WP:OR.
2nd edit: Only for using the word "nonsensical" (which is not offensive), Kautilya3 went to falsely allege me of breaching WP:NPA.[4] This is a breach of WP:ASPERSIONS on Kautilya3's part.
3rd edit: There is nothing "meaningless" about this edit summary. Also, what tag-teaming? I am editing this article since 2 March 2024.
4th edit: The message I was responding to, "We will revert you and even seek mediation if you continue your edit war" reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since it promises to edit war and falsely accuses of an "edit war" that wasn't even happening for days.[5] Now Kautilya3's false claim on this report that I am "claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state"," is outright misleading. I am instead saying: "None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[6]
5th edit: I was restoring the last stable version against the unconstructive edits that had been also reverted by another editor some hours ago.[7] It is wrong to preserve misleading edits on these highly controversial articles.
6th edit: An article and a geographical dictionary cannot be used for challenging the article that is built on scholarly sources. On talk page I had myself provided scholarly sources (including the one from Harvard University Press) to rebuke these edits but these sources have been wrongly demeaned as "Chinese views" by Kautilya3.[8]
7th edit: This is yet another movie just like Article 370 that has been criticised as a propaganda movie created to promote the cause of the Bharatiya Janta Party [9][10] and it has been also criticised for distorting history.[11] After knowing this you won't see anything wrong with that edit.
8th edit: Nothing wrong with this edit. Yes it is disputed that who placed the idols of Ram and Sita in 1949. Some Indian officials claim they placed the idols,[12] and the activists belonging to Nirmohi Akhara,[13] Hindu Mahasabha [14][15] have either claimed or they have been alleged to have placed the idols. This is why many sources simply avoid giving credit to any particular entity.[16]
9th edit: Kautiya3 is falsifying this edit as well. The Wiki text concerns those who are "the leading followers of Gandhi's ideology". Subhas Chandra Bose has been instead criticised for departing from Gandhi's ideology and making alliance with the Nazis and fascists as noted at Subhas Chandra Bose#Anti-semitism; "How did a man who started his political career at the feet of Gandhi end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo? Even in the case of Mussolini and Tojo, the gravity of the dilemma pales in comparison to that posed by his association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership."

It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Haani40)

I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 who Kautilya3 is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that Kautilya3 has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of User_talk:Capitals00

Removal of sourced content that was using a Reliable source diff

Restoring the word, "propaganda" without a reliable source diff

Restoring edit of Capitals00 with bombastic edit summary, "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history" diff

False claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin diff

Removing Aksai Chin from the "Today part of" section of the infobox at the Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state) article diff which Curious man123 reverted.

After reading the allegations of Capitals00 below, I state that I am new here but learning the rules. I have placed the {{this is a new user}} template on the top of my Talk page. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at WP:PG. I observe that every few days, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. Kautilya3 has stated that those edits are his here but Capitals00 is alleging that it is mine, so he must be directed to read WP:DONTBITE

I have also read the five pillars of Wikipedia after Kautilya3 mentioned it on my Talk page.

In his reply above, Abhishek0831996 has repeated his false claim, "I am instead saying: None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[17]

Capitals00 has again reverted Kautilya3 here - it certainly looks like he and Abhishek0831996 are working in tandem to get their viewpoint added which is a false claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin.Haani40 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996 has changed his statement here saying that China did not occupy any extra territory in between 1959 and 1962 and, "false claim that China got control in 1962".-Haani40 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this, this, this, this, this and this diff to understand that Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing sourced content from the Aksai Chin article.-Haani40 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Aksai Chin was occupied by China and for "Aksai Chin occupied" by China, there are dozens of sources. However, Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing the text Kautilya3 and I added with reliable sources that China occupied Aksai Chin. I am expecting them both to be sanctioned.-Haani40 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE,[18][19] and even WP:CIR.[20][21]

While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[22][23][24] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own original thoughts by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[25] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the worst meaning of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[26][27] against their will on the cited pages.

I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[28] Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Bookku)

I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest.

Importance of WP:DDE protocol and going back to WP:DR

Here I am not commenting on specific merits of the case (emphasis added).

As usual at this WP:ARE forum, intermittently I come to make good faith reminder; If for some reason discussions go off the track from content dispute usual preference should be, 'go back to the track of solving content disputes as per WP:DR' rather than personalizing them. As far as personal issues before any disputes coming at WP:ARE checking protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE also be considered important.

Bookku (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some different facets Diff1
Brief: MOS:FILMHIST says, "..If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."

Detail appreciation Diff1 issue

- While my primary perception about above case has been that like many other content dispute spilling over in personal realm and that continues; I gave a re-look into discussion between Kautilya3 and Abhishek0831996 specially about Dif 1 deletion of {{unreliable source?}} tag.
- Can any history film, other than academically transcripted and peer reviewed documentary; be called academically accurate? Who is going to decide those are just fiction or fictionalized or academically accurate history? Whether even any reliable news media can sit on judgement of it's veracity like academics?
- What Wikipedia lacks at policy level is well identified allowance of weak sources. So be it. If at all a RS media is being used where academic should have been then why not at least provide attribution to the media.
- Above discussions are mentioning WP:HISTRS essay but inadvertently seem to miss on MOS:FILMHIST which provides some good via media for above explained difficulties. MOS:FILMHIST says:
- ".. If ample coverage from secondary sources exists about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology). .. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."

- Did I not end up explaining content dispute aspect above, that's why my emphasis on WP:DDE protocol mentioned earlier.

Some related advise

- We all users being human it's very understandable we prefer to stick to more suitable positions and RS. To draw a parallel whether any one would appreciate that court judges getting influenced by media even if RS? Similarly in a role of encyclopedist do we not need to understand many of our perceptions and positions are being constructed by media and mediums around us and there may be need to revisit our own positions and do effort to understand from where other user's point is coming and can there be space for that?

- @Abhishek0831996 Yes it's true other users too may need introspection but when thing come to WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. My purpose is not to judge you on merit, other users are there for that. I suggest you revisiting statements like ".. Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact..." and read WP:TRUTH then confirm yourself by reading "..So, if you want to:..Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue,.." from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and inadvertently we do not go closer to WP:POVPUSH. In my own case when other users expressed concerns about my own editing it took me time to understand from where other users perceptions are coming and how I can revisit my editing in this collaborative environment and do better.

I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all.

Bookku (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (User name)

Result concerning Abhishek0831996

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

As is all too common in this area, there's a lot to review here; I'll try to when I get a chance. I will note up front that we almost certainly do not need more information to go through, and that the 500 word/20 diff limit on this request will be very strictly enforced. If you must add additional commentary, please keep it brief. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, I'd still love to hear your thoughts on this matter, but you're right that it's a lot to go through. Per the below, I'm inclined to close without action, except to advise everyone involved to watch their toes a bit more. Planning to close as such in a couple days unless you or someone else wants to go another way or requests more time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this ultimately boils down to a content dispute, but I'm seeing some behavioral issues here as well. I don't see any truly egregious ones, but a reminder to everyone to tone it down a few notches or there will be some action taken in the future would not be a bad idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reviewing and will likely have some thoughts in the next 24 hours. I urge all the participants to be mindful of the word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that I'm hampered by a lack of a general understanding of the topic areas involved in these disputes. It makes it hard to parse much of the evidence provided. For example, diff #9 is presented as "deletion of a well-known fact", but judging just based on the article, Bose is raised as a figure from the Congress Party who "diverged" from "Gandhian Values". In the main Bose article, there's lengthy description about differences between the two. Is it so factual to say that he was a "leading follower of Gandhi's ideology", and so patently unacceptable to remove such a statement? Haani40 cites multiple diffs of Abhishek and Capitals "repeatedly removing sourced content" but the citations provided do not appear to support the content about a 1959 occupation. I might be way off on all of this, but the evidence provided is not clear enough to make firm conclusions.
Reading the evidence provided, and looking at the page history, there's plenty of evidence of content disputes turned acerbic. I'm not seeing a diff or two that jumps out at me as being over the top. I'm not at all happy with:
1. Abhishek's description of other editors' work as "nonsensical" and "half baked".
2. Kautilya's suggestion that Abhishek and Capitals are tag-teaming. I'm not seeing enough evidence of coordination to make such a suggestion appropriate.
3. Haani40's casting aspersions at an article talk page
I don't think any of that rises to the level where administrative action is needed, at least not yet. I'd caution everybody to turn down the rhetoric and be a bit quicker to seek outside content dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haani40's response to me is emblematic of the problem here. The Google Books link shows many sources, the first two of which (at least for me) say:
"... Aksai Chin occupied by China in 1962"

"Aksai Chin occupied by China in 1962 Indo China war"
Neither supports, and both implicitly contradict, the disputed article text which said "Between 1959 and 1962, China occupied 5,985 sq mi/15,500 sq km. of territory claimed by India in the region". I am neither the holder nor the arbiter of the truth at the heart of this content dispute, but I can't support administrative action based on the quality of the evidence presented so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster

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 Grandmaster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanezi Astghik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Grandmaster (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:AA3

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

22 December 2023 Grandmaster wants to remove Luis Moreno Ocampo from the lead, but does not get a consensus to do so.
13 February 2024 An admin officially warns Grandmaster the following: "Don't revert more than once to your preferred version of content, even if some time has passed, unless you have clear consensus."
18 April 2024 removes Moreno Ocampo from the lead because "not a place for individual minority views".
18 April 2024 Creates a new discussion simultaneously with removing Moreno Ocampo, repeating the same points as if not already doing so in a previous discussion, which Grandmaster abandoned after being shown proof the Azerbaijani government hired a lawyer to help fight Moreno Ocampo's analysis
18 April 2024 Grandmaster changes "disputed" with "denied", claiming it is better wording. There was an article discussion months earlier, which Grandmaster participated in. Grandmaster didn't want to use the word dispute, but the consensus was "disputed" is better wording.[29][30]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18 February 2022 previous WP:AA2 topic ban, appealed in October.
18 March 2023 placed under an indefinite probation following AA3

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 18 February 2022 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In both discussions, Grandmaster did not even contest the final point of the last user and just abandoned the discussions. Yet months later, after the activity quieted down, Grandmaster changed the established wordings again as if they hadn't been explicitly by a consensus which Grandmaster is aware of and took part in. Vanezi (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THE WP:BRD cycle states "you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns", but Grandmaster just ignored the previous discussions entirely. Grandmaster abandoned a discussion for something they wanted to remove because the consensus was against it, then 4 months later removed the same content without any consensus, and opened a "new" discussion repeating same talking points already addressed in the previous discussion. Grandmaster also says they forgot about the previous discussion, but is trying to make the exact same disputed/denied change that was thoroughly discussed and is the one who started the previous Moreno Ocampo discussion. I hadn't commented in the new discussion yet, because the POV-pushing and lack of regard for the established consensus seemed more alarming.

As for the admin advice given in the previous AE threads, I was not a part of those discussions, while Grandmaster was. So I do not understand what is meant by "us". Vanezi (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

Discussion concerning Grandmaster

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 Grandmaster

Regarding removal of Ocampo from the lead, I just followed the standard WP:BRD, and started a discussion at talk. I was advised to not rv more than once, and this is a single revert that I made. Vanezi reverted me with no edit summary other than "rv", and did not join the discussion that I started. [32] Regarding the change of the word "disputed" to "denied", I indeed forgot about the previous discussions from the last year. We had many discussions with multiple archives on 3 related articles, so it is hard to keep track of what exactly was discussed a few months ago. I was going to rv myself when I saw the report here, but Vanezi already did. [33]

Previously the admins advised us to ask the other party to rv themselves if their edits are disputed, and only escalate if the other party refuses to cooperate. [34] [35]

This is what I did when Vanezi themselves made an edit against the consensus. [36] The closing admin confirmed that there was a violation of the consensus, and Vanezi self-reverted.

If Vanezi had notified me of my mistake, I would have reverted myself, but Vanezi never contacted me at my or the article talk. I always try to resolve any dispute by following the dispute resolution process, as one can see from all the WP:DR processes that I started, and I would certainly do so again if I was alerted about present or past disagreements with my edits. Grandmaster 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that there is an SPI case on the filer open over a month ago, and until that is formally closed, it is unclear if they are allowed to post here. Grandmaster 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Grandmaster

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

I'm not seeing anything here. It looks like 0RR was followed. Any objections to closing with no action? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haani40

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 Haani40

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Haani40 (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

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

18 April - Added thoroughly unreliable sources in a topic that is sensitive towards religious conflicts
18 April - Removes critical content about the subject by misrepresenting WP:BLP in edit summary
18 April - Same as above
18 April - Engages in WP:BLP violation by using unreliable sources and misrepresenting this discussion on edit summary

What is more surprising, that the last diff came after this clear-cut topic ban warning by Bishonen on his talk page. This user has actually misrepresented the sources with this edit as correctly observed by another admin (Cordless Larry).[37] Even after this all, he is still arguing on the article's talk page that how his edits are not WP:BLP violation.[38]

While this user is overly enthusiastic about these controversial topics, I believe the inputs and warnings on his talk page have so far ended up getting ignored by him. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [39]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [40]

Discussion concerning Haani40

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 Haani40

At WP:DR, it 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. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages. There are several templates you may use to warn editors of conduct issues,[b] or you may choose to use your own words to open a discussion on the editor's talk page. In all cases, and even in the face of serious misconduct, please try to act in a professional and polite manner"

However, there was no edit war nor any discussion on any article's talk page or my talk page about these edits by the filer. ~~I therefore believe that this ARE/AE is filed with a malafide intention.~~

Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the first diff: That was copied from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article (which someone else had added in that article). Srijanx22 then reverted it. In the mean time, an admin (Vanamonde93) removed it from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article for some reason and so, I did not edit war over it in either the Anti-Hindu sentiment article, nor in the Indian reunification article (I did not add it back).

Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the second diff:- That was reverted by an admin (RegentsPark) and I did not add it back

Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the third diff:- That was reverted by a Rollbacker, TheWikiholic and I did not add it back

Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the fourth diff:- I asked at the WP:Teahouse and added that with reliable sources but since it was reverted, I didn't add it back and started a discussion on the Talk page of the article (see this) where the consensus was against adding it (however, only one experienced editor who had reverted it responded to the question if it was acceptable and the filer of this AE was not a part of that discussion at all). I have abided by that consensus.

I have been extra careful about my edits after the warning by an admin (Bishonen) on my Talk page and have asked for clarification at the Teahouse before my next edit. After that was reverted and discussed on the Talk page of the article and the consensus was to avoid adding it, I didn't add it back. I have understood why my edits were reverted and apologise for it. I shall learn, improve and avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, I will ask some experienced editor or maybe at the WP:Teahouse before making any edit I feel is going to cause a problem.

I have not received any warning by the filer ever before. ~~He/she has directly come here for Arbitration/getting me sanctioned with a malafide intention!~~

The filer may be sanctioned as per WP:BOOMERANG

I read what Bookku has written below and so, I request you not to block or ban me. If you really want to, please make it light. For example, a block for 72 hours. A topic ban would be a very severe punishment for a first time sanction!-Haani40 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srijanx22 has also opened a false SPI against me here. It is possible that he had a bad experience with that user and is now WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. That is all the more reason to sanction him instead of me.-Haani40 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry/Notes for the accuser, Srijanx22 had to, "Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages" which he didn't.-Haani40 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Bookku below, Srijanx22 has not followed the WP:DDE protocol, so that also calls for a sanction against him instead of me, as per WP:BOOMERANG.-Haani40 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Bookku)

I observed Haani40 as uninvolved editor form Abhishek0831996 case (still on this board while commenting here), there after I tried to give some mentorship like peer advice. I concur with OP that User:Haani40 seems overly enthusiastic about some controversial topics. They seem to pick some part of advice and overlook some. I doubt similar mistakes might be happening while interpreting the sources due to haste. Some of this mistakes may happen from any new user.

Hence I had advised Haani40 to not edit in these topic areas at least for couple of months. I suppose after my advice User:Haani40 should have got opportunity un til they do not repeat the mistake. There is specific WP:DDE protocol for such cases that too has not been complied before coming to ARE. In any case the case is on board so I feel let us observe Haani40 for 8-10 days by keeping this open, then take the call whether to leave them with warning or Haani40 deserves Topic Ban for some months.

Following part of WP:DDE protocol could have been followed before filing this request

..

If tendentious editor is using sources, but if the sources are poor or misinterpreted:
- Do not go to ANI yet.
- Review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
- File a report at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if appropriate.
- Continue attempts to engage the editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.
  - If only two editors are involved, seek a Third Opinion.
  - If more editors are involved, try a Request for comment.
If attempts at dispute resolution are rejected or unsuccessful, or the problems continue:
- Notify the editor you find disruptive on their user talkpage.
  Include diffs of the problematic behavior. Use a section name and/or edit summary to clearly indicate that you view their behavior as disruptive, but avoid being unnecessarily provocative. Remember, you're still trying to de-escalate. If other editors are involved, they should post their own comments too, to make clear the community disapproves.

..

This advice is followed by Haani40 hence collapsed

@User:Haani40 just in recent discussion about Abhishek0831996 on this board itself I had mentioned WP:DDE protocol, you could have used that as I used above, instead your sentence about OP

He/she has directly come here for Arbitration/getting me sanctioned with a malafide intention!

seems without proofs overly harsh against spirit of WP:AGF and unhelpful for yourself. I advice to strike it out at the earliest. Bookku (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@Haani40: Here in this edit of yours you attributed me but did not ping. In above guidance I suggested to use WP:DDE but did not ask to go after OP. You should have read my advice to Abhishek0831996 ".. at WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. ..". Read: time to stop digging and drop the stick. To regain the confidence of the community you need to promise and prove yourself by working in non-contentious areas without any controversy. Last but not least, going after OP or biting good faith advisors itself is last thing to help you. Bookku (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Haani40

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

Haani40, you're past your word limit. Please do not respond further unless you're requesting an extension. Also, there is no notification requirement for SPIs, and the page you linked is marked at the top with "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not impressed by the editing (especially falsely stating that things violate BLP, and then proceeding to actually violate BLP), nor by the wikilawyering here. I don't think that this editor is a net positive in the ARBIPA area, so I would be in favor of excusing them from it. I also don't think the SPI was filed in bad faith; there are at least credible reasons to suspect socking, even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, and it would certainly not be the first time we've dealt with that problem in this topic area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraphimblade about giving Haani40 a holiday (indefinitely) from the WP:ARBIPA area. As for the SPI, I found Srijanx22's research there persuasive and actually came pretty close to blocking Haani40 per WP:DUCK. There was a smidgeon of doubt left in my mind, though — the evidence being all circumstantial — so I didn't. I'd be glad if another admin took a look; possibly I was too timid. (CheckUser has been requested, but I believe it's behavior, not technical evidence, that must resolve the matter.) One more thing: Haani40, you frequently use the noping template, for example when linking my username above. Why do you do that? The effect of "nopinging" me is that I don't get pinged. Were you trying to prevent me and the other nopinged admins, such as @Vanamonde93: and @RegentsPark:, from noticing this discussion? That's not a good look, and not a good use of the noping template. (It's best used for out-and-out vandals that you don't want to aggravate.) Bishonen | tålk 22:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers, Seraphimblade, and Bishonen: topic ban on A) ARBIPA, or B) politics and religion in India, broadly construed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Havana syndrome

Eyes requested. This is not the venue for discussion. I've fully protected the article for a month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am hoping that some uninvolved administrators can review Havana syndrome and determine if:

it is covered by the pseudoscience and fringe topics contentious topic area
and if some AE restriction can be added to help with the ongoing edit warring.

The article was fully protected for two weeks, by EdJohnston, from 5 April to 19 April. Within a day of the protection's expiration, edit warring had resumed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple government investigations into Havana syndrome that are ongoing, and three review articles published on the subject acknowledging different possible causes. A subset of editors, primarily from the "fringe noticeboard", are pushing to classify the weapons hypothesis as "fringe", just as everything to a hammer looks like a nail. An uninvolved administrator will have a very hard time arguing he/she does not have a POV on the issue in making a decision that this subject is pseudoscience, and specifically which theory is pseudoscientific. FailedMusician (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the 60 Minutes etc reports which seem to be the primary reason for the recent flare-ups come under EE? I have no idea how this is generally interpreted but would think it covers allegations of EE government actions even outside the EE geographical area. Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of what the EE abbreviation was, but Eastern Europe CT would make sense as well as any American politics CT too. There's a more clear intersection there while pseudoscience would be more limited in scope there. KoA (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Firefangledfeathers for asking this here after I originally asked for help in this ANI thread. The hope there was to get an admin to tamp down on the battleground behavior and edit warring before things escalated further or needing editor sanctions. Even for those of us who were largely outside the topic and saw issues from the noticeboards while trying to mediate a little, it's definitely above my pay grade when I'm seeing repeated edits like this over the last month reoccur where editors are told about WP:ONUS policy only it ignore it and guidance on the talk page about how to handled disputed edits on talk.

To answer question 2, perhaps a consensus is required restriction would help with the issues of content continually being reinserted without getting consensus on it? Cut down on that and it would take care of what's mostly destabilizing the article and talk page to a degree. With the battleground sniping I linked to at ANI though, just someone to enforce WP:TPNO at the talk page would help a lot too. I'm seeing too many folks treating the talk page as a battleground, and I'm out of energy for the topic as someone who tried to help a bit on the normal editor side of things. Not sure if threaded AEs are ok or not since this isn't a specific enforcement request, so I'll just leave this as my 2 cents. KoA (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latest flare-up was because of an attempt (in essence) to say Havana syndrome was caused by a direct energy weapon, despite there being no medical evidence this was the case, to even that the Russians have such a capacity, thus some people felt that was a medical claim "In March 2024, an investigation by 60 Minutes claimed that the Russians had perpetrated the attacks through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons.", Note as well that this claim was made in three separate places within the article (at first). It keeps on being re-inserted with no agreement as to what we should say or where, based upon the claim that "well we have agreed we can have it, and thus we have consensus for my version". Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no attempt to "say" (assuming you mean in wikivoice) that Havana syndrome was caused by a directed energy weapon (check the text here [41]). You also keep on mentioning "evidence" [42], as if this is somehow important for us to cover the allegations made in the relevant section. It isn't. Our responsibility as Wikipedians is only to cover the allegations as reported, not to verify them ourselves. FailedMusician (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's too many names that I'm WP:INVOLVED with around there for me to do much, and I already spend a lot of my free time babysitting one CTOP. If an RFC is started on the actual wording to include I'd be more than happy to full protect the article while it runs, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Why should we entertain an RFC when there is a firm consensus from a majority of editors across three discussions, just because of a persistent few? Initiating an RFC requires a prior discussion under WP:RFCBEFORE, which includes suggestions for alternative text, but these editors have done no such thing. Now that they see that the content has been restored to the page, they have simply changed their tactics to trim it, claiming it violates MEDRS, when there is already an RFC on the page in that regard, with a very obvious outcome. This seems more like a conduct issue, inappropriate for an RFC and better handled directly on this noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is not firm consensus for inclusion of the details and structure you want for that information. The only thing there is firm consensus on is that it was significant enough to be due mention. The rest is an open question that should be discussed and hashed out at article talk before inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As @TinyClayMan pointed out in response to your trim, there is no point in including the allegations on the page if we don't say what they are. You trimmed the contents purely to sustain an edit war and maintain your position about MEDRS, even though it has no grounding in policy. FailedMusician (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least try to assume good faith. I have some serious concerns about WP:RECENTISM, the quality of the source, and the way it is being framed to support specific proposed causes. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus

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 Nicoljaus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nicoljaus (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: Arbpia/CT

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

ARBPEE tban (2021)

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

When requested to self revert, commented "Oh, I'm so sorry. I need to bring in this area a couple of friends to make reverts instead ne.".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Nicoljaus

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 Nicoljaus

Statement by BilledMammal

There’s a 1RR violation here that needs to be reverted, but there also appears to be a lot of recent edit warring by all parties in the article.

I’m also concerned by the removal of sources that were used as evidence of WP:SIGCOV in the recent AFD on the grounds of unreliability - either they are usable or they are not, you can’t have it both ways. BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nicoljaus

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

Based on their block log for CTOP violations, edit warring, and this gem I have blocked indefinitely, the first year as an AE action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu

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

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

Appealing user: Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Anonimu (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Broad topic ban from the subject of Eastern European topics, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive303#Anonimu, reconfirmed 2 days later at, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive304#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Anonimu, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe

Administrator imposing the sanction: El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by Anonimu

More than 2 years have passed since the ban was enacted. I am fully aware that my behaviour then was far from encouraging civil and productive discussion of the content in a highly contentious topic (Russian-Ukrainian war), and I am sorry for that. My plan was to wait for the war to end before appealing the topic ban, unfortunately it is dragging on with seemingly no perspective of peace. Due to lack of sources/interest in other topic areas, as well as the broadness of the topic ban, in the past two years my editing was mostly restricted to fixing some issues and adding some content related to areas that could not possibly be considered as connected to Eastern Europe. I think that restricting the area of the topic ban would allow me to come back to more productive editing. Thus, if you consider that the topic ban cannot be completely overturned, restricting the topic ban to modern Russian-Ukrainian relations (say, after 2000) would still serve as a remedy to the original situation, while not preventing me from using the knowledge and sources I have in order to improve Wikipedia content related to other areas of Eastern Europe. Thank you. Anonimu (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

This appeal lists a previously failed appeal, but not the original enforcement action. El_C 17:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on narrowing the scope on my part. El_C 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tgeorgescu

Anonimu can be an useful editor. I don't say this because I like his POV, but because he can act as a counterweight to Romanian nationalist POV-pushers. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonimu

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Anonimu

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

I'm generally favorable to a loosening of sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]